1) the claim that the system was set up to allow those with records to buy guns was one of the first (background checks were never the law of the land for 200 years) 2) buying guns over the internet does not require a background check (if its intra-state you have to meet the seller face to face, out of state it has to go through a licensed dealer) 3) comparing CT and MO. (no evidence of causation) More to come given he lies constantly
congress made it harder for PUBLIC HEALTH experts to study gun violence Why should disease experts study this when the FBI DOES) he also is being dishonest about the terrorist watch list-no due process 4) Gun Lobby holding America Hostage (dishonest throwaway line) 5) we want to take it (WHAT IS IT) further (what is in the business of selling guns-one gun to your neighbor-two guns,) 6) trusts-this was an attempt to allow local police to prevent anyone from buying a grandfathered machine gun if they have a clean record right now if you want to buy a legal machine gun, you have to get the PERMISSION of a local law enforcement agent. If he denies it-because you are black, Jewish or supported his opponent in an election, you have no recourse other than to create a trust to own the weapon. criminals aren't creating trusts WHOPPER there Obama mental illness-yeah that is the one thing this guy said that makes some sense
I'd disagree with the mental health statement. He says he wants to destigmatize mental health issues so people get help more, and in the same breath says that he wants to increase reporting so those that DO seek help are permanently barred from ownership. While it DOES make sense to increase resources for mental health facilities its certainly not going to destigmatize mental health issues such that more people will seek help if by doing so they're fairly certain their rights will be removed.
On the mental health issue. Have we seen the conditions that constitute a disqualifier? Like veterans who get help with PTSD.... This is a very bad area, considering the law in CA. that went into effect on Jan. 1. Confiscation without due process. The really troubling thing is that these issues have sane solutions, but the admin. isn't concerned with sanity.
"We maybe can't save everybody, but we could save some. Just as we don't prevent all traffic accidents, but we take steps to try to reduce traffic accidents. "As Ronald Regan once said, 'If mandatory background checks could save more lives, it would be well worth making it the law of the land.' "The bill before Congress three years ago met that test. Unfortunately too many Senators failed theirs. In fact, we know that background checks make a difference. After Connecticut pass a law requiring background checks and gun safety courses, gun deaths decreased by 40 percent - 40 percent. Meanwhile, since Missouri repealed a law requiring comprehensive background checks gun deaths have increased to almost 50 percent higher than the national average." -President Obama https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj_3M_RvKVY This makes sense to me. I think most Americans of both parties can agree that background checks are a good idea. Of course, the gun lobby doesn't want the truth to come out about guns. That's why they bullied Congress into cutting funding for the CDC. They also bullied Congress into cutting funding for the BATFE and supported limitations on law enforcement's access to gun trace data. More bad apple gun dealers and gun traffickers getting busted ultimately means less profit for the gun industry.
Universal Background checks sound like a good idea on the surface. But those that are educated know that they cannot be enforced without registration of existing guns.. Registration is the deal breaker, not background checks.
As you have been told before, background check mandates cannot be enforced in any way without a corresponding registration of every single firearm in private circulation, thus tying it to a readily identifiable owner. Without a centralized registry, there is no way to ensure that background checks are actually carried out, as anyone can simply say that they have owned the firearm for years.
Is there reason to support them when we have seen countless examples of the system failing to fulfill its intended purpose time and time again? How many mass shooters must pass their background checks, before it is determined that the system is not the answer?
