Dems stage sit-in on House floor to push for gun vote

I listened to it for a bit today...

I am not sure what their angle is. I mean I know WHAT their angle is but I am not sure how they think people will be okay with this. I can't wrap my head around it.

I mean, technically anything can be a weapon... inanimate objects are just that, inanimate. I'm sure this has all been said before, I just don't feel like thumbing through the thread to read the same arguments I have seen over and over again.

a reply to: SM2

Interestingly, the statistic about gun sales is not in the information from me that you cited ... and for which I gave the source.

I'm not sure of the 60% value at the moment, read it somewhere. Thanks for pointing out it may be faulty.

The "gun show loophole" cannot be said to be a "pure lie" according to the statistics you just offered. 22 percent, 10%, 5% ... if it's happening at all, it's still a loophole, right?

Do you disagree with background checks in general? If so, why should gun shows and private sales be sacrosanct?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I admit it's a backward example for the point you're trying to make, but, that's your issue not mine.

That includes traffic citations.

I believe the effort is to expand the checks to all gun sales, including intrastate and gun shows, and private.

Which NO mass shooter used.

Are you SURE that's what you want to use for your example of why we DON'T need background checks?

Americans should NOT have to prove their innocence to the STATE to practice their rights.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not a gungrabber.

Could have fooled me.

Which is more than enough reason to keep and expand background checks, right?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It is not a loop hole, it is the law.

Private sales are specifically called out as not requiring a background check. So, if I decide to sell you one of my guns because i dont need it, then I can. Or if i decide (and I have) to purchase a firearm (a .357 revolver in this case) and give it to my wife for her birthday, then I can. Or a shotgun for my father in law. That is why private transfers are specially called out as legal.

Now, every time I have purchased a gun from a private individual there has been some discussion. It wasnt this shady backroom deal people make it out to be. Last one I purchased was in Georgia, and according to state law, if you have you concealed weapons permit, you are exempt from the background check, as they have already done this extensively on you. So, the gentleman asked if I had a concealed carry permit, I said yes, he asked to see it, I gladly showed it to him, he then asked me to sign a piece of paper documenting the sale with the firearm make, model and serial number, it had a paragraph how I was attesting to the fact that I was legally able to purchase said firearm and then we completed the deal. Most private individuals will do something along those lines just to cover their own butts in case someone does something stupid.


As far as the comment made about expanding background checks to private sales, gunshows and intrastate. well, the feds have no jurisdiction over intrastate, thats a 10th amendment issue, they can only regulate interstate commerce.

357 million guns in the US.

Adding up new guns and imports and subtracting gun exports, in 2013 there would have been roughly 357 million firearms in the U.S. — 40 million more guns than people. This is just an estimate. These numbers are blind to firearms that enter and exit the country illegally, and to guns that break down, or are lost or destroyed.

www.washingtonpost.com...

The government has never defined "mass shooting" as a stand-alone category. So, depending on whichever informal definition you go with, the tally can drastically vary. According to the Gun Violence Archive, which compiles data from shooting incidents, a "mass shooting" is any incident where four or more people are wounded or killed. By that definition, we've seen 136 mass shootings in the first 164 days of this year.

www.cnn.com...

So 357,000,000 million firearms.

136 'mass shootings'.

The percentage is ?

Anyone ?

NEONE ?

a reply to: SM2

Private sales are specifically called out as not requiring a background check.

That is not entirely correct. In my state of residence, and many other states, it is illegal for anyone to acquire a handgun unless they have a proper licence. It is also illegal to transfer ownership of a handgun to anyone that does not have a permit to acquire.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not a gungrabber.

Could have fooled me.

Which is more than enough reason to keep and expand background checks, right?

Background checks are not gun grabs.

Next?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SM2

Private sales are specifically called out as not requiring a background check.

That is not entirely correct. In my state of residence, and many other states, it is illegal for anyone to acquire a handgun unless they have a proper licence. It is also illegal to transfer ownership of a handgun to anyone that does not have a permit to acquire.

I stand corrected, I honestly forgot about the soviet socialist republics of ney york and new england and california.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

I'm not a gungrabber.

Speaking of simple: You say that guns make us safer. I asked for the statistic that proves that. The statistic I gave does not.

It's not a matter of my "not being able to grasp it" ... drop the silly attempts to insult. Makes your case look weak.

Did I say that guns make us safer?

a reply to: Gryphon66

IF that's the case then showing ID to vote is not a voter grab.

a reply to: neo96

If they are innocent they won't have any problems. Haven't you made that same argument in relation to other matters?

Further, these absolutist arguments lessen support for the pro-Second Amendment side, because it's ALWAYS so irrationally one-sided.

NO INFRINGEMENT! I CAN HAVE WHATEVER GUNS I WANT ANYTIME I WANT THEM!

That's obviously not true, and has never been true, and isn't in the spirit or the letter of what the Second actually represents.

Talk about whining spoiled babies.

originally posted by: SM2

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SM2

Private sales are specifically called out as not requiring a background check.

That is not entirely correct. In my state of residence, and many other states, it is illegal for anyone to acquire a handgun unless they have a proper licence. It is also illegal to transfer ownership of a handgun to anyone that does not have a permit to acquire.

I stand corrected, I honestly forgot about the soviet socialist republics of ney york and new england and california.

I do not live in any of those states. I live in the midwest.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

IF that's the case then showing ID to vote is not a voter grab.

Not the topic.

When you advocate setting up a national voter ID I'll start listening to that complaint.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

I'm not a gungrabber.

Speaking of simple: You say that guns make us safer. I asked for the statistic that proves that. The statistic I gave does not.

It's not a matter of my "not being able to grasp it" ... drop the silly attempts to insult. Makes your case look weak.

Did I say that guns make us safer?

Did I say that they don't?

a reply to: Gryphon66

NO INFRINGEMENT! I CAN HAVE WHATEVER GUNS I WANT ANYTIME I WANT THEM!

That is what the founding fathers said.

Every gun they used was an 'assault rifle'.

The pinnacle of technological development of the day.



Further, these absolutist arguments lessen support for the anti-Second Amendment side, because it's ALWAYS so irrationally one-sided.

Hence their non stop emotional 'argument's'

And as everyone knows EMOTION is devoid of rational thought.

a reply to: SM2

"The Feds" have jurisdiction over excise taxes on firearms. That's an Article I Section 8 issue.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

I'm not a gungrabber.

Speaking of simple: You say that guns make us safer. I asked for the statistic that proves that. The statistic I gave does not.

It's not a matter of my "not being able to grasp it" ... drop the silly attempts to insult. Makes your case look weak.

Did I say that guns make us safer?

Did I say that they don't?

That answer is not relevant.
You blamed me for saying that guns make us safer.

a reply to: neo96

Exactly the kind of absurd nonsense that takes away from your case Neo.

There is no comparison between a musket and an assault rifle.

The history of the Second Amendment is based on a time period in which there were no standing armies, particularly in the United States. Because there were no standing armies, the defense of the home, the community, the State and the Nation DEPENDED on the militia, their preparedness and to some extent their being "well-regulated." That component of the Second while not controlling cannot be ignored.

History has demonstrated to us that was not a workable solution. Argue that all you want.

The right of protection and the right to bear arms (which would have not been merely muskets and pistols at the time) comes to us through the English Common Law. The restriction was because of the several times that the Crown tried to disarm free Englishmen. Disarm meaning TAKE THEIR WEAPONS AWAY COMPLETELY.

The Second was put in place to assure that a) there would always be a militia and that standing armies would not be needed and b) that it was an Englishman's right to bear the means of protecting himself and his family.

We can see that a) is obviously totally unrealistic, and b) is totally fine but is not and never was intended to be some absolute right to hold and carry any weapon at any time into any place you want to.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

I'm not a gungrabber.

Speaking of simple: You say that guns make us safer. I asked for the statistic that proves that. The statistic I gave does not.

It's not a matter of my "not being able to grasp it" ... drop the silly attempts to insult. Makes your case look weak.

Did I say that guns make us safer?

Did I say that they don't?

That answer is not relevant.
You blamed me for saying that guns make us safer.

Free free to quote your complaint to me.

Or feel free drop it; this is not the topic of this thread ... and sounds ... personal.