DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus House Passes Universal Background Checks Bill

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/house-passes-universal-background-checks-204910474.html

WASHINGTON ― With Democrats back in control, the House passed the most significant piece of gun control legislation in more than two decades Wednesday.

By a vote of 240-190, the House approved a bill that would require background checks on all gun sales in the United States. Currently, only licensed firearm dealers have to perform background checks, and unlicensed dealers ― such as those at gun shows ― can sell a gun without going through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Eight Republicans joined all but two Democrats in support of the bill, and the measure will now go to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has not committed to bringing the bill up for a vote, and it likely doesn’t have the 60 senators it needs to make it to a final vote.

But the bill passing the House Wednesday marks a significant turn in its own right. The last gun control measure to pass the House was in 1994, the sweeping Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that banned a number of semi-automatic weapons. And though Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass other gun control measures when Republicans controlled the House ― Democrats actually first introduced the legislation as a response to an attack on former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) ― they were unable to get up-or-down votes on a bill in recent years.

But support in Congress has been mounting for stricter gun laws. While the new Democratic majority in the House made passage of the background checks bill possible, the eight Republicans who supported the bill Wednesday show how the gun issue isn’t falling as neatly along partisan lines.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) actually co-sponsored the background checks bill with Democrat Mike Thompson of California, and public support for universal background checks has been growing with each mass shooting. A Quinnipiac poll conducted at the end of 2017 showed that 97 percent of respondents supported background checks for all gun buyers.

But Republicans still found ways to oppose the bill, saying the legislation wouldn’t do much to address gun violence and was a broadside against Second Amendment rights.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.), a former police officer, recounted a story Wednesday about his getting shot in the head while off-duty, and he spoke against the bill because he wanted to protect gun owner rights and said there were better ways to address gun violence.

Another shooting victim, Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), spoke in opposition Wednesday because of new regulations preventing someone from lending a gun to a friend. He said the provisions on lending a gun to a hunting partner were so confusing that you might have to also bring your attorney on the hunt.

And another Republican ― Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) ― said this legislation wouldn’t prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns. “Criminals are going to do what they already do ― make illegal transfers of firearms,” Byrne said. But, he charged, it would prevent, say, someone from letting their cousin borrow their gun. (The legislation actually includes exemptions on background checks for family members and “transfers for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense.”)

Republicans were also successful in getting Democrats to adopt a motion to recommit that would notify the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency when immigrants without legal status attempt to purchase a gun. That motion was adopted 220-209, with 26 Democrats supporting the GOP motion. The language was quickly added and the vote on the underlying bill still proceeded as scheduled.

While this first piece of gun legislation wouldn’t affect a significant number of firearm sales, Democrats looked at this bill as long-awaited action after so many mass shootings and moments of silence.

As Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on the floor Wednesday, “The moments of silence have not worked.”

And while Democrats readily admitted more action would be needed, Democrats lauded the legislation as something that would break the normal pattern in Congress.

“This is not a moment of silence,” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) said. “This is not a sit-in.”

That sit-in, which came in response to the Orlando night club shooting in 2016, lasted for 11 hours, with Democrats seizing the floor to try and force action on gun control.

But there was no action, and gun control fell by the wayside.

One of the leaders of that sit-in, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), praised the legislation as overdue action. “We feel your pain,” Lewis said. “We heard your cries. And today we are going to answer. Today. Now.”

________________

great job, Dems! unfortunately it might not even be brought to a vote in the senate. the GOP are a bunch of spineless morons, currently in "every man for himself" mode right now.

NRA
‏Verified account @NRA

.@Jim_Jordan is back to reiterate how dangerous #HR8 and #HR1112 really are. "Universal" background checks lead to a national registry, which leads to confiscation – plain and simple. We must fight back and contact our lawmakers. → http://bit.ly/OpposeGunControl … #2A

Hey fish, that's a slippery slope logical fallacy.

People forget it's been a recent Democrat wet dream to get a national registry. The point of this is to eventually price guns out of the hands of most citizens. Once they have the registry, they can make you reregister at a fee, and then keep increasing fees until guns are unaffordable.

Blah blah blah if you want to purchase a gun, go through a background check. Don’t care if it’s a store, gun show, or your sisters brother in law’s aunt’s husband you’re purchasing it from.

How bout we just say NO!

This BS is DOA in the Senate.

yep, because republicans are perfectly fine with mass killings and illegal gun sales.

NO!

yes

I do if it's a store sale. Usually order mine as I'm a licensed dealer. There's absolutely zero way to control private sales. I sold firearms for years in store and as a licensed dealer. They can't track private sales. You need a registered number to call NICS. Any old citizen can't call in a NICS check on another at random no more than I can withdraw money from your bank account.

This is hot air, pound their chests and claim some sort of victory charade. Won't pass anyway.

there's ways, but regardless, this should be passed. its the first step.

I'm for the NICS check. (although not Constitutional)It's actually pretty solid. I've had them turn down many, many applications and I've refused sales in store and private because I suspected a straw sale in the making and have damn near come to blows because I flat out refused to sell to someone because they were drunk, high or looked deranged!

Not willing to step onto any more of a slippery slope than where we're at.

How can this happen under fascism? Very confusing, please help.

And that's exactly why people will fight it. Because they know it will never be enough to satisfy the anti-gun people. Like you said, it's only the first step. The problem is once you open that door, what will be the last step?

i dunno. but by that same logic, thats why there were republicans against the criminal justice reform bill. it was the first step, with more to do, but people are fighting it.

people will fight against it no matter what. but the population is growing increasingly tired of mass shootings and nothing being done past "thoughts and prayers".

i support this bill for universal background checks. thats all this bill covers.

and im not saying this about you specifically, but when people argue against something as simple as universal background checks, it makes me seriously wonder if they are arguing against it because THEY know if they had to go through one, they wouldn't pass it.

because if you're a law abiding citizen, this doesn't affect you whatsoever.

I don't think the actual fight is against background checks. It's that gun owners know that what you said above is the actual truth. That those who are against guns consider it only to be "the first step". That once they get this, it will only be the tip of the iceberg.

When you said "it's the first step", you said what most anti gun people really mean. Often times it's the Freudian slip that gives one's true intentions away.

i understand. but just because this is the first step doesn't equate to the other measures taken will be taking their rights away.

How many more steps after that do you think can be taken without the right to bear arms being infringed on?

Atleast two or 3.

The House passes gas too and this means about as much.

Good luck with that.

Slippery Slope Logical Fallacies: The Thread

So swish calls it "the first step" and you call it a fallacy?

Yup.

Just like abortions. While legal, the abortionists told us it was just for kids that wouldn't be 'viable'. Then it became "women's choice, up until a certain number of weeks', then it became 'partial birth abortion', and now we're seeing that some states are/are attempting to allow abortion even AFTER birth.

These slippery slopes get slipperier and slipperier, don't they?

Infanticide, the artist formerly known as Murder.

This isn't even specific to this issue but you shouldn't vote against something that makes sense out of fear that in the future it could lead to something that doesn't make sense. You have to trust that if a good law ends up being taken too far that people will stop it.

Yes, I fully understand that history is full of examples where that didn't happen.

I think that if you look at what I was responding to it would help clear things up. Swish plainly said that this is "the first step". Which is exactly what the argument from gun owners is. So if this is the first step, what are the other steps?

I read much of the thread and I don't know 100% where Swish falls on gun control. I know there are dems who want some moderate steps, I know there are dems who really want full confiscation, and everything in between.

My point is, does this bill, as presented, make sense? Do you think it will do any good at reducing gun violence? If yes, then it should be supported... if no, then fight it... but don't fight it because Step 3 at some arbitrary date in the future might go too far.

So-called universal background checks will never be universal because criminals do not comply with the law.

I don't disagree with your point. I was simply pointing out why people oppose such things. When you go around saying things like "this is step one" it helps bolster the point many gun owners are making.

Then why have laws at all?

At least be honest and call them Laws for the Law Abiding Bills.

Universal my arse.

Anything that has the word universe in it must be offensive to an isolationist.

Another statement that applies to all laws..

And I can't say this for certain, but I would imagine that the word "Universal" was added because there are already SOME background check requirements in place... they wanted to differentiate...

Well people still drive drunk, rape, sell drugs, rape etc. Does that mean we should not have laws against these things?

Is there some underlying reason you got rape in there twice?

I agree, those laws only apply to the Law Abiding also.

I am trying to think of a smart ass answer but have to tread lightly as to not step over comedic lines

"Universal" was added as Democrats are so full of themselves it applies to Law Abiding Aliens also.

I think your fundamental lack of being able to comprehend English may be a big part of the problem.