• 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!

Universal background checks

Do you support universal background checks?


  • Total voters
    104
Congratulations! Out of all the federal gun laws passed through the years that apply in all states, you finally found one that was ruled unconstitutional, however, "This left the door open for a later Congress, with more complete evidence and justification, to enact a valid Act, based upon a more complete showing of evidence of interstate commerce being sufficiently "affected" to justify the exercise of the federal Commerce power."


Any constitutional challenges to the background check that has been law since 1993?

another fail on your part

slavery was legal in the USA for centuries

I get the fact you are incapable of proffering a rational argument in favor of the crap you support

that is because your support is based on harassing law abiding gun owners

as to FFL's having to do checks

given the FDR expansion of the commerce clause, FFLs are engaged in interstate commerce since they buy and receive firearms in INTERSTATE commerce

so a challenge would be worthless

now making people who only engage in INTRASTATE private sales-no such nexus

but lets see if you have the wattage to make an argument why purely INTRASTATE private transactions have a sufficient nexus with INTERSTATE commerce so as to survive a tenth amendment challenge based on USA v LOPEZ
 
Big Update as of 4 hours ago on the topic of this thread -


Threat to Block Debate on Guns Appears to Fade in Senate


"WASHINGTON — Several Senate Republicans said Tuesday that they would not participate in a filibuster of the first major gun control bill since 1993, as Democrats appeared on the verge of overcoming a blockade threatened by a group of conservatives before a word of debate on the measure was uttered.


Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said he would schedule an initial showdown vote for Thursday. If backers of the measure can corral at least 60 votes, the Senate will begin consideration of a series of gun safety proposals — strongly supported by President Obama — that would still face a long and difficult journey across the Senate floor.


The bill, which would increase penalties for illegal gun purchase and greatly expand background checks on gun buyers, would again need 60 votes to end the ensuing debate after consideration of contentious amendments, including a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Should it cross that very high hurdle, 51 votes would be needed to get to final passage. Even with Democrats controlling 55 seats, no majority was assured given the resistance of some Democrats from more conservative states who face re-election campaigns next year.


Even as Mr. Reid scheduled a vote, Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania were very near a deal that would most likely serve as an amendment replacing the background check piece of the measure that Mr. Reid is seeking a vote on. Their measure, which would almost certainly appeal to a broader base of members than the one now at the heart of the debate, would include fewer gun buyers in newly expanded checks, but allow for the record keeping that many Republicans have opposed. The two were expected to announce a deal Wednesday. Mr. Manchin briefed Mr. Reid late Tuesday.


Still, eking out the first 60 votes would represent momentum for the bill’s supporters in the Senate, and an egg-on-the-face moment for those Republican senators, led by some younger conservatives, who chose to highlight their efforts to kill the bill before debate, a procedural move usually done more stealthily."


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/u...icans-oppose-filibuster-on-gun-bill.html?_r=0
 
I realize this poll isn't even close to being an accruate representaiton of the country, but shouldn't the number of yes votes be a tad higher if over 90% of the country supports universal background checks?
 
Roughly ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks. Do you?

i cant answer either way because it would be on assumptions

i would have to know the details of the background check :shrug:

some im sure id be fine with and other i wouldnt

also while i would support this 100% for retailers this is another law that is pretty much a waste. But its a fine band-aid in my opinion for retailers as long as its instant. 15 or so years ago mine took 15mins. Id imagine its even faster now.
 
I realize this poll isn't even close to being an accruate representaiton of the country, but shouldn't the number of yes votes be a tad higher if over 90% of the country supports universal background checks?

I guess that depends on what you think is more accurate, one political forum poll, or all the credible national polling organizations.
 
Big Update as of 4 hours ago on the topic of this thread -


Threat to Block Debate on Guns Appears to Fade in Senate


"WASHINGTON — Several Senate Republicans said Tuesday that they would not participate in a filibuster of the first major gun control bill since 1993, as Democrats appeared on the verge of overcoming a blockade threatened by a group of conservatives before a word of debate on the measure was uttered.


Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said he would schedule an initial showdown vote for Thursday. If backers of the measure can corral at least 60 votes, the Senate will begin consideration of a series of gun safety proposals — strongly supported by President Obama — that would still face a long and difficult journey across the Senate floor.


The bill, which would increase penalties for illegal gun purchase and greatly expand background checks on gun buyers, would again need 60 votes to end the ensuing debate after consideration of contentious amendments, including a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Should it cross that very high hurdle, 51 votes would be needed to get to final passage. Even with Democrats controlling 55 seats, no majority was assured given the resistance of some Democrats from more conservative states who face re-election campaigns next year.


Even as Mr. Reid scheduled a vote, Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania were very near a deal that would most likely serve as an amendment replacing the background check piece of the measure that Mr. Reid is seeking a vote on. Their measure, which would almost certainly appeal to a broader base of members than the one now at the heart of the debate, would include fewer gun buyers in newly expanded checks, but allow for the record keeping that many Republicans have opposed. The two were expected to announce a deal Wednesday. Mr. Manchin briefed Mr. Reid late Tuesday.


Still, eking out the first 60 votes would represent momentum for the bill’s supporters in the Senate, and an egg-on-the-face moment for those Republican senators, led by some younger conservatives, who chose to highlight their efforts to kill the bill before debate, a procedural move usually done more stealthily."


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/u...icans-oppose-filibuster-on-gun-bill.html?_r=0


So much for that Idea.....huh? Plus Toomey the Rep from Pennsylvania, Office is getting slammed ever since he suggested such. Also I would recommend to all on the Right to call or email Toomey's Office In Washington and Pennsylvania to point out why.....he needs to STFU!

Mitch McConnell: Yeah, I'm Joining This Gun Control Filibuster

Weeks ago, Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul threatened to filibuster any kind of gun control legislation brought to the floor by Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid. That list has since grown to include Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Mike Enzi, Jerry Moran, Jim Inhofe, Richard Burr, Jim Risch, Mike Crapo, Dan Coats, Pat Roberts and most recently, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would join a group of Senate Republicans threatening a filibuster to oppose a cloture vote if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moves a gun bill to the floor this week.

Reid has promised to move a gun bill to the Senate floor this week, but it’s unclear which one. It depends on whether Democrats can strike a deal on background checks on gun sales — otherwise, they may settle for a less strict bill that includes some form of background checks, increase penalties for gun trafficking and increase school security. In order to get around the filibuster, Reid has indicated that he would file a cloture motion, which would require a 60-vote margin to move the bill.

“While nobody knows yet what Senator Reid’s plan is for the gun bill, if he chooses to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the Reid Bill (S. 649), Senator McConnell will oppose cloture on proceeding to that bill,” McConnell spokesman John Ashbrook said in a statement.

UPDATE: Obama is also pretty mad about this whole filibuster thing.

The White House lashed out Monday at Republican lawmakers threatening to filibuster gun control legislation in the Senate, accusing them of trying to pull “political stunts” and "hide" behind procedural maneuvers -- as support for the filibuster continued to grow.....snip~

Mitch McConnell: Yeah, I'm Joining This Gun Control Filibuster - Katie Pavlich

Plus the House isn't considering it. :lol: Course Obama should STFU as well talking about political stunts while he exploits children to push his personal agenda.
 
So because you didn't mention payola to Congress means it doesn't happen? And you will have to show me, since background checks for gun sales was enacted in 1994, when they were ruled to be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment rights. Like I've said, if this Congress can't get it done, the voters will work that problem out over the next couple elections.

1.Just because someone didn't rule background checks an infringement doesn't change the fact it is still an infringement.

2.This still does not change the fact that elected officials are not going to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes if their constituents are telling them not to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes. So your 85% comment is hogwash.
 
1.Just because someone didn't rule background checks an infringement doesn't change the fact it is still an infringement.

2.This still does not change the fact that elected officials are not going to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes if their constituents are telling them not to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes. So your 85% comment is hogwash.

Here Obama has some nerve talking about Repubs pulling stunts.....while he runs around and exploits children and families that have to live with a tragedy for the rest of their lives. While his putz azz will forget about them as soon as he is done with his term. Talk about being a friggen hypocrite. People need to get on social media, the Radio, and TV.....start talking about him exploiting these children and families. Talk about how he gets all emotional and touchy feely and cannot use reason and logic as real leaders would. Just keep slamming his intelligence and his lacking abilities of leadership. One thing Obama cannot stand is when people are out talking smack about him. He will respond.
 
another fail on your part
Only in your opinion, Dude

slavery was legal in the USA for centuries
Being legal or otherwise does not make it right, Turtle

I get the fact you are incapable of proffering a rational argument in favor of the crap you support
The argument is lost when one side resorts to insults and sluts...Why is this so typical of conservatives ?
Is it just "bullying" ??


that is because your support is based on harassing law abiding gun owners....Due to the criminal and semi-criminal element in our society...or you pose to do nothing...
as to FFL's having to do checks

given the FDR expansion of the commerce clause, FFLs are engaged in interstate commerce since they buy and receive firearms in INTERSTATE commerce

so a challenge would be worthless

now making people who only engage in INTRASTATE private sales-no such nexus

but lets see if you have the wattage to make an argument why purely INTRASTATE private transactions have a sufficient nexus with INTERSTATE commerce so as to survive a tenth amendment challenge based on USA v LOPEZ

I can but say that gun control must be on a federal level with state cooperation....I see problems here...
We need to put the people first..
 
1.Just because someone didn't rule background checks an infringement doesn't change the fact it is still an infringement.
True, of course, but so what.....
Imagine a world or a nation without so-called infringments....setting man back to day one....


2.This still does not change the fact that elected officials are not going to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes if their constituents are telling them not to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes. So your 85% comment is hogwash.

Are some people so obtuse as to be not capable of imagining "Day One Conditions" ??
 
Are some people so obtuse as to be not capable of imagining "Day One Conditions" ??

The second amendment specifically says no infringements. If you want infringements then start petitioning your elected officials to go through the amendment process to make infringements for the 2nd amendment.
 
1.Just because someone didn't rule background checks an infringement doesn't change the fact it is still an infringement.

Not according to rule of law under the US constitution. Otherwise you could explain how your opinion affects how the law is carried out.

2.This still does not change the fact that elected officials are not going to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes if their constituents are telling them not to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes. So your 85% comment is hogwash.

We will see over the course of the next couple elections whether NRA money can top public support.
 
I have absolutely no problem with running a background check on me if I decide to buy a weapon.
 
Not according to rule of law under the US constitution. Otherwise you could explain how your opinion affects how the law is carried out.



We will see over the course of the next couple elections whether NRA money can top public support.


What Rule of law would that be? Considering that the 2nd is the Only Amendment that Says NO Infringement. The Only Amendment to start out with the word NO.

Seems you didn't get the message. No.....means no!

See what you fail to understand with all your Liberal and Progressive people is.....the Founding Fathers knew that the Law could be changed. That New Laws could be written. So they aptly came up with a way to think of Wording this Amendment, wherein they knew that no matter what excuse. No matter what Rational. No Matter what reason.....for good or bad. That No matter what Any could say then or in the future. That none of it would matter. As with this Specific piece of legislation they made it real clear to ALL.

NO.....Means.....NO!

And yes we will see what takes place with the money and the NRA.....as they do not stand alone. As they have begun increasing even more membership. You can thank your so called professed leaders of the Liberal left for making sure.....their side and all those looking to break down the Constitution for filling our Coffers.

Just like Bloomberg.....we will RUN all you Anti Gun People out of Office and out of that Lime-light. Looks Like you will need 10 times the money just to stay in the fight.

Hows it feel to know that over half the country are against you and your kind?
 
Back
Top Bottom