Not terribly surprised at the ammo or "military style" component begin defeated, but background checks?

You can't negotiate with people whose ultimate goal is a complete ban on firearms.

Criminals aren't going to follow the new laws anyways.

The background checks were forcing private parties to submit to a background check through a FFL.

Right now, all sales from a FFL require a background check whereas private sales do not.

The problem is there would be absolutely no way to enforce that restriction without a national registry or other invasive procedures.

The law, as written, would have made too many people criminals for rudimentary acts, and actual criminals would not have been affected.

I do think ALL vendors at gun shows should require a FFL (they may now, I'm not sure and am ignorant to current gun show laws) and that would effectively close whatever "gun show loophole" some people talk about.


edit: I actually liked the part of the bill that said people who had a CCL would not have to undergo a background check and wished that went through.

From what I heard/understood, this would not require checks for private sales.

(04-17-2013 07:11 PM)CatMom Wrote:  From what I heard/understood, this would not require checks for private sales.

Then what would it change, if that was your understanding?

(04-17-2013 07:11 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:11 PM)CatMom Wrote:  From what I heard/understood, this would not require checks for private sales.

Then what would it change, if that was your understanding?

In actuality, not a whole lot.
I also thought this was the discussion/vote to even get to a debate about the proposal which, BTW, was co-written by a very conservative Republican and Democrat.

(04-17-2013 07:14 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:11 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:11 PM)CatMom Wrote:  From what I heard/understood, this would not require checks for private sales.

Then what would it change, if that was your understanding?

In actuality, not a whole lot.
I also thought this was the discussion/vote to even get to a debate about the proposal which, BTW, was co-written by a very conservative Republican and Democrat.

Yeah, I thought it was the cloture(sp?).

I read the law and it had some private sale stuff but excluded family transfers, I could be mistaking what was voted on today for something else though.

What I'm thinking of was overall pretty benign all things considered and even threw gun owners a bone with the CCL thing.

(04-17-2013 07:17 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:14 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:11 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 07:11 PM)CatMom Wrote:  From what I heard/understood, this would not require checks for private sales.

Then what would it change, if that was your understanding?

In actuality, not a whole lot.
I also thought this was the discussion/vote to even get to a debate about the proposal which, BTW, was co-written by a very conservative Republican and Democrat.

Yeah, I thought it was the cloture(sp?).

I read the law and it had some private sale stuff but excluded family transfers, I could be mistaking what was voted on today for something else though.

What I'm thinking of was overall pretty benign all things considered and even threw gun owners a bone with the CCL thing.

I have to agree with your last sentence. The problem is that most of those that voted no are from gun toting, hunting states.
The second they started mentioning this, every squirrel hunter in the US was figuratively up in arms that someone was going to knock on their door, bust in and take all their guns.

We havd a German Luger (from WWII) a .22 and an Italian double barrel in our house but I'm all for at least trying something.

Money, SIGs and the NRA are more important than citizens' opinions and safety of constituants (or, at least the appearance of such)....and it's not just on this issue

You're right. Technically the vote was to avoid the filibuster, but either way, still defeated.

Guys, we are moving to more controls on firearms. Be unreasonable now and watch the next proposals be more restrictive.

(04-17-2013 06:02 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  The background checks were forcing private parties to submit to a background check through a FFL.

Right now, all sales from a FFL require a background check whereas private sales do not.

The problem is there would be absolutely no way to enforce that restriction without a national registry or other invasive procedures.

The law, as written, would have made too many people criminals for rudimentary acts, and actual criminals would not have been affected.

I do think ALL vendors at gun shows should require a FFL (they may now, I'm not sure and am ignorant to current gun show laws) and that would effectively close whatever "gun show loophole" some people talk about.

edit: I actually liked the part of the bill that said people who had a CCL would not have to undergo a background check and wished that went through.

Couple of things:

There is no "gun show loophole". Only FFL holders display at gunshows, so all the sales are subject to background checks. They just call it the "gun show loophole" to make ignorant people scared of gunshows.

Second, I have a CCL, and I don't have to get a background check now. Don't know how state laws would make a difference in Federal background checks, but that's the way it is in Georgia.

(04-19-2013 02:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, we are moving to more controls on firearms. Be unreasonable now and watch the next proposals be more restrictive.

No, the next round will be more reasonable - like a ban on clips/drums that carry more than 30 rounds for rifles, or 15 rounds for pistols. They need to get that back in place first and then worry about lowering the numbers later.

(04-19-2013 03:10 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, we are moving to more controls on firearms. Be unreasonable now and watch the next proposals be more restrictive.

No, the next round will be more reasonable - like a ban on clips/drums that carry more than 30 rounds for rifles, or 15 rounds for pistols. They need to get that back in place first and then worry about lowering the numbers later.

Yeah let them go for it.

I already have all of my 40 and 30 round magazines.

(04-19-2013 03:08 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 06:02 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  The background checks were forcing private parties to submit to a background check through a FFL.

Right now, all sales from a FFL require a background check whereas private sales do not.

The problem is there would be absolutely no way to enforce that restriction without a national registry or other invasive procedures.

The law, as written, would have made too many people criminals for rudimentary acts, and actual criminals would not have been affected.

I do think ALL vendors at gun shows should require a FFL (they may now, I'm not sure and am ignorant to current gun show laws) and that would effectively close whatever "gun show loophole" some people talk about.

edit: I actually liked the part of the bill that said people who had a CCL would not have to undergo a background check and wished that went through.

Second, I have a CCL, and I don't have to get a background check now. Don't know how state laws would make a difference in Federal background checks, but that's the way it is in Georgia.

Wow, and I thought Alabama was lax.

I know there is no "gun show" loophole.


I also know I was offered by a vendor to pay $1500 cash for an M1A "no background check, no questions asked".

I get its a private transaction.

Quote: Guys, we are moving to more controls on firearms. Be unreasonable now and watch the next proposals be more restrictive.

Your logic is awful.

(04-20-2013 08:05 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  I know there is no "gun show" loophole.


I also know I was offered by a vendor to pay $1500 cash for an M1A "no background check, no questions asked".

I get its a private transaction.

Quote: Guys, we are moving to more controls on firearms. Be unreasonable now and watch the next proposals be more restrictive.

Your logic is awful.

I happen to believe that the NRA and GOA's blocking of reasonable gun control mechanisms (as well as a demand for complete orthodoxy from elected officials) will eventually result in a political environment where the majority has nothing to lose by ignoring the NRA/GOA.

You are free to disagree. Pressure is building for gun control. You can either let it build up or try to gently reduce it.

(04-21-2013 01:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:05 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  I know there is no "gun show" loophole.


I also know I was offered by a vendor to pay $1500 cash for an M1A "no background check, no questions asked".

I get its a private transaction.

Quote: Guys, we are moving to more controls on firearms. Be unreasonable now and watch the next proposals be more restrictive.

Your logic is awful.

I happen to believe that the NRA and GOA's blocking of reasonable gun control mechanisms (as well as a demand for complete orthodoxy from elected officials) will eventually result in a political environment where the majority has nothing to lose by ignoring the NRA/GOA.

You are free to disagree. Pressure is building for gun control. You can either let it build up or try to gently reduce it.

Pressure may be building significantly in New York City, LA, San Francisco, CBS news, CNN, MSNBC etc, but that has zero impact and influence on a Senator's vote in GA, AL etc which is what matters as far as changing laws. This is an issue that is decided state by state no matter how much more important Bloomberg thinks he is than the rest of the country. A perfect example of why our founders created two Senators from each state no matter the size.

Oh well, all of this recently motivated me to drop a few grand on guns I don't need and may not even get around to shooting. I am going to buy a few assault rifles as well just for the hell of it. Never really had much interest until this debate started. They knew they didn't have the votes but pushed ahead anyway which just put tons more guns in circulation. The ammo and gun factories are running 24 hours and still can't keep up with demand.

Always have found it absolutely hilarious that the Pubs are adamant against back ground checks on guns, but are 100% all in on drug testing welfare recipients. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

(04-22-2013 07:00 AM)eagleskins Wrote:  Always have found it absolutely hilarious that the Pubs are adamant against back ground checks on guns, but are 100% all in on drug testing welfare recipients. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[/align]
Exactly. Does anyone really want any of these rubes on this site to be able to own a gun without a background check? Dios mio, man.

I love how all of Hollywood wants to ban guns, yet they want to produce violent films glorifying gun violence. Not that I think movies should be controlled or limited, but it is a bit hypocritical of Hollywood. Even the Boston marathon bomber gave a shout out to some of their work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvbTvX3Br...ata_player