# House Passes Bills To Strengthen Gun Laws, Including Expanding Background Checks.



## Parris Island (Mar 6, 2012)

Our new congress first Legitimate attempt at stricter gun control laws. 









House Passes Bills To Strengthen Gun Laws, Including Expanding Background Checks


With Democrats in full control of Congress, lawmakers hope that the legislation will find more support. Efforts to pass tougher gun control laws have repeatedly failed despite recent mass shootings.




www.npr.org






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kevinw (Apr 27, 2020)

Well they also passed the ridiculous $2t relief bill that includes $1400 checks.

I'm sure a very good portion of that stimulus money is going to stimulate the firearm economy...

Some of it may even go to new NRA memberships! Lol

EDIT: Also, because this is a topic that interests me quite a bit, here are a couple statistics that some others may not know about but can use in conversation when attempting to persuade others away from these nonsensical laws. 

The first is the fact that of the average ~30,000 firearms-related deaths in the US each year, roughly 2/3rds are suicides, so when they reference "gun deaths", they're not strictly talking about gun violence, they're also including suicides. I don't know about you, but I refuse to accept the assertion that someone else committing suicide with a gun is a valid reason to take away my right to own one. 

The other is the fact that when it comes to actual gun violence... a very small minority of gun deaths in this country are related to those scary black semi-automatic "assault rifles" they demonize. In fact, last I checked, less than 10% of gun-related homicides involve long guns. And that's ALL long guns, not just the scary black tactical ones. 

These two statistics alone refute any attempt at demonizing and banning the erroneously labeled "assault rifles".


----------



## Ron Y (Dec 2, 2020)

The only question to ask is how they are gonna get the guns out of the gangs and bad guys hands??? You don't have a first amendment without the second amendment . If you ask them to identify an 'assault rifle' they can't. They want to dictate what we can do but have no idea what they are talking about.


----------



## kevinw (Apr 27, 2020)

Ron Y said:


> The only question to ask is how they are gonna get the guns out of the gangs and bad guys hands??? You don't have a first amendment without the second amendment . If you ask them to identify an 'assault rifle' they can't. They want to dictate what we can do but have no idea what they are talking about.


Wait wait wait. Politicians don't know what they're talking about? You mean to say my AR-15 is not actually a ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip, able to dispense with 30 bullets in half a second?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I say!


----------



## JOE W (Jun 4, 2004)

How come some politician can not come up with a law being , if your a felon and a caught with a gun your doing 20-25 years in jail instead taking away the law abiding citizens rights !! gun control works about as good as these masks we are wearing!!!


----------



## kevinw (Apr 27, 2020)

JOE W said:


> How come some politician can not come up with a law being , if your a felon and a caught with a gun your doing 20-25 years in jail instead taking away the law abiding citizens rights !! gun control works about as good as these masks we are wearing!!!


They claim it's to stop mass shootings, but most mass shooters don't have a criminal history. 

One thing we really need is secondary responsibility. There have been too many instances of shooters who used a friend or family member's firearm to commit their crimes, and the friend or family member should be held accountable for improperly storing their firearm, or lending one to someone they should know isn't stable. 

It wouldn't stop situations like Las Vegas, but it would likely help stop some of the random school shootings if some of the parents and/or friends of the shooters were held accountable for their negligence.

Semi-related to that, there should be severe penalties any time a child shoots another person with a gun because some idiot left it in an unlocked drawer or something and the kid got their hands on it. That kind of gross display of irresponsibility should result in prison time, and as a result, the taking of second amendment rights the same as any other felony conviction. 

There are plenty of firearms related laws we should have. Some might even call them "common sense gun control", but none of them involve infringing upon the rights of the vast majority of gun-owning American citizens who have done nothing wrong.


----------



## BuckeyeFishinNut (Feb 8, 2005)

This bill is going nowhere fast. It will die in the Senate because it won't get the 60 votes need. Just more hot air from the dems.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

kevinw said:


> They claim it's to stop mass shootings, but most mass shooters don't have a criminal history.
> 
> One thing we really need is secondary responsibility. There have been too many instances of shooters who used a friend or family member's firearm to commit their crimes, and the friend or family member should be held accountable for improperly storing their firearm, or lending one to someone they should know isn't stable.
> 
> ...


I agree. The Bills introduced are just for background checks though.


----------



## DHower08 (Nov 20, 2015)

kevinw said:


> They claim it's to stop mass shootings, but most mass shooters don't have a criminal history.
> 
> One thing we really need is secondary responsibility. There have been too many instances of shooters who used a friend or family member's firearm to commit their crimes, and the friend or family member should be held accountable for improperly storing their firearm, or lending one to someone they should know isn't stable.
> 
> ...


Nope, this is exactly what they want. They have enough control already. The person is responsible for the weapon in their possession at that moment in time. Thats like saying if someone breaks in your house. Steals one of your guns and kills someone with it. You should go down for murder.


----------



## kevinw (Apr 27, 2020)

DHower08 said:


> Nope, this is exactly what they want. They have enough control already. The person is responsible for the weapon in their possession at that moment in time. Thats like saying if someone breaks in your house. Steals one of your guns and kills someone with it. You should go down for murder.


It's not the same, because if someone broke in your house and stole your firearm, then there would be evidence of the break in, and you would probably have reported your property stolen, like a responsible firearm owner. At that point, it's not your fault. 

What the proverbial "they" want is for you to not own firearms. At all. What I proposed was consequences for irresponsible firearm ownership, which is a very real thing, and which results in unnecessary deaths every year. Those deaths should have consequences for those who could have prevented them. Especially for instances like those I explained, which are especially egregious.


----------



## Ron Y (Dec 2, 2020)

We have these laws you talk about already. felons are not allowed to have guns and there are penalties if caught with them. we need the police to ENFORCE these laws, not make more . The kid who shot those kids had mental problems and his mother took him shooting and then he killed her and then the kids. You can't make a law for stupid.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

kevinw said:


> It's not the same, because if someone broke in your house and stole your firearm, then there would be evidence of the break in, and you would probably have reported your property stolen, like a responsible firearm owner. At that point, it's not your fault.
> 
> What the proverbial "they" want is for you to not own firearms. At all. What I proposed was consequences for irresponsible firearm ownership, which is a very real thing, and which results in unnecessary deaths every year. Those deaths should have consequences for those who could have prevented them. Especially for instances like those I explained, which are especially egregious.


The proverbial ‘they’ are a tiny minority and will be for another hundred years or more. These obvious loop holes need closed.


----------



## DHower08 (Nov 20, 2015)

kevinw said:


> It's not the same, because if someone broke in your house and stole your firearm, then there would be evidence of the break in, and you would probably have reported your property stolen, like a responsible firearm owner. At that point, it's not your fault.
> 
> What the proverbial "they" want is for you to not own firearms. At all. What I proposed was consequences for irresponsible firearm ownership, which is a very real thing, and which results in unnecessary deaths every year. Those deaths should have consequences for those who could have prevented them. Especially for instances like those I explained, which are especially egregious.


It's exactly the same. Theirs already laws in place that make it illegal for felons to posses guns. The pricks have enough control already. Anything that gets voted for to make owning a gun harder is a vote for them not us. This is a "game" where theirs no playing both sides. You're either for or against more stringent gun control laws. Hell being required to have a ccw permit is a clear violation of OUR RIGHTS. Remember the government is not here to help you


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

DHower08 said:


> It's exactly the same. Theirs already laws in place that make it illegal for felons to posses guns. The pricks have enough control already. Anything that gets voted for to make owning a gun harder is a vote for them not us. This is a "game" where theirs no playing both sides. You're either for or against more stringent gun control laws. Hell being required to have a ccw permit is a clear violation of OUR RIGHTS. Remember the government is not here to help you


I think of it in comparison to a driver's license.


----------



## Blackcat 86 (Feb 11, 2011)

TheKing said:


> I think of it in comparison to a driver's license.


Nowhere in our Constitution does it read, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to [operate a motor vehicle], shall not be infringed."


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Ron Y said:


> We have these laws you talk about already. felons are not allowed to have guns and there are penalties if caught with them. *we need the police to ENFORCE these laws, not make more .* The kid who shot those kids had mental problems and his mother took him shooting and then he killed her and then the kids. You can't make a law for stupid.


Instead of accusing police, which are the first line of defense against crime...and obviously the easiest target of accusation...of not enforcing our current laws...it may do some good to investigate/ scrutinize our court systems as well as the plea bargaining done with criminals by the courts that puts criminal right back out on the street to recommit their crimes of choice.
It may surprise some that are quick to point the finger at LE that more often than not, many,many of these criminals that are arrested and taken off the street by police are released back out on the street by the courts before the ink is dry on the arresting officers incident report.

IMO, the courts are NOT enforcing our current gun laws...more importantly...courts are NOT enforcing sentencing/sentences of criminals period. Therefore...not only are our current laws ineffective for criminals, neither will any new dreamed up gun laws be effective either.
Laws only apply to those choosing to be law abiding...a criminal could care less about laws...old or new.
Choosing to be a law abiding citizen of our current laws, like most here...I've got enough gun laws' on the books.
It's past time to shift all this smokescreen fantasy of a 'new, magical gun law is going to stop or even slow down gun violence' that once again will only apply to the already law abiding citizen...to the reality that we have to deal with criminals in a much more different way than we have been doing so for the last decade or so.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

Blackcat 86 said:


> Nowhere in our Constitution does it read, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to [operate a motor vehicle], shall not be infringed."


I wonder though. And so does almost everybody else. Did they mean to arm crazy people with no checks and balances that were just out to kill people for fun or cult level belief's? Think again.


----------



## Blackcat 86 (Feb 11, 2011)

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with mental health or a driver's license. It has everything to do with protecting life, liberty, and the rest of the Constitution. 



TheKing said:


> Did they mean...


Who exactly are "they"?



TheKing said:


> ...to arm crazy people with no checks and balances that were just out to kill people for fun or cult level belief's?


No more so than when the government issues a driver's license to_ crazy people with no checks and balances that were just out to kill people for fun or cult level belief's? _



TheKing said:


> Think again.


Sound advice. Let's both follow it. I suggest you read the Gun Control Act of 1968 for the answer you seek.


----------



## Ron Y (Dec 2, 2020)

You only have the first amendment because you have the second amendment........


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

Blackcat 86 said:


> The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with mental health or a driver's license. It has everything to do with protecting life, liberty, and the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no 2nd Amendment issue. Maybe the militias could help. Perhaps the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys.


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

TheKing said:


> I wonder though. And so does almost everybody else. Did they mean to arm crazy people with no checks and balances that were just out to kill people for fun or cult level belief's? Think again.


Which again, begs the question...'are more laws going to do anything at all to keep guns out of the hands of the above described people?' 

Here's a great article on Chicago's crime/homicide history.
As you read through it...notice the previous offense numbers as well as the reduces sentences of those that have committed murder with a firearm in Chicago. Also note the gang related murder stats:





Crime in Chicago - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Understanding that the above article is about just one city...that incidentally, like NYC and DC(which their gun violence stats are off the charts as well) has more strict gun laws than most other states...and that one city has more gun related violence/killings in 6 mos. than all the mass shootings in a year throughout the U.S.
If 'laws' alone were the answer, gun violence in these gun strict city's would not be higher than the rest of the U.S.

Closer to home...and on the news as I type...three months ago there was a police high speed pursuit in Whitehall of a stolen car. 
When perp finally captured... the driver was a 13yr old.
Where 13yr old tonight...he's in Reynoldsburg PD jail. 
Was back out on the street after the Whitehall incident, stole another car and RPD got him.
What's this got to do with guns...13yr old stepped up his game had a gun with him this time.
Thankfully he didn't get the chance to use it on some poor law abiding citizen. And thankfully, no LEO had their life/career ruined cause they were put in the position to have to shoot this kid cause kid had gun in hand waving it in threatening manor(intentional or not) when arrested.


----------



## DHower08 (Nov 20, 2015)

fastwater said:


> Instead of accusing police, which are the first line of defense against crime...


I will always stand for our police. But they are not the first line of defense. YOU are. When someone breaks in your house at night are you going to ask them to please hold on for 5 minutes or so until the cops get there so they can have someone come down to verify your body and let the killer will walk free. Or are you going to stand no matter what. 

Remember when help is needed police are only minutes away


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

DHower08 said:


> I will always stand for our police. But they are not the first line of defense. YOU are. When someone breaks in your house at night are you going to ask them to please hold on for 5 minutes or so until the cops get there so they can have someone come down to verify your body and let the killer will walk free. Or are you going to stand no matter what.
> 
> Remember when help is needed police are only minutes away


You are absolutely correct DHower08 that each of us are our own 1st line of protection regardless of where we are at...and thank you for that correction.


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

fastwater said:


> Which again, begs the question...'are more laws going to do anything at all to keep guns out of the hands of the above described people?'
> 
> Here's a great article on Chicago's crime/homicide history.
> As you read through it...notice the previous offense numbers as well as the reduces sentences of those that have committed murder with a firearm in Chicago. Also note the gang related murder stats:
> ...


I think we can agree that the source of the problems and the solutions are not one-dimensional. Inner city versus rural, versus suburbs and versus socio-economics to name a few. Laws are part of the solution. Enabling LEO with red flag laws and background requirements will help with part of the problems - not all. And I don't understand the argument that if it doesn't solve the entire problem that it isn't worth making a change to close these loopholes. No one but the aforementioned group is affected.


----------



## Muddy (May 7, 2017)

I have an idea. Why don’t we enforce the current laws? It’s that simple. There are already laws in place against all violent crimes. And if the country really want’s to work hard to prevent violent crimes we could work on bringing back family values and raising children in a stable and positive environment. But that would take hard work and dedication. The majority of our population doesn’t have the stones to put the effort into really fixing the root of our problems.


----------



## Blackcat 86 (Feb 11, 2011)

TheKing said:


> Laws are part of the solution.


Laws are limitations (i.e., infringements) on the liberties of ONLY law-abiding people. No law will keep _anything _that can be used as a lethal weapon from _anyone _who doesn't comply with the law _anyway_. Just look how well those speed _limit_ signs have kept our highways safe. (I'm sure there are better examples to prove my point, but SWMBO is pressing me to get dressed and mow the lawn before it rains again.) 

Another suggested read on how myriad laws and the governments that impose them on their law-abiding citizens devolve into bureaucracies and tyrannies is Thomas Paines' _Common Sense. _ 

Enjoy.


----------



## Draggin' Fish (Jul 10, 2007)

Muddy said:


> I have an idea. Why don’t we enforce the current laws? It’s that simple. There are already laws in place against all violent crimes. And if the country really want’s to work hard to prevent violent crimes we could work on bringing back family values and raising children in a stable and positive environment. But that would take hard work and dedication. The majority of our population doesn’t have the stones to put the effort into really fixing the root of our problems.


AMEN !!


----------



## TheKing (Apr 15, 2004)

Blackcat 86 said:


> Laws are limitations (i.e., infringements) on the liberties of ONLY law-abiding people. No law will keep _anything _that can be used as a lethal weapon from _anyone _who doesn't comply with the law _anyway_. Just look how well those speed _limit_ signs have kept our highways safe. (I'm sure there are better examples to prove my point, but SWMBO is pressing me to get dressed and mow the lawn before it rains again.)
> 
> Another suggested read on how myriad laws and the governments that impose them on their law-abiding citizens devolve into bureaucracies and tyrannies is Thomas Paines' _Common Sense. _
> 
> Enjoy.


Got mine mowed for the first time before the rain today. Not too bad.


----------



## Blackcat 86 (Feb 11, 2011)

Well, I got a bunch of things done before the rain, but the lawn wasn't one of them. I went out to mow, I really did, but got distracted, as is the norm of late.

It's not an easy read, old vernacular, but I really do suggest reading Thomas Paines' _Common Sense._ General Washington actually had it read to all the troops during the winter of '76-'77 to inspire them.


----------



## DHower08 (Nov 20, 2015)

TheKing said:


> Got mine mowed for the first time before the rain today. Not too bad.


First time !?!? Today was my fifth mow. My grass grows like a weed. A beautiful lush plush thick green weed. 

I wonder if I can rig my lawn up with some personal defense weapons to keep neighbors dogs off of it. 

Back on topic. More gun laws are not going to stop criminals only make it easier to commit violent crimes. I say give every law abiding legally registered tax paying voter a gun and ammo to protect themselves


----------



## Ol' Whiskers (Aug 11, 2004)

"and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors,"


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

kevinw said:


> It's not the same, because if someone broke in your house and stole your firearm, then there would be evidence of the break in, and you would probably have reported your property stolen, like a responsible firearm owner. At that point, it's not your fault.


not entirely correct either. folks that own multiple homes may not know that a firearm has been taken. you are assuming that a thief is going to crash down your door or through your window. many thefts occur from acquaintances or friends of acquaintances that have inside knowledge and can take without the big disturbance....


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

an interesting statistic to note is that the CDC says Exposure to *secondhand smoke* causes an estimated 41,000 *deaths* each year among adults in the United States: *Secondhand smoke* causes 7,333 annual *deaths* from lung cancer.

sounds to me like smokers are more deadly than guns in USA and 2nd had smoke is being inflicted on someone else...


----------



## Jim white (Feb 19, 2018)

Stand your ground and also carry a knife and I'm not talkin no pocket knife.


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

Jim white said:


> Stand your ground and also carry a knife and I'm not talkin no pocket knife.


just an escalation... what is next - open carry of baseball bats or a tire iron (who knows what that is now day...)


----------



## mike oehme (Aug 17, 2014)

kevinw said:


> Wait wait wait. Politicians don't know what they're talking about? You mean to say my AR-15 is not actually a ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip, able to dispense with 30 bullets in half a second?
> 
> I'm shocked. Shocked, I say!


Don't you mean magazine. I have not to this day seen an AR-15 that uses a .30 caliber clip.


----------



## mike oehme (Aug 17, 2014)

Why are they not going after the manufacture of the car that killed the Capitol Police Officer? and a rifle is a rifle, assault is a verb, and I have never seen a rifle assault anyone just like I have never seen a car kill someone. the dems need to understand that before they do anything else on gun control.


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

mike oehme said:


> Don't you mean magazine. I have not to this day seen an AR-15 that uses a .30 caliber clip.


He’s making fun.


----------



## mike oehme (Aug 17, 2014)

Sorry, didn't catch it. I took my night time pills and I'm half asleep.


----------



## privateer (Apr 26, 2012)

mike oehme said:


> Why are they not going after the manufacture of the car that killed the Capitol Police Officer? and a rifle is a rifle, assault is a verb, and I have never seen a rifle assault anyone just like I have never seen a car kill someone. the dems need to understand that before they do anything else on gun control.


exactly. every mfg that makes a product that may harm someone needs to fear the day this type of legal action is allowed. a mfg can not control how their product is misused...


----------



## Jim white (Feb 19, 2018)

privateer said:


> just an escalation... what is next - open carry of baseball bats or a tire iron (who knows what that is now day...)


Carry what ya want


----------



## FOWL BRAWL (Feb 13, 2020)

Jim white said:


> Stand your ground and also carry a knife and I'm not talkin no pocket knife.





privateer said:


> just an escalation... what is next - open carry of baseball bats or a tire iron (who knows what that is now day..


Carry whatever gives you an advantage or at least something that is comparable to what your up against. The only difference is what most of us carry is legal and not used for illegal activities


----------

