Trump: Congress discussing 'meaningful' gun background checks, NRA will have input

  
Via:  tessylo  •  4 months ago  •  96 comments

Trump: Congress discussing 'meaningful' gun background checks, NRA will have input

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Trump: Congress discussing 'meaningful' gun background checks, NRA will have input



aaaa2f80-fa39-11e8-8fbf-da9c00b689c4   David Jackson, USA TODAY  
















Trump plans on 'convincing' Congress for gun background check bill.






WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said Friday that congressional leaders are talking about new "meaningful background checks" for gun buyers – but with input from   the National Rifle Association   and other gun groups that oppose current legislative proposals.

Trump predicted ongoing talks would produce "a very good package" for Congress to consider when it returns from summer recess in September. He also suggested there is a better "feeling" for getting something done than after a school shooting that killed 17 students and staff members in Parkland, Florida last year.

"We don’t want guns in the hands of the wrong people," Trump told reporters before departing the White House for a pair of fundraisers in New York. 

Trump called for "common-sense background" checks, but did not detail what that might include. But he suggested the NRA would have input on whatever package emerges.

“We’ll see where the NRA is ... but we have to have meaningful background checks," Trump said, adding that the gun group has "good people" who want to do the right thing.

"I have a great relationship with the NRA," he said. 

Earlier Friday, Trump said in a pair of tweets that "serious discussions are taking place between House and Senate leadership on   meaningful Background Checks,"  adding that "guns should not be placed in the hands of mentally ill or deranged people."

Trump also acknowledged his   talks this week with Wayne LaPierre , executive vice president of the NRA, and other gun rights groups in the wake of last weekend's mass shootings in Texas and Ohio. Trump said "their very strong views can be fully represented and respected" during the debate over gun policy.

"I am the biggest Second Amendment person there is, but we all must work together for the good and safety of our Country," Trump said.

Pelosi on guns:   Pelosi urges Trump to call Senate to vote on House gun background checks bills

Some   congressional Democrats   said they are skeptical about Trump's commitment to new gun safety laws, given his support of the NRA and other gun groups.

"We've seen it before,"   tweeted   Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the Senate's top Democrat, on Monday. "An awful shooting occurs. @realDonaldTrump expresses interest in helping. Republicans try to get him off the hook with lesser measures. Nothing happens."

Trump has heard repeated objections from NRA and some of his own aides who are pushing back against new background check proposals.

While LaPierre has not detailed his discussions with Trump this week, he said in a statement that "the NRA opposes any legislation that unfairly infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens." 

Gun control supporters back bills approved by House Democrats that would expand and improve the background check system. The Republican-run Senate has refused to take up the measures.

Congressional action in the short term is highly unlikely. There are no apparent plans to call Congress into session during its August recess. As of mid-day Thursday, Trump had no meetings scheduled with congressional leaders.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. , has urged Trump or   Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. , to call Congress back into session immediately, breaking up the August recess to address the gun violence crisis.

Trump and the NRA:   Trump spoke with NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre during Dayton, El Paso trip, faces opposition on gun background checks

McConnell  said Thursday   he is willing to consider expanding background checks for gun buyers, telling WHAS radio that "what we can’t do is fail to pass something." He also said that Senate will not take up gun safety issues until September, after the August recess.

"Only serious, bipartisan, bicameral efforts will enable us to continue this important work and produce further legislation that can pass the Senate, pass the House, and earn the president’s signature," he said.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:   Trump: Congress discussing background checks - with NRA input



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    4 months ago

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said Friday that congressional leaders are talking about new "meaningful background checks" for gun buyers – but with input from   the National Rifle Association   and other gun groups that oppose current legislative proposals.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @1    4 months ago
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said Friday that congressional leaders are talking about new "meaningful background checks" for gun buyers – but with input from the National Rifle Association and other gun groups that oppose current legislative proposals.

In other words, Republicans will talk the talk until it fades front front page news, but have no intention to actually walk the walk.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    4 months ago

As opposed to Democrats that did exactly that for 8 years prior to the current administration? I have serious doubts they could do any worse than the Obama administration. At least somebody is trying this time around.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.1    4 months ago
For the republicans to block everything?  
'At least somebody is trying this time around.'
Yeah, right.  

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    4 months ago

As usual when it comes to guns and republicans, when all is said and done, there will be more said than done.

 
 
 
lady in black
1.2.4  lady in black  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.1    4 months ago

I'll believe it when it becomes law NOT lip service.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.1    4 months ago

The day that republicans stop taking money from the NRA, will be the day we start seeing somebody really "trying" as you say, related to functional gun legislation.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lady in black @1.2.4    4 months ago

Sorry, but I doubt you would believe it even then, solely because it would have Trump's name associated with it. Screw it whether it is a good thing or not but lambast it solely because of Trump...

 
 
 
lady in black
1.2.7  lady in black  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.6    4 months ago

Trump will cave to the nra when they threaten him politically. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.2.8  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.5    4 months ago

Democrats take their money too.....it's an easy google. Republicans clearly get more $$ but dems are taking the $$ too.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.9  r.t..b...  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.5    4 months ago
The day that republicans stop taking money from the NRA

As always, follow the money. It is all about gaining and then maintaining power. The NRA has realized this for decades. That they cannot even bend to the overwhelming majority in favor of the relatively simple passing of legislation for more stringent background checks says all you need to know about their motivation. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @1.2.7    4 months ago

'Trump will cave to the nra when they threaten him politically'

They have already done that.  They told the 'president' that  his base/supporters would not go for it.  

The 'president' says he has a lot of influence.  Ha.  It's the NRA.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.1    4 months ago
At least somebody is trying this time around.

Who?  Actions, not words.  Who is doing something?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.11    4 months ago

I said they were trying to do something, not that it had already been done but I think you knew that...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.12    4 months ago
I said they were trying to do something, not that it had already been done but I think you knew that...

Yes, but "trying" is nothing.  They are always "trying" to do something but their greed keeps stopping something.

4c316ea2ae01be634bc9783ca982f55f.jpg

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.14  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.13    4 months ago

Greed is not something exclusive to one party or the other.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.14    4 months ago

Greed is not something exclusive to one party or the other.

Exclusive? No, never claimed that.  But it is more predominate in one than another.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.13    4 months ago

The fact is that the previous administration did not even try, so the current one is still ahead whether you want to admit it or not

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.17  Snuffy  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.16    4 months ago
The fact is that the previous administration did not even try, so the current one is still ahead whether you want to admit it or not

Well that's not entirely true. The Obama administration documented in a letter to both Slide Fire and Bump Fire that the 'bump-stock' was a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.

So they did do more than just talk and hold speeches, they just moved the needle. Just in the wrong direction.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.18  FLYNAVY1  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.2.8    4 months ago

The dollar ratio is 96:4 R to D fish..... nice try at obfuscating for false equivalence.  That ratio is almost out there in the six-sigma range for statistical distribution.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.19  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.15    4 months ago

In actuality, you just did above...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.20  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.1    4 months ago

Until we stop looking to the past, the present will pay the price for our myopia.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.21  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @1.2.7    4 months ago

And financially.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.22  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.21    4 months ago

Agreed.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.23  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.16    4 months ago

So, because the previous didn't try is an excuse for the present not to?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.24  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.23    4 months ago

Did I say the present one is not trying? No I did not. In fact I stated just the opposite. Please see post # 1.2.12 above.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  seeder  Tessylo    4 months ago

Ah but the NRA is saying Nyet.  

 
 
 
lady in black
3  lady in black    4 months ago

Yeah right....I'll believe it when it happens.

 
 
 
lady in black
4  lady in black    4 months ago

NRA= National Reaper Association

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @4    4 months ago

Not enough Rounds of Ammo

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1    4 months ago
Not enough Rounds of Ammo

I'm glad you agree.

One can never have enough ammo.  Plus, one needs to ensure ample supplies of ammo for every caliber of gun owned.   And if the price is right ample supplies of ammo which will necessitate the purchase of a gun or a few to go with the new ammo supply.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.1    4 months ago

To me "ample" was maybe two boxes for each of the firearms I use to own (45LC and 22LR and 12g SG).  I never saw the need for any more than that.  I was not agreeing.  My comment was in regards to the ammosexuals.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.2    4 months ago
To me "ample" was maybe two boxes for each of the firearms I use to own

Your "ample" and mine are appreciably different, very appreciably different.   Oh, I know you weren't agreeing with me, I simply neglected to indicate SARCASM since I believed it was so apparent.  I'll remember the next time it's required so as to not cause confusion.

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.4  WallyW  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.3    4 months ago

More 'common sense' gun laws are all we need to stop the killing

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  WallyW @4.1.4    4 months ago
More 'common sense' gun laws are all we need to stop the killing

I know.  Let's face facts, all those 'common sense' laws against killing are so effective, let's emulate those!!

One day, maybe someone will realize that "laws" for or against something are not the panacea they think they are.  It requires the INDIVIDUAL to adhere to or disobey the laws to begin with.  Failing that, at least for the law breaker, the "law" only comes into play AFTER THE FACT in a court of law.  All laws are actually punitive in nature.

The only ones that will be affected by any additional laws, will once again be the people who obey the law to begin with.  Criminals are criminals for the simple reason they don't obey the law.  But, to some, that's obviously science beyond their intellectual acuity to recognize and understand.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.3    4 months ago

Yes, our concept of ample is different and that is okay.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5  Trout Giggles    4 months ago

I thought Congress was in session?

How are they "talking" about it? Facebook? Twitter? Instagram? Two cans with a string?

 
 
 
Snuffy
5.1  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    4 months ago

No, they are all on their summer break. Neither House or Senate returns until Monday, Sept 9th

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @5.1    4 months ago

I thought so

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.1    4 months ago

Which means, again, they're not talking about it, they're not doing anything, as per usual.  

 
 
 
SteevieGee
5.1.3  SteevieGee  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.2    4 months ago

Of course they're not talking about it.  Trump said it.  Doesn't make it true.

 
 
 
Snuffy
6  Snuffy    4 months ago

Like everything else, the devil is in the details.

A feel-good law that isn't enforceable isn't worth the time spent to pass it. Any law dealing with "comprehensive background checks" that include private sales is useless and an empty law unless there is a mandatory gun registration law also. Without registration there's no way to determine who owned the gun or if the "buyer" owned the gun all along. And I feel confident that any law attempting to mandate gun registration would be fought by many people and many groups.

Bringing back the 1994 assault weapons ban is another useless law IMO. To define an assault weapon they had to identify what made it an assault weapon and the manufactures just redesigned the weapon to fit within the guidelines. If in doubt just look at the current ban in Massachusetts and the work by manufactures to get around the ban.  Also the 94 ban didn't impact the number of guns or individuals back then as compared to the numbers in public hands today. The 94 ban grandfathered in existing ownership and only banned the new manufacture and sales. With the vast increase in numbers today the same ban would leave millions of these weapons in the public hands, and any attempt to force an Australian type buy-back would spend many years in court and judging from the lack of success in England many people would just not turn them in. After all without any registration of guns, how would the government know if a person owned one of those now prohibited weapons.

Most of the "common sense" gun laws that have been promoted by the Democrats, IMO, fall into this same bucket. They are feel-good laws that really won't do much to reduce the problem. As I said in a previous thread, I do support the discussion and exploration of the "red flag" laws. There are several issues around them but if they can work out the constitutional and legal problems of the laws and insure there is a proper review and handling of each occurrence in order to prevent abuse, I would support such laws.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1  lady in black  replied to  Snuffy @6    4 months ago

THOROUGH back ground checks where the person should have to wait 72 hours before purchasing a fire arm. 

NO more online sales....hell if the government can stop cigarettes from being sent via the mail, fedex, etc. then NO fire arm etc., should be mailed.

NO more gun shows.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @6.1    4 months ago

I forgot the waiting period.  

I forgot about the online sales also.  NO WAY IN HELL.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  lady in black @6.1    4 months ago
THOROUGH back ground checks where the person should have to wait 72 hours before purchasing a fire arm. 

NO more online sales....hell if the government can stop cigarettes from being sent via the mail, fedex, etc. then NO fire arm etc., should be mailed.

NO more gun shows.

Easily legislated, with commensurate fines for breaching the law, and it effects no one's 2nd Amendment right. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.2    4 months ago
should have to wait 72 hours

I would be willing to extend the waiting period out to 10 days or even 20, provided two things can be accomplished.

1) If this is an emergency (such as a wife attempting to protect herself and her children in a domestic violence issue) then a judge should be able to sign off to expedite the sale.

2) If the NICS check comes back sooner with no issues and the sale is cleared to move forward then there should be no artificial waiting period required. Most of these checks are completed within minutes so it's not a huge deal.

But this also requires that all states / agencies / reporting parties need to get ALL relevant information to the NICS system as soon as possible. They cannot ignore reporting the information as the NICS system needs to be as complete as possible.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.3    4 months ago
But this also requires that all states / agencies / reporting parties need to get ALL relevant information to the NICS system as soon as possible. They cannot ignore reporting the information as the NICS system needs to be as complete as possible.

Good points, Snuffy, as usual. A comprehensive data base is the lynchpin to effective enforcement should legislation be passed. And to add a caveat, should the NICS flag an issue, all sales are held until the potential buyer can go through an appropriate, court adjudicated appeals process.

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  lady in black @6.1    4 months ago
THOROUGH back ground checks where the person should have to wait 72 hours before purchasing a fire arm. 

NO more online sales....hell if the government can stop cigarettes from being sent via the mail, fedex, etc. then NO fire arm etc., should be mailed.

NO more gun shows.

Had to go thru this to think about the correct response.

The current NICS system already has that 3 business day wait period built in. If the background check elicits a “delayed” response from NICS, the seller cannot complete the transaction for at least three business days. Unless a specific “denied” designation is issued, the seller will be able to complete the transaction with the customer after that period elapses, under federal law.

Online gun sales still have to go thru a licensed dealer in your state. You cannot purchase a gun and have it just shipped to your house online from a licensed gun store. A non-licensed person who posts a gun for sale on an internet board is just posting something for sale and it's a private party sales. A private person posting a gun for sale on an internet bulletin board is no different than a private person putting up a for-sale sign on a light pole.

Gun shows - think you will have a hard sell on stopping these. Most of these that I have gone to are filled with mostly licensed vendors who have to follow federal laws. Again, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the major issue here is the unlicensed dealers who don't perform a background check. If they are an unlicensed dealer than they are really a private party selling personal property. Some states already mandate that any sales at a gun show (licensed or private) must go thru a background check, I think we'll see more states start to enforce that also. So unless you mean something different...

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.4    4 months ago
And to add a caveat, should the NICS flag an issue, all sales are held until the potential buyer can go through an appropriate, court adjudicated appeals process.

Just to clarify in my own mind...

A NICS check will come back with 1 of three returns.

Proceed:  Sale is approved and can be completed

Cancelled or Denied:  The seller cannot legally sell the gun to the purchaser. The purchaser will need to work thru the legal system to get his/her firearm rights restored before attempting to again purchase a gun.

Delayed: There is not a clear yes or no response available and additional checking must be undertaken by NICS before this is cleared. Current law on this is that the sale is held for a max of three business days for the government to research. If no additional information is found or returned after the three business days the sale can move forward.

If I understand you correctly,  you are saying if the NICS system returns a Delayed response, the sale is held until the issue is fully researched and cleared or until the purchaser can obtain a court order? Interesting idea,  I could support it so long as it can insure that personal opinions are not brought into the action. Would maybe need more money allocated for the federal departments that manage and research the NICS data also.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  Snuffy @6.1.6    4 months ago
if the NICS system returns a Delayed response, the sale is held until the issue is fully researched and cleared or until the purchaser can obtain a court order? Interesting idea,  I could support it so long as it can insure that personal opinions are not brought into the action.

Would Snuffy be interested in an appointment as the new 'Background Check' czar? A level head, ear plugs, and absolutely no access to social media sites will be mandatory . Thanks for your rational input.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.9  lady in black  replied to    4 months ago

When someone orders online, they get in through the mail depending on how it's delivered.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.10  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @6.1    4 months ago

There is no reason citizens shouldn’t be able to buy a gun on line if they pass a background check and pick up the gun at a federally licensed firearms dealer.

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.1.11  Snuffy  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.7    4 months ago

lol,  nope. I'm holding out for that benevolent dictator slot.

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.1.12  Snuffy  replied to  lady in black @6.1.9    4 months ago

No, I'm pretty sure when someone purchases a gun online they have to pick it up from a FFL license holder in their home state. That is the federal law because the purchaser has to meet all federal and local laws before they can take possession of the gun.

About the only exception to that might be if someone were purchasing from a private party in another state and he is willing to ship the gun thru the mail. And any idiot who followed thru with that would get exactly what they deserve. I mean, how would it work?  You send the money thru first and once I have the money I send you a box (oh and disappear because I have your money already ).  Or I ship the gun first and you pay me for it after, cuz for someone who can't go to the local gun store I can so definitely trust you to send the money after you already have my gun.  yeah,  neither one will work.. 

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.13  lady in black  replied to  MUVA @6.1.10    4 months ago

Like there is NO reason for a woman who wants to get an abortion should have to wait 48 to 72 hours...what's fair is fair, all should wait PERIOD

 
 
 
charger 383
6.1.14  charger 383  replied to  lady in black @6.1.13    4 months ago

should not have to wait for either

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.15  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @6.1.14    4 months ago

For a deadly weapon, I believe it's reasonable to wait at least 72 hours.

I do agree with you about abortion, there should be no arbitrary waiting period.  

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.17  lady in black  replied to    4 months ago

Then the buyer should have to wait 72 hours

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.18  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @6.1.13    4 months ago

What the hell dose that have to do with my comment?

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.19  JBB  replied to  MUVA @6.1.18    4 months ago

The Lady replied to Squiggy...

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.1.21  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @6.1.17    4 months ago

I wonder how many women have filed a restraining order on an abusive man in her life and died waiting for 72 hours to pass so she could have a gun to protect herself with?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
7  seeder  Tessylo    4 months ago

So do nothing, like usual, right Snuffy?  So you support discussion.  More talk, no do.  

They need to implement strong background checks.  Ban assault weapons again.  Ban the high capacity gun magazines.  Eliminate gun show loopholes.    

 
 
 
Snuffy
7.1  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @7    4 months ago
So do nothing, like usual, right Snuffy?

Well that's really not what I said.

They need to implement strong background checks

I think what they need to do is strengthen the enforcement for states and organizations to get the information into the NICS system. There's only a handful of states that routinely get information in, most states don't send in any information in any sort of a timely manner as it's an expense they don't want to pay. The Sutherland Springs church shooting can be laid directly at the feet of the U.S. Air Force as they didn't forward the domestic violence conviction from courts martial which allowed that POS to purchase his gun. Had that information been in the NICS system he could not have purchased his gun from a licensed dealer.

Ban assault weapons again.

I talked about that. Come up with a better law than the 94 law as IMO the 94 law won't make much difference in today's environment.

Ban the high capacity gun magazines.

Ban any new manufacture? What about sales of existing quantities? What about pre-owned magazines? Do  you grandfather existing ones or ban them outright with requiring owners to surrender them? What's the cost of a buy-back program? Like everything around this the devil is in the details.

Eliminate gun show loopholes.

This is the one I have the strongest issue with. The so-called gun show loophole is really private sales. A licensed dealer, regardless of selling in a store or at a gun show, is required by law to run the standard background check thru the NICS system. Some states mandate that private sales must go thru a NICS background check as well, and the individual states can mandate that. I don't want the federal government to mandate that because that gives them a toe-hold into intrastate commerce which is currently forbidden to them. I don't want to give future federal government fools the ability to meddle deeper into states rights and what would be there to stop them. What if someone at the federal level decides that you as a parent needs to pay minimum wages and handle the tax requirements for a babysitter that you hire for Friday night?  And just as importantly (as I stated above) without a gun registration data base, this would be a toothless law because there would be no way to track who currently owns the weapon so how can you enforce something that you cannot track ownership of?

I would love to see something done, it's just that IMO it needs to be constitutional, legal and broadly enforceable. Just passing laws so that lawmakers can stand up, thump their chests and proclaim loudly about how they did something doesn't do much for me when it's really only a feed-good law.

 
 
 
Snuffy
7.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  Snuffy @7.1    4 months ago
only a feed-good law.

Damn,  you read & re-read and still miss the typo. 

That was supposed to be 'feel-good'...   oy

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @7.1    4 months ago

You  make good sense/points in your post 6.1.3

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @7.1    4 months ago

I don't know what to tell you about the product/already manufactured guns/magazines already out there.  There must be a way to get rid of them and get some kind of profit - like with gun buy backs.  Where there is a will there should be a way.  

I agree to disagree with you on your other points.  

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.4  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.3    4 months ago

I’m not giving up any magazines or weapons thru any gun buy back program I will get rid of my guns when he’ll freezes over or when I don’t want them anymore.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @7.1.4    4 months ago

They'll have to pry them out of your cold dead hands I imagine.  

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.6  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.5    4 months ago

No they will be hidden where they will not be found.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @7.1.6    4 months ago

They should be locked in a safe so no one can get them

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7.1.8  Thrawn 31  replied to  Snuffy @7.1    4 months ago
Come up with a better law than the 94 law as IMO the 94 law won't make much difference in today's environment.

Blanket ban on ALL semi automatic and automatic weapons. No exceptions.

 
 
 
Snuffy
7.1.9  Snuffy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.8    4 months ago

At least it's a different law. I don't think it's a better law however. Semi automatics are the majority sold and used and I seem to remember a SCOTUS decision around not banning the more popular guns in use. I just don't have time to search for it to get the exact wording, but it had something to do with not being able to ban if it's widely owned and used.

But I'm the one who put forth that just redoing the 94 ban isn't going to do any real good (and statistics show it didn't do much back in 94 either). So ok, you want to ban all automatics and semi-automatics.

How are you going to do it? How do you implement it? Do you compensate citizens for their personal property when they surrender it and at what rate do  you compensate? Or do you just demand they turn in any such firearm for no compensation? As there is no record of who currently owns a semi-automatic weapon, how do  you know you get them all?

It's easy to stand there and say ban everything. But how do you do it in a legal and constitutional way?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.10  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MUVA @7.1.4    4 months ago

I'm inspired, I'm thinking about adopting a few more guns now.

I need a Usas auto shotgun.

 
 
 
Heartland American
7.1.11  Heartland American  replied to  Snuffy @7.1.9    4 months ago

That would ban a $200 Daisy .22 rifle with a small scope and a 10 round magazine.  Simply ridiculous.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
7.1.12  Snuffy  replied to  Heartland American @7.1.11    4 months ago

I know. That's why I was asking Thrawn to explain how he could see it enforceable, legal and constitutional. It's easy to stand up and say ban this or ban that and then walk away without explaining any thought behind the ban. Walking away can allow you to thump your chest about how you tried to make the world a little better without actually doing anything. Kind of like our Congress.. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8  seeder  Tessylo    4 months ago

Police: El Paso shooting suspect said he targeted Mexicans

Texas shooting suspect's mother had alerted police about his gun ownership

EL PASO, Texas (AP) — The man accused of carrying out last weekend's deadly mass shooting at Walmart in the Texas border city of El Paso confessed to officers while he was surrendering and later explained that he had been targeting Mexicans.

Patrick Crusius, 21, emerged with his hands up from a vehicle that was stopped at an intersection shortly after last Saturday's attack and told officers, "I'm the shooter," Detective Adrian Garcia said in an arrest warrant affidavit.

Crusius later waived his Miranda Rights and agreed to speak with detectives, telling them that he had driven to El Paso from the Dallas suburb of Allen — which is where he lived and is a more than 10-hour drive from El Paso — and that he was targeting Mexicans in the attack.

Twenty-two people were killed and about two dozen others were wounded in the attack. Many of the dead had Latino last names and eight of them were Mexican nationals.

Authorities believe Crusius posted a racist online screed that railed against an influx of Hispanics into the U.S. shortly before the attack.

Crusius has been charged with capital murder and is being held without bond. Federal prosecutors have said they are also considering hate-crime charges.

Hours after the attack in El Paso, a gunman killed nine people and wounded many others in Dayton, Ohio.

El Paso sits on the border with Mexico and has a large Latino population.

 
 
 
Heartland American
8.1  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @8    4 months ago

Did you mention the environmentalist portion of the manifesto where he was an ecofreak and was killing to ease the overpopulation problem?  

 
 
 
lady in black
9  lady in black    4 months ago

Also gun ranges should NOT be able to sell guns either.  I know the one near me does

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @9    4 months ago

Why?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
9.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @9.1    4 months ago

Because Americans have proven time and again that they are not responsible enough to have easily available firearms. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
9.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Thrawn 31 @9.1.1    4 months ago

If the gun range is a licensed fire arms dealer it doesn't make a difference. They have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

 
 
 
Snuffy
9.2  Snuffy  replied to  lady in black @9    4 months ago

I don't know, if they have their FFL license then why not? You know most people who come to a gun range know something about guns and are already use to them. A range can also be a good place to get training on a new weapon. So long as they have their license I don't see a problem. Can you explain why you don't think it's a good idea?

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.2.1  Heartland American  replied to  Snuffy @9.2    4 months ago

They just want to ban them at gun shows and shooting ranges because that’s where their deplorables prey hang out.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @9    4 months ago

The one I used to manage now does also.  I know the guy who runs that office.  He puts any potential buyer through stringent checks, much more so than is required.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
10  Tacos!    4 months ago

It's hard to know what would be useful. The vast majority of mass shooters acquire their guns legally or borrow or steal them from some family member or friend who bought the gun legally. People who imagine there is a simple solution related to gun acquisition are probably kidding themselves.

 
 
 
Snuffy
10.1  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @10    4 months ago

yep, that's what gets a lot of people. They want that simple solution so badly but fail to accept that it's a rather complex multi-faceted problem which will require a multi-faceted solution and a lot of time.

I think part of the solution is education. I've been in favor of a mandatory age specific "life lessons" class in every grade thru primary and high school education. There are a lot of topics that kids should know but are not really being taught, simple things such as how to create a budget, how to sew a button, how to cook for yourself, etc. Include in this class an age-specific training on gun safety and awareness so that they get more education about firearms than what they see in the movies. Also bring back those 15 second PSA's from the 70's and create them about gun safety.

We need research done on all the drugs we are pumping into our children that weren't in use 50 years ago. I'm not trying to cast blame but I think we do need to research and finally determine what the impact has been over the years and what benefit it has been vs the issues.

I think we need to strengthen the family unit. There are so many more single parent families these days and I think not having both parents does have a detrimental impact on child development. And there's a lot that needs to be done for this. They need jobs, support, housing, and a little bit of faith wouldn't hurt either. When the jobs aren't there or the money is tight it's too stressful which further impacts a family unit.

I'm not saying any of these ideas will make a fast impact, it's more of a generational thing. And these are not just ideas for reducing the impact of gun violence but perhaps they will over time help in that. And these are not the only ideas, but perhaps another branch of thought

Or I could just be blowing smoke thanks to the scotch I've had. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
11  Thrawn 31    4 months ago
Congress Discussing 'Meaningful' Gun Background Checks, NRA Will Have Input

In other words "we are doing absolutely nothing, just keep them thoughts and prayers coming."

And we are going to need a lot of them, school shooting season has started back up.

 
 
 
Heartland American
11.1  Heartland American  replied to  Thrawn 31 @11    4 months ago

Does it bother you that much that the NRA will have input as to whatever becomes law?  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
11.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Heartland American @11.1    4 months ago

Their input is bought and paid for with Trump and other politicians in their deep pockets.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
12  Paula Bartholomew    4 months ago

We just lost a fine LEO yesterday to someone with an AR 15 type weapon.  All he was doing was conducting a traffic stop.  Two other LEO's were wounded, one critically.  The POS that did this was a convicted felon who did 10 years for attempted murder.  At least other officers were able to put this ahole down like the rabid dog he was.  His parents who are devastated by the death and wounding of the officers believe it may have been suicide by cop.  This insanity has to stop.

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1  MUVA  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @12    4 months ago

Let me guess the best way to stop it is to punish law abiding citizens by making them give up their guns.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
12.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @12.1    4 months ago

No, that is not what I am saying at all.  I am talking about the insanity of these kinds of incidents happening all too often.  I have no doubt that you are a responsible gun owner.  It is the one who aren't that cause the insanity and that is what needs to stop.  The individual I spoke of was hardly a law abiding citizen.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Kavika
bugsy
r.t..b...
WallyW


28 visitors