• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senate rejects Universal Background Checks

You guys are against universal background checks? To minimize loopholes? I'm all for the second amendment, but our regulation needs to be better. You know, like not letting Joe Schmoe walk into a gunshow and walk out with whatever he pleases.

Then again, I have no idea if this legislation actually accomplishes that, so whatever.
 
What Republicans voted for it other than Pat Toomey? There were three others, but Fox only mentions the Democrats who voted against it.

It's worth noting that Harry Reid voted against it.
 
Of course it was voted down, since when does congress represent your average American?

Of course it also required the now business as usual, 60 vote minimum.


On a positive note it was a watered down bill and would have been watered down even more in the house.
 
Last edited:
uclaLabrat said:
You guys are against universal background checks? To minimize loopholes? I'm all for the second amendment, but our regulation needs to be better. You know, like not letting Joe Schmoe walk into a gunshow and walk out with whatever he pleases.

Then again, I have no idea if this legislation actually accomplishes that, so whatever.
Click to expand...

Criminals would ignore the background check requirement much like they already do.

That and I'm concerend that registration would become a logical "next step" once it proved how ineffective they were.

I'm all for better background checks though, and proper reporting of mental health deficiencies. Loughner, for example, should never have been able to just buy a gun in a gun store.
 
irishScott said:
Criminals would ignore the background check requirement much like they already do.

That and I'm concerend that registration would become a logical "next step" once it proved how ineffective they were.

I'm all for better background checks though, and proper reporting of mental health deficiencies. Loughner, for example, should never have been able to just buy a gun in a gun store.
Click to expand...
How would they accomplish this exactly? Or are you just talking about buying guns on the black market?
 
uclaLabrat said:
You guys are against universal background checks? To minimize loopholes? I'm all for the second amendment, but our regulation needs to be better. You know, like not letting Joe Schmoe walk into a gunshow and walk out with whatever he pleases.

Then again, I have no idea if this legislation actually accomplishes that, so whatever.
Click to expand...

Background checks are absolutely required at gun shows.

There is no "gun show loophole". This is the problem, people having an opinion on something they know nothing about.
 
uclaLabrat said:
How would they accomplish this exactly? Or are you just talking about buying guns on the black market?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. A lot of released felons somehow get their hands on guns, despite not being able to legally buy them. They just find a contact who doesn't give a shit.
 
uclaLabrat said:
You guys are against universal background checks? To minimize loopholes? I'm all for the second amendment, but our regulation needs to be better. You know, like not letting Joe Schmoe walk into a gunshow and walk out with whatever he pleases.

Then again, I have no idea if this legislation actually accomplishes that, so whatever.
Click to expand...

The belief that anybody can walk into a gun show and buy whatever they want is as based in fact as the homosexual agenda to convert school children.

Do gun grabbers understand how ignorant they are?
 
irishScott said:
Criminals would ignore the background check requirement much like they already do.

That and I'm concerend that registration would become a logical "next step" once it proved how ineffective they were.

I'm all for better background checks though, and proper reporting of mental health deficiencies. Loughner, for example, should never have been able to just buy a gun in a gun store.
Click to expand...

Except that the bill had a clear prohibition for keeping any gun registry.
 
HumblePie said:
You are an idiot that has no clue about this "gunshow" loop hole you regurgitate like you know something.

Watch this to educate yourself a little more..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiIGUFhPfO8
Click to expand...
Hey, that was a nice, concise, informative link. Oh wait, no it wasn't, it was a bunch of speculative, hand waving bullshit. Nice job! Way to prove me wrong!

If only I didn't have google and 3 minutes of free time, I wouldn't have been able to find a WIKIPEDIA page! Which says, and I quote:

Presently, 18 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Colorado (§12-26.1-101 and § 24-33.5-424, CRS), Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Seven states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.

I put it in bold since I know you're scared of big words and apparently can't do any research of your own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top