Issue with Democratic gun proposals

Post Reply New Topic

My issues with the Democratic proposals regarding background checks are as follows:

1.) There would be a lack of due process in banning people on terror watch lists from purchasing firearms.

2.) Private sales of firearms, where the person just wants to sell a firearm they have, would be complicated by requiring background checks.

IMO, we need to find balance on these issues and not significantly restructure our legal system to address the causes of a small percentage of homicides. Unfortunately, the media coverage and sensationalism keeps us from seeing things proportionately.

I agree with your post 100%.

The problem with these no fly/no gun proposals arose with the original "do not fly" laws. The way they've been structured allows police and other politicians to put someone on such a list and forget about them. From the flyer's point of view, he arrives at the airport told he/she can not fly with the only reason being they're "on a list." There is no court order necessary and there is no limit of time and you will find yourself unable to get information or address this in a court of law...or so I've read.

I've heard the Republicans are now offering a compromise bill. This will still allow a person to be put on the list and have rights to firearms ONLY "suspended" for a given length of time, after which it must be addressed by a court.

There are many other provisions but I feel this is one of the most pressing.

They're all completely asinine and will have zero effect on violence in this country, they're desperate for any sort of touchdown after being so thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of Americans. They scream about banning 'assault weapons' not knowing that there already was an AWB that we let expire because it did nothing but punish law abiding citizens. There were still massacres, the one that really started it all in our collective consciousness was Columbine was smack dab in the middle of that AWB.

This guy in Orlando could of killed a ton of people with a side arm even, he was saying he a had a bomb strapped to his chest and the police would not storm the building and put their own lives in danger. Not until he executed 49 people.

I don't think there's a problem with those proposal. Negotiations still have to happen and democrats need to start by proposing some things they're comfortable compromising on. Instead of starting where democrats want to land they have to aim a bit higher. Same goes with Republicans. And since the media is so inept, no details ever get to the people. All that is ever heard are two very different sides with no guide on how to come together on the issues.

On the points you mentioned. For the first one, I don't think gun rights should be completely stripped from the individual but rather temporarily put on hold to give law enforcement chance to check it out. On the second, I think it would only apply to people who sell a certain amount of guns in a year or something like that. So a father to son transfer wouldn't qualify.

The biggest problem with this whole debate is that there are far to many people who think any regulation at all is just a step towards confiscation. No one has ever proposed that. Not even the assault weapons ban would involve confiscation. All weapons covered in the old law and Senator Feinstein's proposed law included a grandfather clause that protected anyone who already owned some of the guns in question.

Disagreements and debates are fine, but all this gun confiscation talk does is eliminate any chance of having a legitimate discussion on the issue.

Bataar

They are praising the actions Australia took on guns after they had a massacre, not necessarily the specific laws I believe. They took up gun control legislation in the immediate aftermath of a massacre and it took us years of having them routinely for us to even have a chance to adjust our gun laws.

Even if they did want to ban guns (which they don't) they wouldn't have nearly enough support, even democrats would revolt against that. We can't project motivations onto the other side an expect to have a substantive conversation. Let's debate on what is being proposed, not on what someone expects to someone else to do in the future.

There is a significant portion of people on the left, mostly concentrated at the coasts and in the media that want a full on gun ban. What do you think they mean when they compare us to Australia or the UK or where ever? Pretending like these people don't exist and that they're not one of the loudest voices in the room makes your side of the argument lose all credibility, having the gun grabbers on your side at all hints towards incrementalism. What is being proposed is nonsensical, the entire point is just point scoring and narrative building. Those that voice support for these gun control bills should be ejected from office, they can not be trusted in the future.

There really does not need to be any federal gun regulations

I don't believe that it is too few to have an impact, it seems like it is the standard position held by people of influence in the media and some of the most prominent elected officials in this country.

fwiw I was sort of saying that tongue-in-cheek, sort of