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

he only speaks American.

Murican

First step to what?

having you fill up bucket of tears.

I'm looking for an actual answer not a moronic one but thanks.

read the thread.

I keep hearing it's "the first step", and "it's a start". Towards what? And people wonder why there's concern?

the House approved a bill that would require background checks on all gun sales in the United States.

You buy a gun, any gun, you have a background check.

The next step is for the government to be able to pull up those checks and they will know anyone in a given area that has a gun.

Confiscation made easy for the future.

Why is it easy?

If somebody wanted to confiscate all guns tomorrow, I imagine it would go like this.

1. Provide a place for people to voluntarily turn in their guns.
2. Go door to door searching houses to take any and all guns, legal and illegal, that were not turned in.

After this bill passed, if somebody wanted to confiscate all guns, I imagine it would go like this.

1. Provide a place for people to voluntarily turn in ther guns.
2. Go door to door searching houses of people with legal guns that were not turn int.
3. Go door to door searching houses for any and all guns, legal and illegal, that were not turned in.

Doesn't really seem all that much easier.. in fact it kind of seems pretty much the same.

What I'm sure gives some people comfort is that they've already purchased the guns they want from private citizens and at gun shows legally, without paperwork.

If they haven't, they should, and quickly.

I like parts of the bill, but by allowing stores to deny gun sales if the FBI doesn't reach back to them in 10 days is a extremely ludicrous. We cannot let government, especially a corrupt agency, play beuracratic games with the people.

J\C

I wonder if the gun laws will apply to the crazies on the lefts beloved sanctuary cities....just saying

I've been watching what's going on in this country. It's obvious that liberals need guns too. Maybe even more than other people.

Especially in those dangerous Santuary cities or Chicago

It's a good thing Jussie Smollett doesn't carry a gun, he might have accidentally shot one of his employees.

I think it would be easier just to go through every American's social media accounts and see which guns they brag about owning. For such a large group of people who own guns to protect against the government, they are more than happy to post their gun porn on the internet.

I know one thing, if I had to live in Chicago I'd damned sure be carrying a gun. I did a couple of jobs there and in Joliet and I always packed a gun with me. There's a fine line between bravery and stupidity. Hell, Smollet is as stupid as some Trump supporters I've met.

You can't fix stupid.

The fact you can't tell the difference between guns and porn sounds like a personal issue.

Nah it's a popular turn of phrase. I think I first heard it in 2006.

He's right.. people use "porn" to follow up anything that gets folks really excited..

there is, of course, sexual porn.. there is gun porn... car porn...

Using the term porn to get people excited about an issue doesn't make the issue porn.

You've never heard the term gun porn before?

I'm partial to "Ammosexuals."

Oh I've heard the term. But as with many things in society today, it's just buzz term used to shine a negative connotation to gun ownership.

You can also use examples like the radical left or main stream media. Each side of any issues makes up negative buzz phrases and words to accentuate their side of a debate.

That doesn't make it accurate or viable.

Except in the second example you've already made millions of people automatically a felon for not having disclosed or turned their guns in. Millions of people who prior to the law were considered law abiding citizens.

There's only 1 of 2 things going on with people advocating fr more gun control:

1) They have an ulterior motive such as full confiscation in mind

or 2) They haven't fully thought out the issue and are being used as useful idiots.

Here's why I say this. When any law is suggested that adds restrictions to gun ownership, far and away the 2 BIGGEST points of contention in the pushback are:

1) The law won't prevent what it claims it will prevent and
2) The law is open ended and will lead to further restrictions.

Now, what's interesting for #1 is that for all the times someone has made the claim that a law won't prevent what it's supporters claim it will, I've never seen or heard someone come back with "Well, actually it can and will... here's how it will". It is never demonstrated in wither fact or even theory how it is supposed to work.

Now, to address the #2 complaint of it leading to a slippery slope, why is it that these laws NEVER have provisions built in to them to prevent those slopes from happening? Most of the people claiming slippery slope can articulate the progression. They can articulate specific concerns. So there's no excuse for a law to be open ended when it doesn't need to be.

Instead DC what we get are laws fashioned and proposed in a knee jerk fashion (at best) that amount to nothing more than "feel good" laws in practice on par with texting and driving laws.

Don't forget DC, the gov't by it's very nature relies on precedent. Whenever we give the gov't an inch, it will try to expand that legal concept to as many areas and as far as it can take it.

When you buy a gun today at a regular shop a background check is done already. This will do absolutely nothing in terms of effectiveness. I support background checks by the way, I just don't think this will have much impact. If the law did get passed it would make some feel like they scored a fake political victory that doesn't actually address the root of the problem.

In addition criminals don't care about background checks. If you want to curb gun violence look at why people commit actions with guns in the first place. I think the problem boils down to a few different points:

1. Mental health issues.
2. Poor local school systems.
3. Poor parenting and family. Having children out of wedlock.
4. No father figure or good example of how a person should behave properly in society.

All of those build up to circumstances where the person might be trapped, suicidal, that they have limited ways to make a living, that they can't get a job, that they must resort to crime instead. Besides mental problems, why would a person ever do bad things if they had a mix of good 1 thru 4's? Provide solutions or improvements to those points above and I believe you would see less gun violence. None of these issues will ever be tackled though because they are complex problems and congress doesn't know what to do about them. They want a little band aid law pass to say, "HEY! Our political party did something!"

Just because someone committed a crime with a gun, as a law abiding citizen its not my fault. Not really my problem either. Its an issue but I strongly disagree that regular folks need to be somehow penalized because certain people do harm to others. This is mainly any steps after background checks. Limit of ammo, certain types of guns, capacity, are all strongly illegal in my mind.

Just another misguided law.

the majority of guns used in crimes are stolen or gotten though illegal means and black market arms sales.

Yet, lets pass more legislation to hinder law abiding citizens. Invading their privacy and forcing them into a background check that in some cases could be violating their rights.

quite possibly the dumbest meme posted on this board.

...almost as dumb as the gun control crowd it's making fun of.

nah, definitely the dumbest thing posted.

That is exactly what gun control does. It takes guns away from law abiding citizens. Criminals break laws that is what they do. So owning an unlawful gun is no problem for a criminal.

Only criminals worry about background checks. Maybe you’re just a criminal. Law abiding citizens don’t have to worry about failing a background check.

Criminals don't worry about background checks, they don't use them.

Because they buy weapons from private dealers who aren't obligated to run background checks.

Or they steal them.

Or given, gifted or sold to by irresponsible non law abiding gun owners. Only criminals wouldn’t want this.

Non law abiding gun owners, i.e., criminals. We've come full circle.

Exactly, only criminals and irresponsible gun owners wouldn’t want this.

I certainly agree and it's the exact same argument against marijuana laws.