• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Joe Manchin says on verge of gun deal

If I were pro-control I would come right out in support of universal registration so as to make a tax to pay for stronger undercover enforcement, just like we register cars to make a tax to pay for roads.
 
You linked to an undercover investigator. This is exactly like police departments who use highschool kids to try and buy cigarettes so they can catch the vendors who are braking the law. That's how you enforce these things.


In post #17 you said it wouldn't help prevent gun crime.

Background checks are about registration, why can't you just be up front about that?

I think most gungrabbers know that they would never be able to get any useful public support if they were open and honest about their motives and intentions.
 
Its about keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable and felons. How is that not common sense legislation?

Government has too much power, which it has already abused, as far as determining who are “mentally unstable and felons” for the purpose of denying a basic Constitutional right, which the Constitution asserts as belong to all of “the people”, without any stated exception for “mentally unstable and felons”.
 
I think most gungrabbers know that they would never be able to get any useful public support if they were open and honest about their motives and intentions.
Which is why the hell they can't talk about it.
 
I think most gungrabbers know that they would never be able to get any useful public support if they were open and honest about their motives and intentions.
Then gun-grabbers underestimate the power of the low information voter.

Gun grabbers don't understand how low information voters work. It has nothing at all to do with the content or substance of your actions. By definition, low information voters neither know nor care about facts and substance.

They care about appearance and feel.

'Register guns just like we register cars so we can fund law enforcement the way we fund road maintenance'; BAM I just sold it in a soundbite. Clear, concise, logical.
 
Then gun-grabbers underestimate the power of the low information voter.

Gun grabbers don't understand how low information voters work. It has nothing at all to do with the content or substance of your actions. By definition, low information voters neither know nor care about facts and substance.

They care about appearance and feel.

'Register guns just like we register cars so we can fund law enforcement the way we fund road maintenance'; BAM I just sold it in a soundbite. Clear, concise, logical.

Now you're scaring me, because that's probably the clear, concise, logical, not to mention dishonest, way it might be sold to the low information voter! :eek: :scared:
 
4 mins ago -

Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania - "The bottom line for me is this: If expanding background checks to include gun shows and Internet sales can reduce the likelihood of criminals and mentally ill people from getting guns and we can do it in a fashion that does not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, then we should do it, and in this amendment I think we do," Toomey told reporters on Wednesday.

Manchin noted that the proposal meant that firearms buyers at gun shows would face the same background check currently required in sales by federally licensed gun dealers. In addition, it would close a loophole that exempts intrastate gun sales on the Internet from requiring a background check, he said."

Compromise sets up likely Senate debate on gun laws - CNN.com
 
4 mins ago -

Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania - "The bottom line for me is this: If expanding background checks to include gun shows and Internet sales can reduce the likelihood of criminals and mentally ill people from getting guns and we can do it in a fashion that does not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, then we should do it, and in this amendment I think we do," Toomey told reporters on Wednesday.

Manchin noted that the proposal meant that firearms buyers at gun shows would face the same background check currently required in sales by federally licensed gun dealers. In addition, it would close a loophole that exempts intrastate gun sales on the Internet from requiring a background check, he said."

Compromise sets up likely Senate debate on gun laws - CNN.com
I bought a gun online. It had to be shipped to an FFL. The FFL performed NICS when I went to pick it up. That's existing federal law.

No one goes to e-bay and then UPS delivers a gun to their home the next day. That doesn't happen. Not between different states, not within the same state, not anywhere.
 
I bought a gun online. It had to be shipped to an FFL. The FFL performed NICS when I went to pick it up. That's existing federal law.

No one goes to e-bay and then UPS delivers a gun to their home the next day. That doesn't happen. Not between different states, not within the same state, not anywhere.

"Easy firearm sales over the Internet, through classified sites like Craigslist, may be to blame for a significant amount of the nation’s gun crime, thanks to a loophole in federal firearm regulations that some private arms sellers are taking advantage of, according to a new investigation released Wednesday.

In a probe of illegal online firearm sales conducted by the City of New York, undercover investigators found that 62% of private gun sellers they interacted with were willing to sell guns to a buyer who said he could not pass a background check."



Read more: Investigation: Illegal Gun Buyers Have an Easy Time Online | TIME.com
 
"Easy firearm sales over the Internet, through classified sites like Craigslist, may be to blame for a significant amount of the nation’s gun crime, thanks to a loophole in federal firearm regulations that some private arms sellers are taking advantage of, according to a new investigation released Wednesday.

In a probe of illegal online firearm sales conducted by the City of New York, undercover investigators found that 62% of private gun sellers they interacted with were willing to sell guns to a buyer who said he could not pass a background check."



Read more: Investigation: Illegal Gun Buyers Have an Easy Time Online | TIME.com

And you think any legislation would change this? Good luck with that...
 
"Easy firearm sales over the Internet, through classified sites like Craigslist, may be to blame for a significant amount of the nation’s gun crime, thanks to a loophole in federal firearm regulations that some private arms sellers are taking advantage of, according to a new investigation released Wednesday.

In a probe of illegal online firearm sales conducted by the City of New York, undercover investigators found that 62% of private gun sellers they interacted with were willing to sell guns to a buyer who said he could not pass a background check."



Read more: Investigation: Illegal Gun Buyers Have an Easy Time Online | TIME.com
Craigslist isn't a dealer. It's a classifieds, identical to newspapers. No one is going to Cregslist and then UPS delivers a gun to their house. That's what an online transaction is. That doesn't happen with firearms.

If you see a gun you want to buy on Craigslist, the buyer and seller still have to meet in person to do the transaction if they're in the same state. Congress does not have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

If the buyer and seller are in different states, the seller has to go to an FFL and ship the gun to another FFL, who will conduct NICS when the buyer comes in to pick it up. Congress does have the authority to regulate this.

And if the buyer has an exempt permit, there is no NICS ran at all even if they use an FFL for the transfer.

Background checks don't combat illegal ownership.
 
Last edited:
Craigslist isn't a dealer.............

I have seen no limitation just to dealers on the internet in any of the news articles I've read about the proposed legislation. And the difference between advertising on in the local paper and advertising on the internet is one is local and the other is across state lines which puts it in the federal area of regulation.
 
Craigslist isn't a dealer. It's a classifieds, identical to newspapers. No one is going to Cregslist and then UPS delivers a gun to their house. That's what an online transaction is. That doesn't happen with firearms.

If you see a gun you want to buy on Craigslist, the buyer and seller still have to meet in person to do the transaction if they're in the same state. Congress does not have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

If the buyer and seller are in different states, the seller has to go to an FFL and ship the gun to another FFL, who will conduct NICS when the buyer comes in to pick it up. Congress does have the authority to regulate this.

And if the buyer has an exempt permit, there is no NICS ran at all even if they use an FFL for the transfer.

Background checks don't combat illegal ownership.

he is not interested in curbing illegal gun ownership

he is interested in harassing law abiding gun owners

he is interested in passing more and more laws that have no proper constitutional basis by appealing to emotion so that he can claim precedent when the next unconstitutional emotionally appealing law is proposed

His ultimate goal is to ban all private gun ownership unless one is a wealthy democratic party politician or supporter
 
I have seen no limitation just to dealers on the internet in any of the news articles I've read about the proposed legislation. And the difference between advertising on in the local paper and advertising on the internet is one is local and the other is across state lines which puts it in the federal area of regulation.
The transaction itself has to cross a state line, otherwise it's not interstate commerce regardless of where the adds appear.

If a seller in Utah has a gun I want, and I buy it through their website while I'm in SD and I want it sent to me, that's interstate commerce. The seller will have to send it to an FFL in my state. That FFL will run NICS on me when I pick it up.

If, while in SD, I buy a gun from a seller in Utah and then travel to Utah to pick it up, that is interstate commerce because the buyer and seller were in different states when money changed hands. I have a Utah permit which is NICS exempt, no NICS will be run at all and I can have that gun loaded and on my hip as I drive back home.

However, if I travel to Utah, and pay for the gun while in Utah, that is not interstate commerce. And again, I have a Utah permit which is NICS exempt, no NICS will be run at all and I can have that gun loaded and on my hip as I drive back home.

If you want to educate yourself on what a loophole really is, become a gun owner and travel armed. You have no idea what a loophole is. As a resident of SD I can have no paperwork or permits at all and still legally posses a handgun in Chicago despite their bans. If you color inside the lines you can do a lot.
 
Last edited:
The transaction itself has to cross a state line, otherwise it's not interstate commerce regardless of where the adds appear.

If a dealer in Utah has a gun I want, and I buy it through their website while I'm in SD and I want it sent to me, that's interstate commerce they have to send it to an FFL in my state. That FFL will run NICS on me when I pick it up.

If I while in SD I buy a gun from a Utah dealer and then travel to Utah to pick it up, that is interstate commerce because the buyer and seller were in different states when money changed hands. I have a Utah permit which is NICS exempt, no NICS will be run at all and I can have that gun loaded and on my hip as I drive back home.

However, if I travel to Utah, and pay for the gun while in Utah, that is not interstate commerce. Then since I have a Utah permit which is NICS exempt, no NICS will be run at all and I can have that gun loaded and on my hip as I drive back home.

If you want to educate yourself on what a loophole really is, become a gun owner and travel armed. You have no idea what a loophole is. As a resident of SD I can have no paperwork or permits at all and still legally posses a handgun in Chicago despite their bans. If you color inside the lines you can do a lot.



I'll wait to see how the legislation is written before I speculate wildly, but thank you for doing so!
 
I'll wait to see how the legislation is written before I speculate wildly, but thank you for doing so!
If you need to believe that I was speculating instead of going on actual information I received through formal training by the respective states, I guess you have the right to do that just as you have the right to believe in the Easter Bunny also.
 
I'll wait to see how the legislation is written before I speculate wildly, but thank you for doing so!

I guess that is another way of saying you don't care if the legislation has any chance of stopping crime-as long as more laws are passed its fine with you
 
I guess that is another way of saying you don't care if the legislation has any chance of stopping crime-as long as more laws are passed its fine with you

Thanks for the view of those who profit from gun sales.

I'll go with the investigation by the police, as referenced above:

"In a probe of illegal online firearm sales conducted by the City of New York, undercover investigators found that 62% of private gun sellers they interacted with were willing to sell guns to a buyer who said he could not pass a background check."
 
Thanks for the view of those who profit from gun sales.

I'll go with the investigation by the police, as referenced above:

"In a probe of illegal online firearm sales conducted by the City of New York, undercover investigators found that 62% of private gun sellers they interacted with were willing to sell guns to a buyer who said he could not pass a background check."

that is irrelevant

the relevant facts include

of the 2 million (according to Chris Matthews on MSNBC and according to the Turd who is the spokesman for "mayors against constitutional rights or whatever those assholes with bloomturd call themselves) people who LIED on a background check less than one tenth of one percent were even prosecuted

secondly, there is no evidence that stopping those '2 million' people had any beneficial value

why do you want laws that have no empirical chance of stopping any crime?

why do you support passing laws that will not be enforced?
 
Thanks for the view of those who profit from gun sales.

I'll go with the investigation by the police, as referenced above:

"In a probe of illegal online firearm sales conducted by the City of New York, undercover investigators found that 62% of private gun sellers they interacted with were willing to sell guns to a buyer who said he could not pass a background check."
Arrest them, make an example out of them.
 
What's in the deal for pro-gun? What are we getting that we didn't have before? Anti-gun gets background checks, and pro-gun gets... assault rifles?....national reciprocity for CCW permits?....elimination of some gun-free zones?....silencers without any paperwork? What?

Your reaction is very understandable. The gun lobby and gun culture have gotten things so much their way over the last decade that giving in a small amount on something they previously supported seems like a bad deal for them.
 
Your reaction is very understandable. The gun lobby and gun culture have gotten things so much their way over the last decade that giving in a small amount on something they previously supported seems like a bad deal for them.
What did we get in the last decade? And why should we ever give up anything, ever, anyway?

Private citizens have the right to own unregistered modern machine guns. Anything short of that is oppression.
 
Your reaction is very understandable. The gun lobby and gun culture have gotten things so much their way over the last decade that giving in a small amount on something they previously supported seems like a bad deal for them.
if the gun lobby had its way as you claim there would be no federal gun control laws since none of them have any proper constitutional support. the anti gun haters of the constitution are the ones who have gotten their way
 
Back
Top Bottom