US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement
-
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
With the exception of purchase age, most of that has been proposed by different Republicans at one time or another.
Heck, many Republicans voted for the 1994 National Assault Weapons Ban. In more recent years, the Republicans have consistently fail at achieve any critical mass at letting any gun control legislation pass.
The NRA has supported expanded mental health since 1966.
In limited lip service only. The NRA has fought at least 18 mental health "red flag" legislative proposals at the state level and so far supported exactly ZERO "red flag" bill actually proposed where gun sales or gun ownership is affected.
@Axtremus said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
With the exception of purchase age, most of that has been proposed by different Republicans at one time or another.
Heck, many Republicans voted for the 1994 National Assault Weapons Ban. In more recent years, the Republicans have consistently fail at achieve any critical mass at letting any gun control legislation pass.
The NRA has supported expanded mental health since 1966.
In limited lip service only. The NRA has fought at least 18 mental health "red flag" legislative proposals at the state level and so far supported exactly ZERO "red flag" bill actually proposed where gun sales or gun ownership is affected.
You need to turn your Glock in to the police.
Now.
-
With the exception of purchase age, most of that has been proposed by different Republicans at one time or another.
The NRA has supported expanded mental health since 1966.
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
With the exception of purchase age, most of that has been proposed by different Republicans at one time or another.
What's your point? This group was bipartisan. They're trying again.
What would you recommend they do instead?
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
With the exception of purchase age, most of that has been proposed by different Republicans at one time or another.
Heck, many Republicans voted for the 1994 National Assault Weapons Ban. In more recent years, the Republicans have consistently fail at achieve any critical mass at letting any gun control legislation pass.
The NRA has supported expanded mental health since 1966.
In limited lip service only. The NRA has fought at least 18 mental health "red flag" legislative proposals at the state level and so far supported exactly ZERO "red flag" bill actually proposed where gun sales or gun ownership is affected.
-
Red flag laws are quite problematic for law enforcement. So, you have identified a person who has guns and should not. Who exactly is going to their house to take these guns away from them?
What could go wrong?
@Mik said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
Red flag laws are quite problematic for law enforcement. So, you have identified a person who has guns and should not. Who exactly is going to their house to take these guns away from them?
What could go wrong?
I’ve got a problem with it because now we are moving into thought crime territory. Somebody for some reason thinks you are a little off and suddenly your rights are being taken away. That is scary as all hell and will lead to abuse and improper red flags. Not because of something they have done, but something that somebody else says they think you might possibly do some day in the future… Maybe…
I appreciate the effectiveness of red flag laws, but…
-
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
With the exception of purchase age, most of that has been proposed by different Republicans at one time or another.
What's your point? This group was bipartisan. They're trying again.
What would you recommend they do instead?
@Catseye3 said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
With the exception of purchase age, most of that has been proposed by different Republicans at one time or another.
What's your point? This group was bipartisan. They're trying again.
What would you recommend they do instead?
Here's the point:
A lot of this could have already been done twenty years ago, but folks on the Left side of the aisle wanted whole hog or nothing.
-
@Catseye3 said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
With the exception of purchase age, most of that has been proposed by different Republicans at one time or another.
What's your point? This group was bipartisan. They're trying again.
What would you recommend they do instead?
Here's the point:
A lot of this could have already been done twenty years ago, but folks on the Left side of the aisle wanted whole hog or nothing.
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
Here's the point:
A lot of this could have already been done twenty years ago, but folks on the Left side of the aisle wanted whole hog or nothing.Yes, I get it. But now it's possible legislators are contemplating a change of approach. What coulda happened doesn't count. Eyes front.
-
I think there are some problems...
-
They want to raise the legal age to own a long gun to 21. They're going to have to refine that. If a kid can be drafted and go to war, if he can vote, then surely he can own a .22 rifle or a shotgun.
-
LFD makes a very good point. During the Clinton Administration there was a lot of emphasis on domestic violence. As such, a domestic violence misdemeanor can now disqualify a citizen from buying a gun. Any gun. It's the only misdemeanor I know of that can possible prohibit you from buying a firearm.
There's going to have to be some rules and regs made for the proposed Red Flag laws, so that we don't trample over people's Constitutional rights.
See Form 4473:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions
- BTW, if you use marijuana you may be disqualified from owning a gun. Or if you take a Class III painkiller.
The devil is in the details.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
-
I think there are some problems...
-
They want to raise the legal age to own a long gun to 21. They're going to have to refine that. If a kid can be drafted and go to war, if he can vote, then surely he can own a .22 rifle or a shotgun.
-
LFD makes a very good point. During the Clinton Administration there was a lot of emphasis on domestic violence. As such, a domestic violence misdemeanor can now disqualify a citizen from buying a gun. Any gun. It's the only misdemeanor I know of that can possible prohibit you from buying a firearm.
There's going to have to be some rules and regs made for the proposed Red Flag laws, so that we don't trample over people's Constitutional rights.
See Form 4473:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions
- BTW, if you use marijuana you may be disqualified from owning a gun. Or if you take a Class III painkiller.
The devil is in the details.
-
-
From the CNN article:
"What lawmakers left out
Expanded background checksNotably, the agreement doesn’t include a provision that would expand background checks for all firearm sales or transfers in the country. Currently, background checks are not required for gun sales and transfers by unlicensed and private sellers.
Democrats have long supported such a requirement, and last year the House passed gun legislation that would expand background checks on all commercial gun sales, marking the first congressional move on significant gun control since Democrats won the White House and the majority in both chambers of Congress.
Assault weapons ban
Also left out is a federal ban on military-style assault weapons, another measure Democrats have been pushing in recent years, citing mass shootings that have involved such weapons.
Higher minimum age of purchase
Additionally, the agreement doesn’t include a change to the age at which a person needs to be to purchase an assault-style weapon. Democrats, including West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, the chamber’s most conservative Democrat, have said the age to purchase assault weapons must be raised from 18 to 21.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What, exactly is "military-style assault weapons?" Wasn't that ban on scary-looking guns enacted in 1994 with zero effect on gun deaths?
I have no problem with many of the other provisions (and I say that as someone who owns zero firearms). But, as I alluded in another thread, pandering is easy, governing is hard.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
I think there are some problems...
-
They want to raise the legal age to own a long gun to 21. They're going to have to refine that. If a kid can be drafted and go to war, if he can vote, then surely he can own a .22 rifle or a shotgun.
-
LFD makes a very good point. During the Clinton Administration there was a lot of emphasis on domestic violence. As such, a domestic violence misdemeanor can now disqualify a citizen from buying a gun. Any gun. It's the only misdemeanor I know of that can possible prohibit you from buying a firearm.
There's going to have to be some rules and regs made for the proposed Red Flag laws, so that we don't trample over people's Constitutional rights.
See Form 4473:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions
- BTW, if you use marijuana you may be disqualified from owning a gun. Or if you take a Class III painkiller.
The devil is in the details.
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
I think there are some problems...
You're doing SSDD. Today's news is that a proposal was arrived at. That's all. They're not down in the weeds yet.
There has to be a change. Has to. For that to happen, everybody is going to have to give up some of their sacred cows. Maybe we'll end up with something that no one will be 100% happy with, but will represent an improvement, a step forward, fewer people dying pointlessly.
Maybe; no guarantees at this point. It's gonna be a long road, no matter what happens. Possibly it's too late to fix it. Standing fast and shouting LA-LA-LA-LA with our fingers in our ears will keep us exactly where we are now.
For change to happen, it must start with the feds. Omitting Congress will result in more of what we have now. We can palaver and debate forever. Today Congressmen from both sides sat down and came up with a first step. That's all they're claiming. Let's not rush into all the same tired old reasoning we've been using before we've even given it a chance.
Here's where we're at, like it or not: Americans are faced with a choice. Either we like the Second more than we like our children, or we like our children more than we like the Second. If we don't change, or if we keep butting heads so that we can't change, then we have our answer, don't we? We must accept that we as Americans like the Second enough to pay regular dues in the form of dead kids. That's what we're doing now, and it will continue, and all the handwringing and fucking thoughts and prayers in the world won't save a single kid when it happens the next time.
We must, absolutely must, think our way out of this box, start with a fresh sheet. If it doesn't work, at least we tried.
But we might just pull it off.
-
-
From the CNN article:
"What lawmakers left out
Expanded background checksNotably, the agreement doesn’t include a provision that would expand background checks for all firearm sales or transfers in the country. Currently, background checks are not required for gun sales and transfers by unlicensed and private sellers.
Democrats have long supported such a requirement, and last year the House passed gun legislation that would expand background checks on all commercial gun sales, marking the first congressional move on significant gun control since Democrats won the White House and the majority in both chambers of Congress.
Assault weapons ban
Also left out is a federal ban on military-style assault weapons, another measure Democrats have been pushing in recent years, citing mass shootings that have involved such weapons.
Higher minimum age of purchase
Additionally, the agreement doesn’t include a change to the age at which a person needs to be to purchase an assault-style weapon. Democrats, including West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, the chamber’s most conservative Democrat, have said the age to purchase assault weapons must be raised from 18 to 21.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What, exactly is "military-style assault weapons?" Wasn't that ban on scary-looking guns enacted in 1994 with zero effect on gun deaths?
I have no problem with many of the other provisions (and I say that as someone who owns zero firearms). But, as I alluded in another thread, pandering is easy, governing is hard.
@George-K said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
From the CNN article:
"What lawmakers left out
Expanded background checksNotably, the agreement doesn’t include a provision that would expand background checks for all firearm sales or transfers in the country. Currently, background checks are not required for gun sales and transfers by unlicensed and private sellers.
Democrats have long supported such a requirement, and last year the House passed gun legislation that would expand background checks on all commercial gun sales, marking the first congressional move on significant gun control since Democrats won the White House and the majority in both chambers of Congress.
Assault weapons ban
Also left out is a federal ban on military-style assault weapons, another measure Democrats have been pushing in recent years, citing mass shootings that have involved such weapons.
Higher minimum age of purchase
Additionally, the agreement doesn’t include a change to the age at which a person needs to be to purchase an assault-style weapon. Democrats, including West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, the chamber’s most conservative Democrat, have said the age to purchase assault weapons must be raised from 18 to 21.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What, exactly is "military-style assault weapons?" Wasn't that ban on scary-looking guns enacted in 1994 with zero effect on gun deaths?
I have no problem with many of the other provisions (and I say that as someone who owns zero firearms). But, as I alluded in another thread, pandering is easy, governing is hard.
You can't regulate individual-to-individual sales. It's impossible. You can enforce laws such as no felon having a firearm in his possession (if you catch him) or other laws.
-
@George-K said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
From the CNN article:
"What lawmakers left out
Expanded background checksNotably, the agreement doesn’t include a provision that would expand background checks for all firearm sales or transfers in the country. Currently, background checks are not required for gun sales and transfers by unlicensed and private sellers.
Democrats have long supported such a requirement, and last year the House passed gun legislation that would expand background checks on all commercial gun sales, marking the first congressional move on significant gun control since Democrats won the White House and the majority in both chambers of Congress.
Assault weapons ban
Also left out is a federal ban on military-style assault weapons, another measure Democrats have been pushing in recent years, citing mass shootings that have involved such weapons.
Higher minimum age of purchase
Additionally, the agreement doesn’t include a change to the age at which a person needs to be to purchase an assault-style weapon. Democrats, including West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, the chamber’s most conservative Democrat, have said the age to purchase assault weapons must be raised from 18 to 21.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What, exactly is "military-style assault weapons?" Wasn't that ban on scary-looking guns enacted in 1994 with zero effect on gun deaths?
I have no problem with many of the other provisions (and I say that as someone who owns zero firearms). But, as I alluded in another thread, pandering is easy, governing is hard.
You can't regulate individual-to-individual sales. It's impossible. You can enforce laws such as no felon having a firearm in his possession (if you catch him) or other laws.
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
You can't regulate individual-to-individual sales. It's impossible. You can enforce laws such as no felon having a firearm in his possession (if you catch him) or other laws.
Sure you can. It’s long past time for gun owners to be licensed. That solves ALOT of the background check problems. Instead of requiring the seller to run background checks, that’s handled by the state game and wildlife department. That way, if I’m selling you my .38 that I don’t need anymore, I don’t need to run a background check. I take a scan of your license and register the sale on the state site… Easier than privately selling a car…
The Brad
-
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
You can't regulate individual-to-individual sales. It's impossible. You can enforce laws such as no felon having a firearm in his possession (if you catch him) or other laws.
Sure you can. It’s long past time for gun owners to be licensed. That solves ALOT of the background check problems. Instead of requiring the seller to run background checks, that’s handled by the state game and wildlife department. That way, if I’m selling you my .38 that I don’t need anymore, I don’t need to run a background check. I take a scan of your license and register the sale on the state site… Easier than privately selling a car…
@LuFins-Dad said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
It’s long past time for gun owners to be licensed.
That sounds like infringement to me.
Arms are not a cars.
Arms are enshrined, they have a special place in our country. And they have served us well.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
It’s long past time for gun owners to be licensed.
That sounds like infringement to me.
Arms are not a cars.
Arms are enshrined, they have a special place in our country. And they have served us well.
-
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
You can't regulate individual-to-individual sales. It's impossible. You can enforce laws such as no felon having a firearm in his possession (if you catch him) or other laws.
Sure you can. It’s long past time for gun owners to be licensed. That solves ALOT of the background check problems. Instead of requiring the seller to run background checks, that’s handled by the state game and wildlife department. That way, if I’m selling you my .38 that I don’t need anymore, I don’t need to run a background check. I take a scan of your license and register the sale on the state site… Easier than privately selling a car…
@LuFins-Dad said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
You can't regulate individual-to-individual sales. It's impossible. You can enforce laws such as no felon having a firearm in his possession (if you catch him) or other laws.
Sure you can. It’s long past time for gun owners to be licensed. That solves ALOT of the background check problems. Instead of requiring the seller to run background checks, that’s handled by the state game and wildlife department. That way, if I’m selling you my .38 that I don’t need anymore, I don’t need to run a background check. I take a scan of your license and register the sale on the state site… Easier than privately selling a car…
Licensing is the first step to confiscation.
No go. Period.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
You can't regulate individual-to-individual sales. It's impossible. You can enforce laws such as no felon having a firearm in his possession (if you catch him) or other laws.
Sure you can. It’s long past time for gun owners to be licensed. That solves ALOT of the background check problems. Instead of requiring the seller to run background checks, that’s handled by the state game and wildlife department. That way, if I’m selling you my .38 that I don’t need anymore, I don’t need to run a background check. I take a scan of your license and register the sale on the state site… Easier than privately selling a car…
Licensing is the first step to confiscation.
No go. Period.
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@LuFins-Dad said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
You can't regulate individual-to-individual sales. It's impossible. You can enforce laws such as no felon having a firearm in his possession (if you catch him) or other laws.
Sure you can. It’s long past time for gun owners to be licensed. That solves ALOT of the background check problems. Instead of requiring the seller to run background checks, that’s handled by the state game and wildlife department. That way, if I’m selling you my .38 that I don’t need anymore, I don’t need to run a background check. I take a scan of your license and register the sale on the state site… Easier than privately selling a car…
Licensing is the first step to confiscation.
No go. Period.
Sorry. That doesn't seem to make sense.
-
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@LuFins-Dad said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
You can't regulate individual-to-individual sales. It's impossible. You can enforce laws such as no felon having a firearm in his possession (if you catch him) or other laws.
Sure you can. It’s long past time for gun owners to be licensed. That solves ALOT of the background check problems. Instead of requiring the seller to run background checks, that’s handled by the state game and wildlife department. That way, if I’m selling you my .38 that I don’t need anymore, I don’t need to run a background check. I take a scan of your license and register the sale on the state site… Easier than privately selling a car…
Licensing is the first step to confiscation.
No go. Period.
Sorry. That doesn't seem to make sense.
@taiwan_girl said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@LuFins-Dad said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
@Jolly said in US Senate Gun Legislation Agreement:
You can't regulate individual-to-individual sales. It's impossible. You can enforce laws such as no felon having a firearm in his possession (if you catch him) or other laws.
Sure you can. It’s long past time for gun owners to be licensed. That solves ALOT of the background check problems. Instead of requiring the seller to run background checks, that’s handled by the state game and wildlife department. That way, if I’m selling you my .38 that I don’t need anymore, I don’t need to run a background check. I take a scan of your license and register the sale on the state site… Easier than privately selling a car…
Licensing is the first step to confiscation.
No go. Period.
Sorry. That doesn't seem to make sense.
That's because you're a brainwashed left winger.
