The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, twa said:

 

you obviously have not read the bill.

 

You obviously haven't brought any other point to the discussion.  

 

No, I'm not going to analyze the whole thing, try to guess what you're trying to imply without actually saying, and then prepare discussion for every thing that I think you might be trying to hint at.  

 

If you've got an objection in the form of "this bill is bad because it criminalizes X, which I think shoulc be legal", make it.  

Edited August 24 by Larry

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 hours ago, twa said:

There would be no SHIFT if the Dems did not object to a reasonable reporting requirement requested.

I know how you hate when a political party objects to a reasonable request for legislating gun control.

[twa]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

 

If you've got an objection in the form of "this bill is bad because it criminalizes X, which I think shoulc be legal", make it.  

 

I posted a link expressing the issues with the bill a couple pages back. the main one being requiring background checks when loaning/using others guns.

 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

5 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

Shameful of republicans and shameful of both of you if you're falling for this BS.

 

Shameful on me for posting an article related to gun control in the gun control thread?   Of course it's a political move by the right, that's what politicians do.  

 

[Larry]

45 minutes ago, twa said:

requiring background checks when loaning/using others guns.

 

Just checking.  

 

1)  The rule seems to refer to "transferring" a weapon.  That sounds to me like transferring ownership.  

 

2)  However, I do think it aplies to loans, too, because the law seems to have a bunch of clauses stating cases in which a loan or use does not require a check.  For example, while at a firing rangs, or while hunting, or while in the owner's presence.  

 

Looks to me like it only requires a check if you're "loaning" a weapon to somebody who is going to go take it somewhere else, without you.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I know how you hate when a political party objects to a reasonable request for legislating gun control.

Each side needs to give a little to get a little.  That's how politics should work.

 

Otherwise, you end up exactly where we are.

[Larry]

Also, reading the proposed bill, it looks like one impression I had from this discussion was incorrect.  

 

What I thought was happening was that the Dem's bill required law enforcement to be notified of failed background checks, and the R amendment added ICE to the list.  

 

But I don't see any notification mentioned in the Dem bill at all.  (Maybe it's already present in the law being modified.  I wouldn't know about that.)  

 

So I read the proposed amendment.  

 

What the amendment says is that, if:

1)  A dealer runs a background check.

2)  And, after 3 days, the check hasn't come back.

3)  Therefore, by law, the sale goes thrugh.

4)  And then, after the transfer goes through, then the background check comes back negative

 

Then the dealer is required to notify the local and state police, and the FBI, for the jurisdiction of the transfer and the jurisdiction of the recipient's address.  And, if the recipient is illegal, ICE.  

 

I think I can approve of that ammendment.  "Hey guys, I jjust sold a gun to this guy who's not supposed to have one, but it took you folks too long to say so."  

 

Edit:  And, the links from the Congressman's web site contain typos that make them not work.  Here's the links that I think he was trying to embed:  

 

Link to the bill.  It's only 6 pages.

Link to his proposed amendment. Only 1 page.  

 

 

Edited August 24 by Larry

[Springfield]

3 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Shameful on me for posting an article related to gun control in the gun control thread?   Of course it's a political move by the right, that's what politicians do.  

 

 

The “if” is key.

[Larry]

So, anybody want to talk about the actual bill/amendment?   Or just the potential political implications of what we think the motives of the people behind them are?  

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

So, anybody want to talk about the actual bill/amendment?   Or just the potential political implications of what we think the motives of the people behind them are?  

I actually think the bill with the amendment was a good compromise.  And would have showed the two sides can work together. 

[Springfield]

9 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I actually think the bill with the amendment was a good compromise.  And would have showed the two sides can work together. 

 

You don’t find it rather arbitrary?

 

Why not alert the police to people who have unpaid speeding tickets.  Or states attorneys to people who are delinquent on their child support payments.

 

Unless you feel that people who are here illegally should be unable to buy a firearm.  Why shouldn’t they be would be my next question.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Why not alert the police to people who have unpaid speeding tickets.  Or states attorneys to people who are delinquent on their child support payments.

 

Funny.  When I bring up something that kills a **** load of people, I get accused of trying to deflect.  But I'd be fine with the things you bring up.  In fact, I'd love them to deny right to own a firearm if they are behind on child support.

 

But I was more wanting to see some give and take and something get passed to show our government can actually function. 

[twa]

why shouldn't the undocumented be able to buy something you insist needs a background check?????? 

 

is this a joke

[Larry]

25 minutes ago, Springfield said:

You don’t find it rather arbitrary?

 

Why not alert the police to people who have unpaid speeding tickets.

 

1)  The cops already know who has unpaid parking tickets.  They don't know which people who aren't allowed to purchase a gun, just did so.  

 

2)  Do you really want to try to argue that illegally purchasing a gun is comparable to an unpaid parking ticket?  

 

25 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Unless you feel that people who are here illegally should be unable to buy a firearm.

 

While I already pointed out, I can see an argument that they ought to be able to do so.  However, I'm under the impression that at present, they don;t have that right.  

 

Are you proposing that we change the law, so that they can?  

 

Should this be a federal law?  Or should local jurisdictions be in charge of determining which lawbreakers can and can't buy a gun?  

 

Could you please elaborate on why you feel that someone who is very likely using a fake name and fake SSN so that he can work a job that he's not legally allowed to have, should be legally entitled to use the proceeds of that crime to buy a gun?  

 

Edited August 25 by Larry

[Springfield]

18 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Funny.  When I bring up something that kills a **** load of people, I get accused of trying to deflect.  But I'd be fine with the things you bring up.  In fact, I'd love them to deny right to own a firearm if they are behind on child support.

 

But I was more wanting to see some give and take and something get passed to show our government can actually function. 

 

I think that passing universal background checks, without any add-ons is a great start.

 

To me, this is more republican gotcha politics.  They took something that was accepted by both sides as a good thing and  added a conservative slant to it.  This isn’t the “give and take” that you think it is as both sides already agree that universal background checks are a good thing.  A give and take would be, Universal background checks + ICE reporting + 5 round magazine limit.

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, Springfield said:

I think that passing universal background checks, without any add-ons is a great start.

 

To me, this is more republican gotcha politics.  They took something that was accepted by both sides as a good thing and  added a conservative slant to it.  This isn’t the “give and take” that you think it is as both sides already agree that universal background checks are a good thing.  A give and take would be, Universal background checks + ICE reporting + 5 round magazine limit.

In your opinion.  My opinion, the bill with amendment was good.  

 

But opinions are like assholes........

[Springfield]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

In your opinion.  My opinion, the bill with amendment was good.  

 

But opinions are like assholes........

 

Sometimes we have to poke them with our penis?

[TheGreatBuzz]

27 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Sometimes we have to poke them with our penis?

 

"Our?"

 

Bro, we won't ever be that friendly.

[Springfield]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

"Our?"

 

Bro, we won't ever be that friendly.

 

One day.  One day, we can live in a world.  A world free of shame from the opinions getting poked by the penis.  A world where greabuzz’s penis and springfield’s penis is not judged, but by the grace of god.  No asshole will go untouched.  No penis judged.  Amen.

[China]

Finger guns deemed illegal, real guns just fine...

 

Pa. Court Rules Making Gun-Like Hand Gesture Is A Crime

 

MANOR, Pa. (AP) — A Pennsylvania man convicted of disorderly conduct for making a shooting gesture with his hand has lost his bid to have it overturned.

A state appellate court made the ruling Tuesday on the appeal brought by Stephen Kirchner.

 

The Manor man made the gesture while walking past a neighbor’s home in June 2018. The man allegedly made an obscene gesture toward Kirchner, who responded with his gesture.

 

A witness called 911 to report the incident.

 

The neighbor told authorities he felt “extremely threatened.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

Hey, positive balance of trade.  

 

And it's one less gun here.  

 

Obviously, those other places need more guns, too.  Good Guys.  Only way.  

[visionary]