• 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!

Will Trump and Moscow Mitch do anything about gun control?

Right after the two shootings in El Paso and Dayton we heard Trump say he would do something about gun control, mainly about background checks. Now he seems to be saying that after talking to the NRA we have enough background checks and it is all about mental illness. That does sound like the NRA's talking points. And McConnell has held up several bills that passed in the House concerning universal background checks. None of those yet have seen the light of day. So will either of the two ever do anything about the gun violence?

And they never will see the light of day. The Supreme Court has already ruled on universal background checks more than two decades ago, and they violate the US Constitution. Background checks of any kind is an infringement, but more importantly Congress cannot mandate that States or local government enforce federal law.
 
Originally Posted by TurtleDude
Until 1968, anyone could buy guns through the mail. Didn't have to fill out forms. But in 1968 that was banned because Democrats-eager to pretend they were doing something about CRIME-and using the fact that President Kennedy's assassin bought his rifle through the mail, passed the GCA of 1968.
And didn't they just take their sweet ass time? Kennedy was just a handy excuse,albeit about 5 years late.
 
And they never will see the light of day. The Supreme Court has already ruled on universal background checks more than two decades ago, and they violate the US Constitution. Background checks of any kind is an infringement, but more importantly Congress cannot mandate that States or local government enforce federal law.

So silly. Of course background checks are constitutional. We have them now
 
By “compromise” what would the Democrats had to have given up?

The main difference between the Dem proposal and Coburn's was that Coburn provided a mechanism for private sellers to conduct background checks directly, whereas the Dem's proposal effectively outlawed private firearm sales, and would create a de facto registry of all firearms legally sold after the law was passed.
 
Go on armslist. Pick out a private party gun. Meet him in Walmart parking lot. Give cash get gun.


Completely legal

You're talking about a straw purchase. Which is illegal.

Not to mention performing such a transaction is that kind of controlled space. Which is also illegal.
 
Odd the 'gun' shows I attend don't allow cameras and like I thought, living in Russia doesn't allow you to attend 'gun' shows. If you did you'd see these guys walking around with FOR SALE signs in the barrels of their firearms.

I own an old Bersa 380, bought it at a 'gun' show from a licensed FFL but he claimed the small pistol was a consignment, so no background check and when I asked for a bill of sale he said he couldn't as it wasn't his. I liked the Bersa as a great example of over engineering. It's like a master's clockwork.

Come to America and attend a 'gun' show and see the yahoos walking around trying to sell their Privately Owned Firearms.... :peace

Thanks for running away, good to see you didn't disappoint.
 
the leftwing anti gun movement is known for massive lies. Example-apply the term "assault" to firearms that are lacking the very feature needed for a weapon to be useful for military assault tactics or talking about a GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE

Until 1968, anyone could buy guns through the mail. Didn't have to fill out forms. But in 1968 that was banned because Democrats-eager to pretend they were doing something about CRIME-and using the fact that President Kennedy's assassin bought his rifle through the mail, passed the GCA of 1968. Then you had to appear and fill out a form to buy a gun. This requirement was based on the rather dubious (constitutionally) claim that since GUN DEALERS engaged in INTERSTATE commerce, congress had the power to force retail buyers to fill out forms and that these dealers maintain them. Congress had also passed a law that prevented a private citizen in say Ohio, from selling one of his firearms to someone who lived in another state-and that Ohio resident could not buy a firearm from someone who lived in another state if that seller was not a licensed dealer

so private sales between non-licensed citizens were LEGAL only if they were INTRA-STATE.

When the Brady bill was passed in 1993, the advocates were not able to muster enough support to make this background check requirement apply to INTRA-STATE private sales. Some who supported the bill when applied dealers (who engaged in INTER-STATE commerce) didn't believe the commerce clause applied to strictly intra-state second hand sales. Others pointed out-correctly (as did the OBAMA DOJ) that while licensed dealers are required to keep accurate logs of all firearms they receive and sell (thus allowing the ATF to enforce the requirement that dealers conduct a background check) private citizens do not, and thus there was no rational way to enforce a private sale background check.

There is no loophole because at gunshows, private sellers are under the same state and federal laws that a guy at a Knights of Columbus or Elk's Club swap meet is under. Dishonest anti gun advocates claim that since there are guns for sale at a gun show-that are being offered for sale by private citizens, that makes it more convenient for criminals to buy there, rather than saying looking at the community newspapers' classified ads and buying that way. But that has nothing to do with the laws and what the Gun haters don't tell you is that unlike private sales instigated by an ad in the newspaper or by word of mouth, Gun shows are crawling with cops, agents and often are being filmed. So while criminals may have more sellers to choose from, they also run a much higher chance of being identified by a cop or have a film of them buying a gun (a felony)

Well thanks for ruining the fun for me. Most of these posters lack the capacity to even look up their own names, let alone information on a simple topic.

Guess I'll go back to watching them run some more.
 
Thanks for running away, good to see you didn't disappoint.

Komrade-

It's obvious you don't live in the USofA and have never attended a 'gun' show. Nor are you willing to admit private sales at 'gun' shows are not checked and 'consignment' sales are a great way to avoid the law.

You couldn't back your claim of a slight blemish- a mismatched driver's license isn't a blemish but rather an administrative glitch easily corrected.

Face it you are on a USofA website trying to stir the pot....

Epic fail... hope Putin isn't paying you much.... :peace
 
You're talking about a straw purchase. Which is illegal.

Not to mention performing such a transaction is that kind of controlled space. Which is also illegal.

It is not illegal. It is perfectly legal
 
Alright, how is it legal?

Seeing as you know that it's legal. You'll have no problem explaining how it is, correct?

How is it legal? It just is. I can buy a gun without a bc today.
 
How is it legal? It just is. I can buy a gun without a bc today.

Strange, I don't see you showing, or at lest explaining how it's illegal.

I should be used to this kind of running at this point..
 
Strange, I don't see you showing, or at lest explaining how it's illegal.

I should be used to this kind of running at this point..

Dude it's a private sale which is legal. What are you missing?
 
Last edited:
Dude it's a private sale which is legal. What ate you missing?

He's big on professing to know what others think, and why they think what they think.....but when queried as to what qualifications he has to think for others, he runs and goes into cricket mode. go figure.
 
He's big on professing to know what others think, and why they think what they think.....but when queried as to what qualifications he has to think for others, he runs and goes into cricket mode. go figure.

He is easily dismissed
 
I would like the banning of any semi-automatic that can either be converted to full auto
Any gun in existence can be converted to full auto.


or accept a magazine holding more than 15 rounds.
Any gun that accepts detachable magazines, can accept a magazine holding more than 15 rounds.


No, I want to ban any weapon capable of accepting magazines larger than 15 rounds. There are many hunting rifles that have magazines holding up to but no more than 15 rounds.
If a gun can accept detachable magazines, then it can accept magazines larger than 15 rounds.


Lately the semi's are almost all AR-15 style which as one GOPer on line said I have hunted for 17 years and never shot 15 deer in a row.
What does an AR-15 have to do with shooting 15 deer in a row?


You are so gun crazy that you think that having these mass murders is just the cost of you getting to have all of the guns you want.
Some of these gun laws have nothing to do with preventing mass killings.


The fact that they can get a weapon that can put out forty two rounds in just 32 seconds with the use of a military style weapon and a hundred round drum magazine is what allows them to do so.
The style of the weapon had nothing to do with it.


You people will not accept that you are just as guilty as those who do the shooting.
Well, we aren't.


the guns we are talking about are not for defense, they are for offense and that is how these mass murders are using them. They are military weapons.
That is incorrect. Semi-auto weapons are quite useful for self defense and for hunting.
 
notice how such a person is absolutely certain that reasonable gun control could not be driven by a genuine desire to reduce gun deaths
How does outlawing pistol grips on a semi-auto rifle reduce gun deaths?


notice how such a person insists that stopping crime could not conceivably be a legitimate basis for reasoned gun control
How does outlawing pistol grips on a semi-auto rifle stop crime?

The only reason why anyone is pursuing these laws is because they enjoy violating people's civil liberties.


... because there are some honest Americans who need semi-automatic arms with unlimited rounds of ammunition in order to take down Bambi, damn it!
What does need have to do with anything? We have the right to have them if we so choose.


using this forum member's "logic", you, the reader, cannot possibly have legitimate opinions about the control of nuclear weapons because you are unable to design one
There is merit to being informed about an issue before forming opinions about it.


now the question is, what is more important, saving our children from wanton killers with access to weapons designed to hunt humans, or allowing a tiny segment of Americans to continue to use high rate of fire arms in their quest to put Bambi down
This nonsense about guns being designed to hunt humans is, well, nonsense.

People have the right to use semi-auto weapons if they so choose.
 
You didn't read my post... the weapons will have modified mags and wells. Make it so a large cap can't slide into the mag well. There will be issues, grandfathering and the like... this doesn't instantly reduce mass shootings, but Rome wasn't built in a day... :peace
Changing the shape of the magazine well so that it accepts different magazines will not prevent high capacity magazines from being made for the new modified well.
 
Any gun in existence can be converted to full auto.



Any gun that accepts detachable magazines, can accept a magazine holding more than 15 rounds.



If a gun can accept detachable magazines, then it can accept magazines larger than 15 rounds.



What does an AR-15 have to do with shooting 15 deer in a row?



Some of these gun laws have nothing to do with preventing mass killings.



The style of the weapon had nothing to do with it.



Well, we aren't.



That is incorrect. Semi-auto weapons are quite useful for self defense and for hunting.
A fully automatic M1?
 
Any gun in existence can be converted to full auto.



Any gun that accepts detachable magazines, can accept a magazine holding more than 15 rounds.



If a gun can accept detachable magazines, then it can accept magazines larger than 15 rounds.



What does an AR-15 have to do with shooting 15 deer in a row?



Some of these gun laws have nothing to do with preventing mass killings.



The style of the weapon had nothing to do with it.



Well, we aren't.



That is incorrect. Semi-auto weapons are quite useful for self defense and for hunting.

He pretty much is on record wanting to ban almost every gun-the problem is, he doesnt' understand anything about guns. What he does understand is that we pro rights advocates don't vote for the creeping crud of collectivism that he favors. That is what motivates his desires to ban guns.
 
A fully automatic M1?

The inspiration for the Fully automatic Italian BM 59 and the M14 US Rifle apparently was a creation an enlisted man, serving on a US tank came up with. This fellow, apparently, had some skill as a gunsmith and rigged a MI Garand to use BAR magazines (the completely fully automatic BAR shot the same ammo-M2 ball 150 grain 30-06-that the Garand did).

Semi automatic firearms are essentially fully auto firearms with some additional parts
 
How does outlawing pistol grips on a semi-auto rifle reduce gun deaths?



How does outlawing pistol grips on a semi-auto rifle stop crime?

The only reason why anyone is pursuing these laws is because they enjoy violating people's civil liberties.



What does need have to do with anything? We have the right to have them if we so choose.



There is merit to being informed about an issue before forming opinions about it.



This nonsense about guns being designed to hunt humans is, well, nonsense.

People have the right to use semi-auto weapons if they so choose.

The idiotic terms that the anti gun extremists place on common sporting firearms is hilarious
 
Back
Top Bottom