Senators: Bipartisan deal reached on expanding gun background checks

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


Personally, I think the background checks should cover all sales, no matter how "inconvenient" it may be for those buying/selling a firearm. This private sale clause is nothing more than a loophole and I assure you that it will get stretched until it's big enough to walk through.

I can see it now: Guy goes to the gun show and wants to buy a gun off the record but the new law won't allow it.
The seller happens to be a private individual selling guns at the show who would like nothing better than to sell this man a gun. So, what do they do?

The seller simply informs the buyer that he can't sell him the gun (off the record) at the gun show but, if the buyer would like to come by the sellers home or hotel room after hours, they could work something out in a perfectly legal "private" sale. What a joke!

IMO, Half-assed legislation like this is the reason we keep spinning our wheels and getting nowhere. Same thing with Barbara Feinstein's attempt to name every assault rifle to be banned when all the manufacturer would have to do would be to create a new model that's not on the list. Any realistic ban should place the main focus on the weapons rate-of-fire, caliber/muzzle velocity of the round it fires and magazine capacity, NOT the name of the gun.

This is how we end up with a bunch of laws that accomplish nothing.

reply to post by Ghost375


because our "over reaction" is why we won.....we showed them we wouldn't stand for it and that gun control is political suicide
ps: most gun owners who have tactical concerns clean their guns but don't shine them(in combat shiny=bad) as a shiny reflective gun is kinda like humping it through the bush with a half full canteen...not advised

as to your socialism line i had not seen any one mention it in this thread(may have missed it) and cant really see how the political ideology has any thing to do with the topic of the thread other then under that ideology they would not be "my" guns they would be the "peoples" guns?

thank you for your reply and your opinion though

Oh, bipartisan eh? I guess that means we're all onboard, no further debate needed! Sign me up, oh yeah! Psh. Two-party load.

reply to post by Flatfish


and why do you think background checks are some magical device that some how keeps guns out of the hands of people who should not have them? seem to me that if a person wants a gun they will get one legal or otherwise either by stealing one getting one from the black market or in rarer cases just steal them from unattended police vehicles...if you own guns and do not want to take the risk/opportunity to sell a gun private party i have an easy solution don't do it if you don't like it but don't force other people to blindly follow your thought process

and its Dianne "Voldemort" Feinstein not Barbara Fnestine (were you thinking of Barbara boxer by chance?)

i will also point out that any pending legislation wont effect ownership of class 3 weapons (short barreled rifles/shotguns,fully automatic weapons or grenade/rocket launchers etc) so what would the point of trying to limit rate of fire or muzzle velocity....on muzzle velocity often its the slower heavier bullets that do more damage with the smaller faster rounds doing less damage(.22 vs .45acp for example). on rate of fire some people can empty a revolver quicker and more accurately then some one can fire a semi automatic weapon so i don't see that working or doing anything,why do you think our system needs to change?i will give you this the name of the gun should have no effect on what guns people should own but banning weapons for "scary" features or magazine capacities wont do anything either(and aint gonna happen as the new AWB and mag bans are DOA already) and as far as people getting around bans or supposed limitations its just like when CA banned the 50BMG people came out with a .416 and those are fine and dandy even in california,my point for this last part is it shows that gun laws wont do anything because where their is a will their is a way and why do we need new laws instead of just enforcing the laws we already have on the books now.....

i will agree that this legislation will do nothing but Biden said basically the same thing,but the fact that it wont change things much for gun owners makes me _javascript:icon('') in stead of _javascript:icon('') so i guess to each their own but thank you for your reply

reply to post by AkumaStreak

only bipartisan enough if one of the two guys trying to pass the law didnt have to stand next to the politician from ny when they presented it so they are even divided on this matter too

but i do agree bi-partisan rarely ends up in anything good thank you for your reply

www.huffingtonpost.com... one more link and something i think we had all missed(we will still have to wait to see the whole law)
but i found this very interesting

The measure would also make it easier for people with concealed-carry permits in one state to transport their weapons through another state where they would otherwise be breaking the law, such as New York. Toomey and Manchin said it was a step toward full concealed-carry reciprocity across the country, which they agreed to drop for now. "I hope we get there," said Toomey.

so hey if it gets us 50 state reciprocity for CCW permits it might be a fringe benefit to this law that really does nothing at all

Originally posted by Ghost375
Why don't you guys just admit you overreacted?
They aren't coming for you guns so they can install socialism.

Or keep sitting in your bunker polishing your guns, saying "my precious, we'll be ready when they come."

edit on 10-4-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

You don't seem to get it...

There are plenty of politicians that would gladly pass a bill placing heavy restrictions on guns. The reason it's difficult for them is precisely because of people who are worried about their guns getting taken. They get the word out, take action, that's what's slowing the progress of the anti-gun nutters.

If everyone just stopped caring, THEN they WOULD take the guns. Fact.

Do you not remember the assault weapons ban? It was illegal to own many, many weapons that are currently sold by the millions. Many politicians want the AWB back, why would you say nobody is coming for a guns, when it's obvious that they are trying their best to accomplish just that?

Pure ignorance... ATS is rife with it these days.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas

 

Personally, I think the background checks should cover all sales, no matter how "inconvenient" it may be for those buying/selling a firearm. This private sale clause is nothing more than a loophole and I assure you that it will get stretched until it's big enough to walk through.

I can see it now: Guy goes to the gun show and wants to buy a gun off the record but the new law won't allow it.
The seller happens to be a private individual selling guns at the show who would like nothing better than to sell this man a gun. So, what do they do?

The seller simply informs the buyer that he can't sell him the gun (off the record) at the gun show but, if the buyer would like to come by the sellers home or hotel room after hours, they could work something out in a perfectly legal "private" sale. What a joke!

IMO, Half-assed legislation like this is the reason we keep spinning our wheels and getting nowhere. Same thing with Barbara Feinstein's attempt to name every assault rifle to be banned when all the manufacturer would have to do would be to create a new model that's not on the list. Any realistic ban should place the main focus on the weapons rate-of-fire, caliber/muzzle velocity of the round it fires and magazine capacity, NOT the name of the gun.

This is how we end up with a bunch of laws that accomplish nothing.

So... you want restrictions on the power of various firearms? Do you realize that hunting rifles, one of the few guns NOT hated by the anti-gun nutters, are one of the most powerful firearms civilians can buy?

All the guns that these people hate, short shotguns, short "assault" rifles, pistols, etc are weak sauce compared to the stuff they totally ignore.

By restricting muzzle velocity people would be left with sawed off shotguns, pistols, etc All the things anti-gun nutters currently hate.

What's the point of magazine restrictions? If a guy has 3 ten round magazines, you really think it will stop him from killing people if he has to make a few mag-changes? It takes but a few seconds, mag restrictions accomplish absolutely nothing, just like all the other ridiculous rules and laws proposed by anti-gun "people"

Originally posted by James1982
So... you want restrictions on the power of various firearms? Do you realize that hunting rifles, one of the few guns NOT hated by the anti-gun nutters, are one of the most powerful firearms civilians can buy?

All the guns that these people hate, short shotguns, short "assault" rifles, pistols, etc are weak sauce compared to the stuff they totally ignore.

The hunting rifles will be next. The gun-grabbing tyrants have an insatiable appetite and wont ever stop.

Today it's pea shooting .223's with their scary black furniture. Tomorrow it's the "high-powered sniper rifles" that can shoot over miles.

Anyone coming out for gun-control using words like "compromise" and "common sense" is just blowing smoke. They all want total and complete banning and confiscation. Period. Every stupid "compromise" and "common-sense" measure is a win for them.

also notice how absolutely nothing is being brought up on the real issue the mental health issue(which is near and dear to me as i have bi polar and own my guns legally as I have not been ruled to be adjudicated as a mentally defective ) seems they are determined to do absolutely nothing that would actually help things like looking into SSRI's roles in an alarming amount of these "mass shootings"

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas




Because their puppet masters in Big Pharma are afraid it will hurt profits by pointing out the root cause, which is mental illness, treated by drugs that magnify the problem as often as help.

This is BS!

www.foxnews.com...

Controversial gun legislation cleared a key Senate hurdle Thursday, as lawmakers voted 68-31 to start debate on the package which includes expanded background checks and new penalties for gun traffickin Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Expanded background checks did not nor will it stop the next Lanza.

They really don't care.

reply to post by DAVID64


yeah the meds i used to take as a child used to screw me up and make me depressed(they were frigging anti depressants so about ten years i weaned my self off them and manage my illness by exercising sleeping well and eating well and i feel better then i ever have! they do more damage then they solve for some but for others they are crucial.thank you for your well thought out reply and i thought you made an amazing point

reply to post by James1982


thank you for doing a much better job at explaining the point i was trying to make people are waaay to focused on the weapons and "scary features" not the people Behind them i swear its like some people have no knowledge of how guns and gun transactions really work and respond out of fear and misunderstanding of the topic

thank you very much for your reply

jhpolitics.com... if any one wanted to know which republicans voted for this measure so we can remember who to remove from office come next election cycle

jhpolitics.com...

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Flatfish

 

and why do you think background checks are some magical device that some how keeps guns out of the hands of people who should not have them? seem to me that if a person wants a gun they will get one legal or otherwise either by stealing one getting one from the black market or in rarer cases just steal them from unattended police vehicles...if you own guns and do not want to take the risk/opportunity to sell a gun private party i have an easy solution don't do it if you don't like it but don't force other people to blindly follow your thought process

I don't believe that they are magical devices, nor do I believe that they will prevent all criminals from getting guns. However, if background checks stop even one nut job from getting a gun and committing mass murder, it will be worth the inconvenience. A universal system for background checks is just one step we can take that may help prevent another massacre but it has to be real and it can't be full of loopholes.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
and its Dianne "Voldemort" Feinstein not Barbara Fnestine (were you thinking of Barbara boxer by chance?)

Yeah, I messed up. I meant to say Dianne Feinstein. While I do support her intent, I do not support the method.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
i will also point out that any pending legislation wont effect ownership of class 3 weapons (short barreled rifles/shotguns,fully automatic weapons or grenade/rocket launchers etc) so what would the point of trying to limit rate of fire or muzzle velocity....on muzzle velocity often its the slower heavier bullets that do more damage with the smaller faster rounds doing less damage(.22 vs .45acp for example). on rate of fire some people can empty a revolver quicker and more accurately then some one can fire a semi automatic weapon so i don't see that working or doing anything,why do you think our system needs to change?i will give you this the name of the gun should have no effect on what guns people should own but banning weapons for "scary" features or magazine capacities wont do anything either(and aint gonna happen as the new AWB and mag bans are DOA already) and as far as people getting around bans or supposed limitations its just like when CA banned the 50BMG people came out with a .416 and those are fine and dandy even in california,my point for this last part is it shows that gun laws wont do anything because where their is a will their is a way and why do we need new laws instead of just enforcing the laws we already have on the books now.....

i will agree that this legislation will do nothing but Biden said basically the same thing,but the fact that it wont change things much for gun owners makes me _javascript:icon('

') in stead of _javascript:icon('

') so i guess to each their own but thank you for your reply

I do own guns and I do realize that large caliber bullets at slower muzzle velocities can be much more lethal than small rounds at high velocities. That's why I said that all these factors should be taken into consideration when we're constructing assault weapon bans and/or regulations. In other words, I'm saying that we should consider the lethality of the rounds fired as opposed to naming specific weapons to be banned or regulated. The more lethal the round, the slower the rate of fire that should be allowed for that weapon and the same should be true for magazine capacity.

reply to post by Flatfish


ah thank you for that clarification and it did help me understand your point a bit better

on rate of fire i have a few videos to show you
www.youtube.com... this guy is doing that with a 6 shot revolver

www.youtube.com... here is 5 targets accurately hit with a singel action revolver in under 1 second keep in mind this one was accurate shots not just firing the gun

www.youtube.com... 12 shots in under 3 second incuding a reload

now tell me again how limiting the rate of fire will effect anything? as i have said earlier its not the gun its the person using it and for the record i would not be capable of such a feat as the videos have posted but i do know a few trick shooters

www.youtube.com... tis guy does it with a semi auto 12 guage but still the point is there(this is a hunting weapon btw not an "assault weapon")

www.youtube.com... and just to drive the point home more clearly most of these weapons were designed in the mid to late 1800s and look what he can do with them do you not see the futility of trying to ban weapons by features,when they were made,or by rate of fire will not effect anything
20 seconds
i mean look at this guy he went from not even having his gun out to hitting 6 targets with his revolver then holstering it then grabbing a rifle firing an hitting 10 targets with a lever action gun(which would not be subject to any proposed ban) in just 7 seconds!!! then he proceeds to load a shotgun designed in the 1800s only in te breach and fire off 5ish rounds in another 7 seconds (he did not even have rounds in the mag tube so magazine size limit would not effect him either but he did miss one target) then pulling another 6 shooter and hitting all 6 targets again all in a grand total of 20 seconds ill let that sink in for a minute 12 shots from a revolver of a design older then our great grandparents,5-6 shotgun blasts out of a PUMP action shot gun that was not even loaded in the mag tube and 10-11ish shots from a lever action rifle(not even semi automatic rifle either) all faster then i could empty a 30 round mag from my semi automatic AK47

the only way you could restrict such things as these people are capable of is to demand that people aren't allowed to get well trained with their weapons.......do you think the liberal media will demand that people get less training if they are gonn have a gun or more?

So if I understand this legislation correctly, the required background check would be on sales of firearms if the sale is the result of some form of advertisement?

So, if someone advertises the sale of the owners manual for a firearm, and meets the buyer, makes the sale (there's no background check needed to buy that manual, it's just a book). Then after the sale, the manual buyer inquires of the firearm that goes with the manual is also for sale, just in case, and talks the seller into it, is that still covered? The advertisement was not for the firearm after-all, it's just the manual. The firearm purchase occurred after the sale of a book, following a friendly conversation. Is that considered a friend-to-friend purchase that would not require a background check?

See, this legislature is so easily bypassed legally, that it is really irrelevant, adds more cost to the taxpayer (legal fees, law books, police education, etc....). Yet provides no real difference in curbing the sales at all.

reply to post by Krakatoa


yeah the general consensus is its just feel good measures to make it look like they are doing something when in fact not much if anything is changing but as some one said on the first page we have to wait tell we see the bil in written form

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


Yeah and you might also take note of the fact that those people are professionals and world record holders at what they do. Hardly a fair argument.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas

 

Yeah and you might also take note of the fact that those people are professionals and world record holders at what they do. Hardly a fair argument.

I guess his point just went over your head? It is relevant. I see it. Given inferior equipment, someone trained can be as (or more) efficient than an untrained person with better equipment. So, banning better equipment will not stop a determined person willing to train themselves to use the equipment at hand effectively.