nunboy Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 It's just a deflection by them. They're a right wing organization and when and if mental health reform ever comes up you can bet your bottom dollar the right will fight it with all their might. The NRA is a pro 2a group left or right does not matter (plenty of southern dems will tell you as much), it just happens to be that the right lean pro 2a. It is hardly a deflection to note that guns are not responsible for the actions of a few insane individuals and that mental health played a huge part in all of this. and then to say that the NRA would be opposed to any mental health reform because they are republicans because they happen to agree with the R's on the 2a. you threw all of the information into a pile built a ramp and Evil Knieveled the whole fucking thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 The NRA is a pro 2a group left or right does not matter (plenty of southern dems will tell you as much), it just happens to be that the right lean pro 2a. It is hardly a deflection to note that guns are not responsible for the actions of a few insane individuals and that mental health played a huge part in all of this. and then to say that the NRA would be opposed to any mental health reform because they are republicans because they happen to agree with the R's on the 2a. you threw all of the information into a pile built a ramp and Evil Knieveled the whole fucking thing. You made me laugh and that's rare around here. Well done, but its quite true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 you do know that authorities can find credit scores and histories from your drivers license...<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">doesnt seem like much of a stretch for the same authorities to enter gun purchaser data to it as well.. <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">thereby making it a permanent record? Fairhooker ******************************************************** Now that you mention it - sure. But it's illegal to mass assemble a database of all gun purchasers and owners. Manually looking up licenses across the board - doesn't worry me as a possibility though. Maybe it should.... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 "The Manchin-Toomey bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and treats the misuse of records for the pursue of creating a registry as a felony punishable by 15 years in prison." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Is there anyone in here who wouldn't pass a background check for whatever reason? Frankly my friend it doesn't seem to me you would. From what I gather you favor some pretty narrow restrictions. Only violent felons and straight jacket wearing lunatics. I can't imagine that each and every one of us couldn't think of a handful of friends that one would think should not have a weapon. And are you in favor of denying a basic right to someone who has served his time? Yes or no is okay with me. Unfortunately the best you can hope to get given those liberal constrictions is a piece of window dressing. And politicians can plants and Crow about how hard they work to protect the American people. Show a better question would be not who's in favor of background checks but who's in favor of enforcing? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 I'd pass a background check just fine, thanks. I have no idea what you're talking about or suggesting. I have no criminal record and no history of mental illness. As to your question, yes, I'd be in favor of denying a category of violent felons the right to purchase a firearm, especially those who had used guns in the commission of a crime. In my mind, this category would include things like rape, domestic abuse, attempted murder and the like, and not something like simple assault. Just like many states do now, after all. This isn't something new. This is something that is being extended to other gun purchases. And yes, would be in favor of enforcing those too, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 The Republican filibuster failed: The Senate on Thursday ended a GOP filibuster on a new gun control bill, clearing the way for debate to begin on a hugely emotional issue that has dominated headlines since the tragic December shooting in Newtown, Conn. The vote was 68-31. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 I'm for a lifetime restriction on any violent felon owning a firearm. Problem is, they don't give a rats ass about the law, and will buy one off the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 I'm for a lifetime restriction on any violent felon owning a firearm. Problem is, they don't give a rats ass about the law, and will buy one off the street. Some of them will, yes. But not all of them. "Since 1998 the F.B.I. has rejected more than a million would-be sales, and when state-level rejections are factored in the number of denials is closer to two million — usually because the would-be buyers are convicted felons, or fugitives from justice, or mentally ill, among other reasons. How many of those rejected buyers were able buy guns without background checks, from private sellers or over the Internet, is difficult to say, in part because restrictions imposed by Congress make it difficult for law enforcement officials to track firearms sales." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/default.aspx?item=SAM7R-61 Nice home defense weapon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Here's what Manchin and Toomey put out: The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act, Our bill does three major things: 1) expands the existing background check system to cover commercial sales, including sales at gun shows and internet sales; 2) strengthens the existing instant check system by encouraging states to put all their available records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); 3) establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence to study in-depth all the causes of mass violence in our country. 1. Leveling the playing field for gun sales: • Under current law, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer, you have to undergo a background check by that dealer. But you can go to a non- dealer table at the gun show, or into the parking lot, and buy a gun without a background check. Our bill ensures that anyone buying a gun at a gun show has to undergo a background check by a licensed dealer. • Under current law, if you buy a gun online interstate (from one state to another), the gun must be shipped to a licensed dealer, you must go to that dealer and get a background check before you purchase the gun. However, for intrastate (in the same state) sales, no background check is required and you can sell the gun to the person without ever meeting face-to-face. Our bill requires that the current system for interstate sales be expanded to cover intrastate sales as well—so all purchasers buying guns online must undergo a background check by a licensed dealer. • As under current law, background checks are performed by licensed dealers, and recordkeeping will not change—dealers will keep the records in bound books, like they do now. The federal government cannot keep records. • Our bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and creates a new penalty for misusing records to create a registry—a felony punishable by 15 years in prison. • As under current law, temporary transfers do not require background checks, so, for example, you can loan your hunting rifle to your buddy without any new restrictions or requirements. • As under current law, transfers between family, friends, and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your coworker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check. • Our bill also fixes problems in current law that unfairly limit the Second Amendment rights of law abiding gun owners by: - Allowing interstate handgun sales from licensed dealers. Outdated current law only allows interstate sales of rifles and shotguns. This will bring more sales into the background check system. - Allowing active military to buy firearms in their home states and the state in which they are stationed. Current law restricts them to purchasing only from their duty station. - Allowing dealer-to-dealer sales at gun shows taking place in a state in which they are not a resident. Currently these sales are only permitted for dealers from the same state in which the gun show is being held. o Protecting sellers from lawsuits if the buyer is cleared through the expanded background checks system and the weapon is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now. o Authorizing the use of a state concealed carry permit that has been issued within the last five years in lieu of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer because background checks are required to receive conceal carry permits. 2. Getting all the names of prohibited purchasers into the background check system • There are serious problems currently with states not putting records into the NICS system. One tragic example: records on the Virginia Tech shooter that would have put him on the prohibited purchasers list had not been entered into the system. • Our bill encourages states to provide all their available records to NICS by eliminating unnecessary responsibilities for states and directing future grant money towards creating systems to send records to NICS. The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply. • Provides additional Second Amendment protections to our veterans. • Requires that if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, when the NICS improvements are completed, the background check would be required to clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days. 3. Establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence • Creates a commission of non-elected experts in their fields who will study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including mental health, guns, school safety and portrayals of violence in the media. This broad approach is absolutely necessary to truly address our culture of violence. WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO The bill will not, in any way, shape, or form infringe upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The bill will not take away anyone’s guns. The bill will not ban any type of firearm. The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine. The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it explicitly prohibits it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Anyone have a problem with any part of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted April 11, 2013 Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 Here's what Manchin and Toomey put out: The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act, Our bill does three major things: 1) expands the existing background check system to cover commercial sales, including sales at gun shows and internet sales; 2) strengthens the existing instant check system by encouraging states to put all their available records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); 3) establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence to study in-depth all the causes of mass violence in our country. 1. Leveling the playing field for gun sales: • Under current law, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer, you have to undergo a background check by that dealer. But you can go to a non- dealer table at the gun show, or into the parking lot, and buy a gun without a background check. o Our bill ensures that anyone buying a gun at a gun show has to undergo a background check by a licensed dealer. • Under current law, if you buy a gun online interstate (from one state to another), the gun must be shipped to a licensed dealer, you must go to that dealer and get a background check before you purchase the gun. However, for intrastate (in the same state) sales, no background check is required and you can sell the gun to the person without ever meeting face-to-face. o Our bill requires that the current system for interstate sales be expanded to cover intrastate sales as well—so all purchasers buying guns online must undergo a background check by a licensed dealer. • As under current law, background checks are performed by licensed dealers, and recordkeeping will not change—dealers will keep the records in bound books, like they do now. The federal government cannot keep records. • Our bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and creates a new penalty for misusing records to create a registry—a felony punishable by 15 years in prison. • As under current law, temporary transfers do not require background checks, so, for example, you can loan your hunting rifle to your buddy without any new restrictions or requirements. • As under current law, transfers between family, friends, and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your coworker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check. • Our bill also fixes problems in current law that unfairly limit the Second Amendment rights of law abiding gun owners by: o Allowing interstate handgun sales from licensed dealers. Outdated current law only allows interstate sales of rifles and shotguns. This will bring more sales into the background check system. o Allowing active military to buy firearms in their home states and the state in which they are stationed. Current law restricts them to purchasing only from their duty station. o Allowing dealer-to-dealer sales at gun shows taking place in a state in which they are not a resident. Currently these sales are only permitted for dealers from the same state in which the gun show is being held. o Protecting sellers from lawsuits if the buyer is cleared through the expanded background checks system and the weapon is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now. o Authorizing the use of a state concealed carry permit that has been issued within the last five years in lieu of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer because background checks are required to receive conceal carry permits. 2. Getting all the names of prohibited purchasers into the background check system • There are serious problems currently with states not putting records into the NICS system. One tragic example: records on the Virginia Tech shooter that would have put him on the prohibited purchasers list had not been entered into the system. • Our bill encourages states to provide all their available records to NICS by eliminating unnecessary responsibilities for states and directing future grant money towards creating systems to send records to NICS. The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply. • Provides additional Second Amendment protections to our veterans. • Requires that if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, when the NICS improvements are completed, the background check would be required to clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days. 3. Establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence • Creates a commission of non-elected experts in their fields who will study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including mental health, guns, school safety and portrayals of violence in the media. This broad approach is absolutely necessary to truly address our culture of violence. WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO The bill will not, in any way, shape, or form infringe upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The bill will not take away anyone’s guns. The bill will not ban any type of firearm. The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine. The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it explicitly prohibits it. surprisingly no reactionary measures were added into this. I actually like this part • Our bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and creates a new penalty for misusing records to create a registry—a felony punishable by 15 years in prison. It puts a very clear limit on what the gov can do with the information. strengthening 2a rights and limiting future misuse of information. But I will reserve final judgement until I see the entire bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2013 And you should because it probably won't look like that after the amendment process. But, as is, this is all pretty common sense stuff, I think. And there's really nothing in there anyone could interpret as a gun grab or an attack on the 2nd Amendment. Not that they won't run that up the flag pole, but this seems like stuff we should be doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 Our bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">creates a new penalty for misusing records to create a registry—a felony<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">punishable by 15 years in prison. **************************************************** That would stop NY? Or not. (referring to two posts I made on the abuses of information...) Offhand, the commission kinda bothers me. What keeps it from becoming a political bunch of anti gun Obamao appointments for life,whatever? Seems like it would be just an op to legitimize the left's agenda for more legislation later, while also being a Brady bill/Obamao/Feinstein rubber stamp. As stated, otherwise, the bill sounds fine to me. Although, the chances of Jack PingPong being denied a sale of a gun, and arrested for trying, or his house raided because there is another Jack PiingPong or three in the list of folks not allowed to own or buy guns.... (happened already, you know, my post)... that part "could" be used as an intimidation factor towards legit gun owners. Sadly, it wouldn't have stopped these murders from happening that have happened, I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 12, 2013 Report Share Posted April 12, 2013 ah. Perhaps a poorly worded law proposal...or a deliberate, slick and underhanded Undoing of the law that prevents the use of the information? Read on. I'll go with "slick and underhanded" .... ******************************************************** http://heritageaction.com/2013/04/toomey-schumer-gun-bill-contains-potential-caveat-to-gun-registry-prohibition/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.