Democrats currently holding Filibuster to take away your gun rights

a reply to: Gryphon66

Polling and surveys sample 2000 people using controlled leading questions.

Keep pitchin'.....

a reply to: macman

If they do, then why go out and purchase during a time of reign named 0bama. Why not wait for the great new laws he and other Progressives want?

That makes no sense.

Not everyone's approach to gun regulations/restrictions, or their desire to purchase/carry, is tied to their political ideology or agenda.

But we do see that when it comes to many of the "shall not be infringed" crowd. It's pathetic.

Like I've said before, it is those people that are a greater threat to our right than any progressive because they put politics before rights.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

Polling and surveys sample 2000 people using controlled leading questions.

Keep pitchin'.....

Where's your "hard numbers" for those who agree/disagree with background checks?

Keep missin' .....

Why would anyone be against background checks per se? Seems like a very sensible thing to do.
I think the only issue is the transparency over what constitutes a reason to refuse to sell based on the check.

All the reasons should be clearly laid out and any list one could appear on that disqualifies ownership should have transparent rules for inclusion and a proper route to challenge.

Have all the criteria been properly laid out, or are the people proposing checks just asking for laws based on an opaque set of rules. For example how does one get on the no fly list? What are the specific reasons? How is one notified? How does one challenge?

Can someone post the specific rules being proposed that would disqualify a person from gun ownership - if there are any?
If not, then clearly it is correct to reject any bill brought to the floor because it would effectively be a law that states the govt can take away your right to bear arms without saying why.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Why would anyone be against background checks per se? Seems like a very sensible thing to do.
I think the only issue is the transparency over what constitutes a reason to refuse to sell based on the check.

All the reasons should be clearly laid out and any list one could appear on that disqualifies ownership should have transparent rules for inclusion and a proper route to challenge.

Have all the criteria been properly laid out, or are the people proposing checks just asking for laws based on an opaque set of rules. For example how does one get on the no fly list? What are the specific reasons? How is one notified? How does one challenge?

Can someone post the specific rules being proposed that would disqualify a person from gun ownership - if there are any?
If not, then clearly it is correct to reject any bill brought to the floor because it would effectively be a law that states the govt can take away your right to bear arms without saying why.

Laws vary according to State, but in general, for those States that have chosen to utilize the current FBI system for background checks ... Identify Prohibited Persons - ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) Website

If you want to understand better how the FBI Background Check system works (only used by 30 US States): FBI - National Instant Criminal Background Check System

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

Polling and surveys sample 2000 people using controlled leading questions.

Keep pitchin'.....

Agreed..a poll is only as good as the question. But face it. A majority of Americans do not think like you. A majority of Americans want expanded background sense and common sense approaches to keep guns out of hands of criminals, mentally ill, and terrorists. Even those crying about 2nd amendment rights should be able to agree that criminals, mentally ill, and terrorists should not have access to guns. Please dispute that claim if you don't agree. So if agreed, now how can we make it happen? It won't happen with congress voting against American opinion to keep their campaign coffers full. It won't work with 24/7 access to congressmen by gun manufacturers and organizations like the NRA when the constituents have little access. The NRA threatened congress with losing their seats if they don't vote against the 4 bills. Maybe the people should vote them out for not voting for bills a majority of Americans supported.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth
Why would anyone be against background checks per se? Seems like a very sensible thing to do.
I think the only issue is the transparency over what constitutes a reason to refuse to sell based on the check.

All the reasons should be clearly laid out and any list one could appear on that disqualifies ownership should have transparent rules for inclusion and a proper route to challenge.

Have all the criteria been properly laid out, or are the people proposing checks just asking for laws based on an opaque set of rules. For example how does one get on the no fly list? What are the specific reasons? How is one notified? How does one challenge?

Can someone post the specific rules being proposed that would disqualify a person from gun ownership - if there are any?
If not, then clearly it is correct to reject any bill brought to the floor because it would effectively be a law that states the govt can take away your right to bear arms without saying why.

Laws vary according to State, but in general, for those States that have chosen to utilize the current FBI system for background checks ... Identify Prohibited Persons - ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) Website

If you want to understand better how the FBI Background Check system works (only used by 30 US States): FBI - National Instant Criminal Background Check System

Thanks - These all seem reasonable to me.... but I thought that the debate was about new law, for instance the no fly list, terror watch lists, etc.. ?
Are there a clear set of rules (without scope for just putting any name one wants on it) for being added to the no fly list?

Here is a Huffpost article that seems to suggest that these govt lists can add people based on mere suspicion or hearsay. That seems like an unreasonable criteria for removing someones 2nd amendment rights.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I think the onus should be on those that want to impose new restrictions to tighten up the criteria for these watch lists.

a reply to: UKTruth

There was a vote to enforce national background checks (expanding the voluntary system noted above to compulsory status for all 50 states.)

There's some conflation going on. There's a Terrorism Watch List of those suspected of terrorism or linked to terrorism. This list is then utilized to generate multiple Federal lists (one of which is the "no fly" list) that are compiled in various ways. Of course, opponents claim that anyone can be put on these lists at any time for any reason, which is simply not true. FBI - TSC "Protecting Privacy and Civil Liberties":

The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) is dedicated to ensuring activities are conducted in a manner consistent with protecting privacy and civil liberties. Generally, individuals are included in the Terrorist Screening Database when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is a known or suspected terrorist. Individuals must not be watchlisted based solely on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, or First Amendment-protected activities such as free speech, the exercise or religion, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

The TSC regularly conducts comprehensive and case-specific quality assurance reviews of its data to ensure the U.S. government’s substantive criteria for watchlisting are met and to ensure the records maintained in the Terrorist Screening Database are current, accurate, and thorough. The TSC also participates in redress procedures established by agencies that perform terrorist screening.

There are also well-established Redress Procedures when a member of the American public feels like they have been denied boarding onto a plane, issuance of Visa, etc.:

The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) works with the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies on a daily basis to resolve complaints from individuals experiencing repeated screening delays or difficulties that may be related to the consolidated terrorist watchlist. Because individuals could experience problems during screening for any number of reasons, not just because of the terrorist watchlist, they should contact the agency conducting the screening process in question.

Because the contents of the consolidated terrorist watchlist are derived from classified and sensitive law enforcement and intelligence information, the TSC cannot confirm or deny whether an individual is on the watchlist. The watchlist remains an effective tool in the government’s counterterrorism efforts because its contents are not disclosed. The nondisclosure of the watchlist information protects the government’s operational counterterrorism and intelligence collection objectives, as well as the personal safety of those involved in counterterrorism investigations.

Obviously, not just in the occasion of preventing those who are on the Watchlist from purchasing firearms, but in general, the process of redress needs to be accelerated, however, as the FBI points out, presence on that list does involve matters of national security so there needs to be some reasonable balance established.

The fundamental idea which has been pushed since the 1970s by the NRA is that there can be absolutely ZERO government restriction on any aspect of firearm purchase and/or carry, due to the Second Amendment phrase "shall not be infringed."

Subsequent judicial interpretations over the years, particularly in DC v. Heller, have made it clear that there are some reasonable legal limitations and controls on the "right to bear arms" (for example, not allowing violent felons or the mentally ill/disabled to purchase weapons, concealed carry, carry into certain public spaces) but of course these limitations, any limitations, are usually vociferously denied and challenged by gun carry advocates.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That's useful thank you.
What do you think are the driving forces behind the rejection of compulsory background checks?

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's useful thank you.
What do you think are the driving forces behind the rejection of compulsory background checks?

The puppet masters are pulling our strings and making us dance.

Now, on a little less vague and ominous note, the forces that drive the narrative behind Right/Left, Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal drives the populace from one "irresolvable issue" to another and thereby keeps us not only in a state of being anxious and uneasy, but socially pliable.

a reply to: SudoNim

LOL, I mean you literally are insane if you honestly believe that protecting your family with firearms puts them in greater danger than HOPING that by letting your wife, children get raped, giving them your money and hard earned belongings etc, that they MIGHT not decide to blow you away anyways, so there aren't any witnesses.

You think that a trained military intelligence operative is actually putting his family in more danger by utilizing a firearm that he's trained to do, experienced at doing, and fully capable of doing is putting them at greater risk than doing the above... That is one of the most asinine positions I've EVER seen.

Jaden

a reply to: ScoobyWho

The problem isn't wanting to keep guns out of the hands of those people, the problem is how do you determine WHO those people are. A govt. watch list without due process is the absolute antithesis to our form of govt. and our rights as citizens.

We've got changes to the DSM in the last twenty years at the whim of a concensus of deranged pseudoscientists that manipulate data to suit an agenda, and a govt' that has proven itself to be corrupt and against liberty loving democratic Republic supporting peoples.

So how do you determine who should or shouldn't be able to exercise their fundamental rights to life (the defending there of) liberty (freedom of travel, commerce and to be secure in their persons) and the pursuit of happpiness (being able to avoid by any means necessary being raped, murdered, brutalized and robbed, or their family of the same)???

How?

Jaden

a reply to: macman

If the polls really said and mean what he wants them to, there wouldn't be a question about it because they'd have the 2.3rds of congress and the 3/4ths of the states they needed to change the reality...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: macman

If the polls really said and mean what he wants them to, there wouldn't be a question about it because they'd have the 2.3rds of congress and the 3/4ths of the states they needed to change the reality...

Jaden

November is coming.

To nobody in particular:

www.youtube.com...=share

This is a legal weapon, but it's not an "assault rifle."
It's probably a great mod for hunting, or home protection, right?
Slips through the loopholes, and is everyone's 'right' to have.
Isn't it lucky the guy at the Orlando nightclub didn't have one of these legal firearms?

But let's not dwell on technical stuff, eh.(because I can sense you rocking in your seat in apoplexy about how that magazine etc. etc. or that trigger isn't....etc. etc. or that it's any other techy gunsplainer thing. That's not the point, and you know it. You are about to discount anything I say because I couldn't recognize the RGH6553XI-Spling fitting wasn't prigged properly, and had the wrong sprocket weld....or something equally daft).

You are a great marksman; skilled in combat situations, trained in stress conditions, and never miss. You know what to do when the situation arises, and your right to carry a gun should not be questioned, right?
Should we question the guy three rows behind you who recently got his first gun (as is his right), hasn't spent too much time at the range, and is a bit nervous all the time? So when the sh** hits the fan, and he hears shots, looks up and sees you with a weapon in your hands, let's hope HE knows what to do. Hopefully he won't just let off a few rounds at you in haste, eh?
You aren't the problem. He is.
He outnumbers you twenty to one. There's another just like that three rows behind him.
His right to have a firearm is more important than my right to feel safe around people with guns?
None of you appear to feel safe either. You must be really scared of your fellow humans. Fellow Americans.

But it's about 'rights' isn't it? The right to a well regulated militia (apparently not the ones in the uniforms with the tanks, ships, aircraft, and missiles, but you in a time of crisis because the writers didn't want a standing army, did they? They expected you to grab your musket and go and fight for them....), the right to be armed to quell any slave insurrection in your State (you do read history, not just this 'amendment'?).

It's about a tradition of the well armed individuals to stand up and fight against tyrannical governments. So basically never since it was written. Every time the government oversteps it's boundaries, according to you, you simply buy more guns, and whine about how they are trying to take them away from you.

Let's say there are 312,000,000 LEGAL guns in the USA (I believe it's higher, but let's use that). They are owned by about 55,000,000 people (only 5,000,000 belong to the NRA, by the way).
5.67 weapons each average.
Average price is $400-$1000 each.
At the low end, this is worth $124,800,000,000 to the gun industry.
At the higher end (and I know some are "my grandfather's" or vintage guns worth thousands...) that's $312,000,000,000 to the gun industry.
You think this is about 'rights'? You think this is about tyrannical governments? You think this is about home security?
It's about money. The more scared you are, the more you spend. The more you spend, the more the NRA lobby to allow you easier access. The NRA are supporting the gun industry. The gun industry also do pretty good from military spending.
This is about your money in their hands.

"They're coming for your guns!" They yell.
You buy more guns, dig in.
See how it works?
You can pretend that you're not scared, and that you just like them, but don't pretend that people are not dying every day with no compassion from the gun industry. If they cared more about human life than money, your shiny new AK-15 (I know... I did that to make your lip quiver in rage) would be better regulated. After all, "well regulated" is what you want, right?

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you're right, you actually think that's a good thing...sad...I know what it means and it ain't gonna be good for anyone if that happens...There's only so much the American people will put up with.

Jaden

a reply to: Badgered1

You spout off a lot don't you? Do you have any idea how many people have CCW that you don't even realize?

If you're worried about that guy that doesn't have the training then why aren't you talking about increasing training for citizenry? Why are you discussing limiting MY liberty and right to protect myself? If you're afraid that he's going to be a moron, why aren't YOU preparing to be able to defend yourself against his moronitude? Why not make it so you can wear soft body armor so if you catch a stray bullet, you survive?

Oh I know, because that .00001 percent who might use body armor to avoid getting killed by cops while committing crimes...lol

Again, people need to actually learn some stuff or just think logically before they decide they want to take away other people's rights.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
There's only so much the American people will put up with.

"You guys" say that all the time, but you never, ever actually do anything about it.
It's all talk.

elephant talk:

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you're right, you actually think that's a good thing...sad...I know what it means and it ain't gonna be good for anyone if that happens...There's only so much the American people will put up with.

Jaden

The funny thing here is that you argued that if the American people wanted something different, they'd make a change, and now you're suggesting that if they make a change ... Something Bad will happen.

Alternate explanation: the American people can make decisions without your approval.

/shrug

CNN Poll showing more Americans oppose stricter gun control
starts on page 10


another poll