• 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!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants a federal law to require background checks for people who buy ammo

TurtleDude said:
how does that raise a red flag since he passed all the checks and was a former IRS official? The government isn't allowed to register firearms nor is there any reason for someone with a clean record to be subject to scrutiny for buying guns.

why do you and others call them "high capacity magazines" which is a dishonest term. Since no one had ever used a "bump fire" stock to harm others that we know of, why would that raise any flags? HOW MANY Other cases similar to this have occurred

that being

a multimillionaire who was trustworthy enough to

1) work for the IRS

2) hold a CPA

3) hold an active pilots license

4) own two planes

5) had no criminal record, was not under indictment, had never indicated any mental illness, was not addicted to drugs, etc and had his background checked dozens of times in the last few years

planned and plotted for at least a year-including recon trips to Chicago-bought electronic surveillance etc-a massacre

I would argue this is so different than anything we have ever seen that attempting to pretend current laws could have stopped it is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Listen. The most painless (for you) approach to trying to adress this is enhancing background checks. Enhancing to the point where that guy, Pollack? would trigger a closer look, maybe a chat with his doctor who found him 'strange' and flat-affect. If you don't find a way to try to keep guns out of the hands of psychos (and don't give me any crap about enforcing laws- there's no laws that prevent psychos like the Vegas guy buying an arsenal, as you pointed out.) if you don't help find a way, a way will be found without your input. You can bleat, "But you can't do that!" all you want and still watch while it's done.
Play a long game, that's my advice. Those marching students that are getting shat upon now will be voters in 2020, and thousands of others too. You guys better help find a workable solution, or take the consequences.
 
TurtleDude said:
have people able to kill them as soon as they start shooting

prior restraint is anathema to a free society.
Click to expand...

Wow. Who knew it could be that simple? Just make sure there's lots of armed people in every public gathering in case one of those psychos raises his head.
Gawd-damn. Answers and solutions come so easily to you guys it's a wonder the rest of the world hasn't caught on and become as idyllic as your society.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
If he was convicted of a felony instead of let go without arrest and conviction? Absolutely so.
Click to expand...

Grand Mal said:
Listen. The most painless (for you) approach to trying to adress this is enhancing background checks. Enhancing to the point where that guy, Pollack? would trigger a closer look, maybe a chat with his doctor who found him 'strange' and flat-affect. If you don't find a way to try to keep guns out of the hands of psychos (and don't give me any crap about enforcing laws- there's no laws that prevent psychos like the Vegas guy buying an arsenal, as you pointed out.) if you don't help find a way, a way will be found without your input. You can bleat, "But you can't do that!" all you want and still watch while it's done.
Play a long game, that's my advice. Those marching students that are getting shat upon now will be voters in 2020, and thousands of others too. You guys better help find a workable solution, or take the consequences.
Click to expand...

Why are Candiaians so concerned with our guns ?
 
Grand Mal said:
Wow. Who knew it could be that simple? Just make sure there's lots of armed people in every public gathering in case one of those psychos raises his head.
Gawd-damn. Answers and solutions come so easily to you guys it's a wonder the rest of the world hasn't caught on and become as idyllic as your society.
Click to expand...

yeah we could be gun banners and just scream for bans and then wonder why those didn't work any better than prohibition or the war on drugs.

but then again, gun banners really don't care about stopping crime so the "solutions" they push are worthless for that but are pretty damn good when it comes to harassing and trolling pro gun advocates and gun owners
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Why are Candiaians so concerned with our guns ?
Click to expand...

(grin!)
I doubt they are. Concerned, I mean, with your guns. Not the ones who live far enough from the border that there's no risk from stray shots, anyway.
Tell you something, though- one of the interesting oddities of modern history is the relationship between Americans and firearms. There's nothing like it anywhere else in the world. I mean, here in Canada there's lots of guns, mostly rifles because handguns are kind of useless unless you like how they look in a mirror. I've got two guns myself. I go months without wasting a thought on them until I need one. But Americans, it's like guns occupy their minds. And that's probably what we Candiaians(?) talk and wonder about, that American occupation about guns.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah we could be gun banners and just scream for bans and then wonder why those didn't work any better than prohibition or the war on drugs.

but then again, gun banners really don't care about stopping crime so the "solutions" they push are worthless for that but are pretty damn good when it comes to harassing and trolling pro gun advocates and gun owners
Click to expand...

Why does it always come down to 'gun banners' for you? We've been talking about background checks and you seem to just revert to some hardwired series of arguments about prohibition and bans. I'm not going to argue about the futility of prohibitions, but you probably know that. And it sounds like you equate enhanced background checks with harassment, so I guess I've got your take on that.
You might be in for a big disapointment, though- if you don't give inches you might lose yards.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Why does it always come down to 'gun banners' for you? We've been talking about background checks and you seem to just revert to some hardwired series of arguments about prohibition and bans. I'm not going to argue about the futility of prohibitions, but you probably know that. And it sounds like you equate enhanced background checks with harassment, so I guess I've got your take on that.
You might be in for a big disapointment, though- if you don't give inches you might lose yards.
Click to expand...

In their 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies", the DOJ told us that an effective universal background check process requires comprehensive registration. We know this. UBCs are simply not enforceable without registration. An best, then it's a voluntary process. In my state we have a UBC law. The buyer and seller have to go to an FFL who is actually willing to process the transfer and pay $25-$50 for this transaction. That's the harassment part. This doesn't stop criminals from ignoring the law and continuing to sell guns to other criminals without the background check. Society isn't threatened when two good guys transfer firearms. The only benefit is to help good guys not sell to bad guys, and this could be accomplished through direct, free access to NICS.

Other indications that these are designed to harass lawful gun owners. In many states with UBCs, two friends shooting at a private range are required to get background checks if they exchange their firearms for any length of time, even five minutes. In the Colorado law, all members of a trust must get a background check when a firearm is added to the trust. Since bad guys aren't likely to be members of a trust where every gun is tied to them by their name in a legal document, this term was only added to harass lawful citzens. By the letter of the law, if one Colorado resident were to loan a gun to another for hunting, he or she is actually required to travel to the area where the hunting will occur to legally loan the firearm, or else they can get background checks for both to loan and to return the gun to its owner. The law states that a gun can be loaned to a non-prohibited person for up to 72 hours, but after that a crime is committed. If a criminal is caught with a gun, there is no way to,prove that it was acquired without the necessary background check.
 
Grand Mal said:
Why does it always come down to 'gun banners' for you? We've been talking about background checks and you seem to just revert to some hardwired series of arguments about prohibition and bans. I'm not going to argue about the futility of prohibitions, but you probably know that. And it sounds like you equate enhanced background checks with harassment, so I guess I've got your take on that.
You might be in for a big disapointment, though- if you don't give inches you might lose yards.
Click to expand...

You are right. This should be about how to make it difficult to impossible for certain individuals from obtaining a weapon and ammo. Preventing those of not so sane minds from bringing their sick thoughts and intentions to fruition should be in everyone's interest.
Now we have to ask how we identify those individuals. If I remember correctly, the FL shooter passed scrutiny.
 
Lovebug said:
You are right. This should be about how to make it difficult to impossible for certain individuals from obtaining a weapon and ammo. Preventing those of not so sane minds from bringing their sick thoughts and intentions to fruition should be in everyone's interest.
Now we have to ask how we identify those individuals. If I remember correctly, the FL shooter passed scrutiny.
Click to expand...

the problem is you have this diversity in the gun control movement

1) well meaning but ignorant people who give lip service to feel good schemes like UBGCs without intending to harass honest people

2) those who want to harass honest gun owners but are not willing yet to support complete bans or indeed might not EVER support complete bans

3) those who want to ban buns to everyone or at least to people who are not part of their inner circle

now given the reticence of the gun control movement to honestly state its real goals and given leaders of that movement-such as the late Sarah Brady-who would claim "All I want is the Brady Bill" and the minute that passed she pushed for "assault weapon bans" and when the passed she pushed for making the ban permanent, we on the pro gun side are best off opposing all these groups. The well meaning but ignorant make up most of the grass roots supporters of gun bans, but their desired laws help the second and third groups get closer to bans.
 
Lovebug said:
You are right. This should be about how to make it difficult to impossible for certain individuals from obtaining a weapon and ammo. Preventing those of not so sane minds from bringing their sick thoughts and intentions to fruition should be in everyone's interest.
Now we have to ask how we identify those individuals. If I remember correctly, the FL shooter passed scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Then the scrutiny wasn't close enough, wasn't as comprehensive as it needs to be.
The Vegas shooter bought about 50 rifles in less than a year up to his massacre, and dozens of accessories including bump-fire gizmoes. If he was a family memer, that would raise a red flag for you, wouldn't it? Shouldn't that beviour have caused someone to look closer?
 
Rucker61 said:
In their 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies", the DOJ told us that an effective universal background check process requires comprehensive registration. We know this. UBCs are simply not enforceable without registration. An best, then it's a voluntary process. In my state we have a UBC law. The buyer and seller have to go to an FFL who is actually willing to process the transfer and pay $25-$50 for this transaction. That's the harassment part. This doesn't stop criminals from ignoring the law and continuing to sell guns to other criminals without the background check. Society isn't threatened when two good guys transfer firearms. The only benefit is to help good guys not sell to bad guys, and this could be accomplished through direct, free access to NICS.

Other indications that these are designed to harass lawful gun owners. In many states with UBCs, two friends shooting at a private range are required to get background checks if they exchange their firearms for any length of time, even five minutes. In the Colorado law, all members of a trust must get a background check when a firearm is added to the trust. Since bad guys aren't likely to be members of a trust where every gun is tied to them by their name in a legal document, this term was only added to harass lawful citzens. By the letter of the law, if one Colorado resident were to loan a gun to another for hunting, he or she is actually required to travel to the area where the hunting will occur to legally loan the firearm, or else they can get background checks for both to loan and to return the gun to its owner. The law states that a gun can be loaned to a non-prohibited person for up to 72 hours, but after that a crime is committed. If a criminal is caught with a gun, there is no way to,prove that it was acquired without the necessary background check.
Click to expand...

If enhancing background checks is unacceptable, I guess you have no direction to move, have you. So what's the next step? Do what's worked in the past- just wait for the dust to settle? Do nothing?
Tell you something, you'd better come up with something to try, and if it doesn't work, keep trying. I don't think it's going to go away yhis time. Those marching students, a lot of them will be voting in 2020 and they won't forget, won't sit it out. Lots who aren't marching, just watching, too. The day might be coming when it won't be enough to just say, "You can't do that!" because you know they can. They have before.
 
Grand Mal said:
Then the scrutiny wasn't close enough, wasn't as comprehensive as it needs to be.
The Vegas shooter bought about 50 rifles in less than a year up to his massacre, and dozens of accessories including bump-fire gizmoes. If he was a family memer, that would raise a red flag for you, wouldn't it? Shouldn't that beviour have caused someone to look closer?
Click to expand...

What if he just bought two over that one year period? Isn't that all he needed?
 
Rucker61 said:
What if he just bought two over that one year period? Isn't that all he needed?
Click to expand...

C'mon.
The point, and I think you know it, is that buying a friggin' armory over a few months should have warned someone that all was not well in Paddockville.
This just isn't a serious topic for you, is it.
 
Grand Mal said:
If enhancing background checks is unacceptable, I guess you have no direction to move, have you. So what's the next step? Do what's worked in the past- just wait for the dust to settle? Do nothing?
Click to expand...

Well, if the DOJ's position on "universal" background checks isn't sufficient, I guess you have to assume you know more than they do. I'm not sure what you mean by "enhanced" background checks, but any requirement for background checks on all private sales and transfers, without comprehensive registration, isn't enforceable. Unenforceable laws don't have much effect on the crime that they are intended to address.

UBCs criminalize transfers between non-prohibited persons. I object to that. Criminals who fail background checks aren't prosecuted and are allowed to simply wander off to get a gun through straw purchases, FFL diversions, street sales and theft. In 2010, over 34,000 felons were identified by name and address as having tried to buy a gun from an FLL. They signed a Form 4473 and lied on that form to get it processed, a felony. Of the 34,000 felons who committed this felony, 10 were actually convicted of the crime. In keeping criminals away from guns that's about a 0.03% success rate. Simply put, background checks really don't keep criminals from getting guns.

If we allowed citizens to address the NICS database directly, we could at least offer a solution to the problem of good guys unknowingly selling to bad guys. That''s what we really want. We shouldn't care if good guys sell to good guys and we can't stop bad guys selling to bad guys with one more law.

Tell you something, you'd better come up with something to try, and if it doesn't work, keep trying. I don't think it's going to go away yhis time. Those marching students, a lot of them will be voting in 2020 and they won't forget, won't sit it out. Lots who aren't marching, just watching, too. The day might be coming when it won't be enough to just say, "You can't do that!" because you know they can. They have before.
Click to expand...

I just hope they learn mathematics and civics by then.
 
Grand Mal said:
C'mon.
The point, and I think you know it, is that buying a friggin' armory over a few months should have warned someone that all was not well in Paddockville.
This just isn't a serious topic for you, is it.
Click to expand...

But buying an armory over a few months didn't enable him in any way. Collectors buy lots of guns in a short period at times. This is the only incident where someone buying a lot of guns ended up committing a mass shooting. Most mass shooters have one or two guns. We'd be wasting a lot of time investigating the large stream of purchases for no good reason. There's nothing that anyone could have done. It's not illegal.

Buying two handguns in 5 days will get your name sent to ATF. It's to combat straw purchases/gun running, I believe.
 
Rucker61 said:
But buying an armory over a few months didn't enable him in any way. Collectors buy lots of guns in a short period at times. This is the only incident where someone buying a lot of guns ended up committing a mass shooting. Most mass shooters have one or two guns. We'd be wasting a lot of time investigating the large stream of purchases for no good reason. There's nothing that anyone could have done. It's not illegal.

Buying two handguns in 5 days will get your name sent to ATF. It's to combat straw purchases/gun running, I believe.
Click to expand...

Okay, fine. The laws don't work and can't be changed to try to make them work.
So, where does that leave you? Lemme guess- "Just enforce the laws we already have in place!"
How's that working so far? Cops standing outside the school, listening to the gunfire 'n all. Nutbars buying dozens of guns and lugging what, about 12 suitcases full of them up the elevator over two days. But, there's nothing that anyone could have done.
Don't come crying when something is done, something you really don't like, if you refuse to participate in the process of finding solutions. And forget about a silver bullet. You're gonna have to try things knowing they're not perfect, they won't work every time. "Cuz, just saying, "That won't work." "You can't do that." "No." isn't going to do it forever.
 
Grand Mal said:
Okay, fine. The laws don't work and can't be changed to try to make them work.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where this is coming from. For the authorities to track large purchases of firearms by a single buyer to avert mass shootings, there were need to be a link between the purchasing and the shooting. That's not an established pattern for mass shooters. It's not a leading indicator. If Paddock had come to the authorities for purchasing lots of guns, it would have only been to see if he was selling these guns to prohibited person, ie straw purchasing. If he never sold any there would be no reason to suspect him of any crime.

So, where does that leave you? Lemme guess- "Just enforce the laws we already have in place!"
How's that working so far? Cops standing outside the school, listening to the gunfire 'n all. Nutbars buying dozens of guns and lugging what, about 12 suitcases full of them up the elevator over two days. But, there's nothing that anyone could have done.
Click to expand...
This has happened exactly once. What do you think would have happened if the ATF, noting all of the purchases, had stopped by Paddock's house to talk to him? They'd ask "why are you buying all of these guns?" He'd just say "I'm a collector, I have lots of money and this is what I collect". He wouldn't say "I'm planning a mass shooting, and although I only need two guns I thought I'd reach out to you guys for help". Nothing he did prior to the shooting was illegal, nor should it be.

Don't come crying when something is done, something you really don't like, if you refuse to participate in the process of finding solutions. And forget about a silver bullet. You're gonna have to try things knowing they're not perfect, they won't work every time. "Cuz, just saying, "That won't work." "You can't do that." "No." isn't going to do it forever.
Click to expand...

No, they have to work every time, or the GCAs will come back for more. Ban bump stocks, someone will use an AR with 30 round magazines. Ban new purchases of ARs and 30 round magazines, someone will use a grandfathered AR and 30 round magazines. Confiscate all "assault weapons", someone will use a handgun with 10 round magazines. Ban all semiautomatic handguns, someone will use a pump shotgun.

Is there an acceptable level of school shootings that won't necessitate a call for more laws?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom