New DNC chief: Screen sales of all guns

[jpak]

Source: The Hill

The new head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is pushing for screenings of all gun purchases.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the current law, which allows private firearm sales without background checks, is "outrageous." The Florida Democrat is sponsoring a soon-to-be-released proposal extending the screening requirements to all gun purchases, commercial or private.

"It is outrageous that gun buyers evade the background check system every day, even in broad daylight," Wasserman Schultz said Monday at a gun reform rally in Miami sponsored by Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

"While we likely cannot end all gun violence, we certainly can do much, much better," she added. "We have laws on the books designed to keep guns out of the hands of those that should not have them. We just need to close the loopholes and improve the information available to law enforcement."

<more>

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/156699-new-dnc-chief-endorses-universal-screenings-for-gun-sales

[virginia mountainman]

1. O hell..

Looks like we will be loosing some more elections...

BUMMER, some of our leadership will NEVER LEARN on this issue..

How many elections must be lost, before they give up on assaulting our civil liberties??

EDIT, Why in the hell is the DNC CHIEF, speaking at a event put on by a REPUBLICAN LEAD and FUNDED organization??

[jsamuel]

2. for one, she isn't the DNC chief yet

she is currently just a member of congress

secondly, she is asking for background checks...

Is that really a bad thing?

[virginia mountainman]

3. I have no problem with background checks...

No problem at all with them, from gun dealers.. I have absolutely no problem with allowing the citizens access to the NICS system that the FFL dealers must use.. With one cavet...No records can be kept..

I HAVE A HUGE problem with gun registration. Registration lists have been used, to CONFISCATE firearms several times in history, and most recently in California.

Seems like practically ALL proposals for "all gun sales go thru background checks" seems to also include gun registration.. And that is a complete NON-STARTER.

[tridim]

6. I have a huge problem with people who want to buy, sell and own unregistered killing machines.

Your reason is idiotic and dangerous.

[Riftaxe]

8. Is this for guillotines or firearms?

because one is a killing machine the other is just a firearm. Or is it your argument that fire arm owners are so massively incompetent that the overwhelming majority of them never manage to use their guns properly (and if they are all that incompetent, why are you worried?)

[tridim]

12. I use my guillotine to chop vegetables. Derp.

You know what guns are for.

[TheWraith]

16. Good thing then that you don't get to make that decision.

Because the vast majority of the American public, including a large chunk of the Democratic Party, disagrees with your absolutism in the strongest terms. And trying to ban guns, or enforce de facto bans through convoluted registration schemes which only affect law abiding people, has been electoral poison for Democrats on the national stage.

[rl6214]

28. "unregistered killing machines."

Your description is idiotic

[tridim]

47. Guns are machines that kill.

Go post your pathetic article a third time.

[rl6214]

62. Is that the best you've got? Maybe I will

your description is still idiotic and pathetic.

[badtoworse]

82. Let me second that!

[Glassunion]

64. Guns are machines that people use to kill

They don't jump up and kill things on their own.

[PavePusher]

53. I've got thousands of those....

and not all (or even the majority) are firearms.

What to do, what to do....

[right2bfree]

33. Me too!

yup

[chibajoe]

45. I have a huge problem with the government telling citizens who they can and can't sell property to

Plus, there's that whole pesky 9th and 10th amendment to the constitution thing to deal with. :eyes:

[PavePusher]

52. You want to ban cars?!

Nooo-o-o-o-o-o......!

[spin]

59. None of my firearms are registered ...

you can't register firearms in Florida.

[lawodevolution]

69. None of my firearms are killing machines, they launch a projectile at paper targets

[rl6214]

27. Let's see how well this goes over.

"The coming House legislation will require all gun sellers to perform background checks on potential buyers – a change forcing private sellers to finalize their sales at licensed dealers or law enforcement offices, which have access to the federal database used to weed out illegal buyers."

I know I don't want to pay $25+ per gun purchase if the sale has to go through a licensed dealer.

[truthisfreedom]

I don't understand how doing a background check is an assault on a civil liberty.

We have to register everything with the DMV when we buy and sell a car. Why not have the same kinds of registrations when buying and selling guns? Seems reasonable to me. It could be combined with the DMV and just use the same offices.

[doc03]

15. Because that's what the NRA tells them to think n/t

[TheWraith]

17. Mandatory background checks on all transfers amounts to a ban on private sales.

It legally requires you to only be able to sell your firearms through a gun dealer, who can charge you ANYTHING they like in exchange for that service.

More to the point, it's just an intermediary step in harassing law-abiding gun owners, a way for groups like MAIG to look like they're doing something about crime without the difficulty of actually doing anything about crime. First they blame private sales, even though the FBI's own statistics show that few criminals get their guns that way. Then if they get that, then they want registration of firearms, even though Canada just determined that after spending $2 billion dollars on it, their gun registration system did not solve one single crime. Then it's that certain types of guns are too dangerous to own--turn them in, we know who has them. It's been done in places already, in California when they required forfeiture of legally owned and registered rifles.

And no, you do NOT have to register anything with the DMV, period. You only need to register your car if you want to drive it on public roads. You can have all the cars you want at home, or for use on your own property.

[jpak]

20. BS - all they have to do is file the paperwork - just like gun shops and gun show dealers

If they are indeed "law abiders" they will abide.

Otherwise they are conduits of guns to lawbreakers.

yup

[rl6214]

29. BS, we don't have access to the NICS system

so it's not just a matter of filing the paperwork.

But of course you know that.

[right2bfree]

34. Sounds good to me. nt

yup

[beevul]

40. No you clearly don't.

"We have to register everything with the DMV when we buy and sell a car."

No, actually we don't. Those things apply to ON PUBLIC ROAD USE only.

You can own them without anybodys say so what so ever, in the great majority of places in america.


And since the topic is simple ownership...

[HankyDubs]

4. im a control advocate

I've spent a good deal of time arguing with the gungeon dwellers here. But this really is not the time to campaign on this. There is so much at stake. Keep the debate centered on the economic arguments that we have already won with the vast majority. DWS is doing a bad job putting herself as DNC chair in the middle of this.

"Why in the hell is the DNC CHIEF, speaking at a event put on by a REPUBLICAN LEAD and FUNDED organization??"

But on this point, I have to ask...why do DU'ers donate money to a republican lead and funded organization?...by which I mean the NRA of course.

[Paladin]

23. Damn Good Question About DU Supporters Of The NRA.

And we've got way too many of them, particularly in the Guns forum. The modern gun rights movement is overwhelmingly right wing, and far right wing at that. Never doubt that the NRA-supporting "Democrats" here at DU are pushing a political agenda which is pure poison.......

[HankyDubs]

26. I can tell you what their response is

are you ready?

The NRA gives money to some democrats, though the percentages of course skew far rightward. Of course Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth give some money to nominal democrats as well, but we musn't discuss that since it impales their argument on a pointy stick. In fact I think your post will most likely be reported because the tough gungeon guys employ the alert button as a tool to silence opponents.

They blithely ignore the fact that their contributions go to $arah Palin's speaking fees for some reason. It's very difficult to even get them to speak on that at all.

But I have to stick up for some of the gungeon guys. There are many in there who I disagree with VERY STRONGLY and some are as you describe, but others are just people who have guns and object to laws they think are intrusive. I don't want to call any of them out, but there are people in there who are looking to find solutions we can all live with.

[mvccd1000]

38. Here's mine:

"I have no use for the NRA."

From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=403668&mesg_id=403732

[Common Sense Party]

58. Yes? You called?

[hack89]

44. You can support their stance on civil rights

without supporting their entire political agenda.

My view on guns fits nicely with my support for Democrats, marriage equality, abortion and all the other civil right we enjoy. Unlike many Democrats, I support the entire Bill of Rights. I don't accept an al carte Constitution.

[PavePusher]

54. Can't change them from the outside.

Become a member, encourage more Dems/Progs to become members, and take over from within.

[Pullo]

67. While I'm no longer a member ........

The NRA does deserve a lot of credit historically for their 2A advocacy. Without them, the modern 2A would likely be similar to the human appendix. As a matter of strategic necessity, they allied themselves allied themselves with the Republican party. There wasn't much choice, as much of the Democratic party, especially the power players, were overtly hostile towards the individuals' RKBA. This can change, but it will be a very slow process.

Many who value the 2A wish there was another pro RKBA organization with the influence of the NRA. The fact is, however, the NRA is the 500lb gorilla when it comes to gun rights advocacy. So, several pro-RKBA supporters simply hold their nose at the NRA's politics and join. Or, it may be something simple like their shooting range requires its customers to have NRA memberships.

I choose not to become an NRA member today because I feel there are more effective alternatives for my advocating 2A rights. Instead of just cutting the NRA a check and thinking I've done my part, there are local and national pro RBKA groups for available to me now. I feel my $ gets put to better use. My time certainly does. As you can see here in the gungeon, 2A supporters are very active online. We are organized, committed, and nimble. The antis, and the NRA for that matter, have shown no ability match us.

[Atypical Liberal]

68. I don't follow you.

Damn Good Question About DU Supporters Of The NRA. And we've got way too many of them, particularly in the Guns forum. The modern gun rights movement is overwhelmingly right wing, and far right wing at that. Never doubt that the NRA-supporting "Democrats" here at DU are pushing a political agenda which is pure poison.......

I don't follow. I am a Democrat and I am a member of the NRA. In the last election, all of my Democratic candidates received high marks from the NRA except one. Three of them were the NRA-endorsed candidate.

Yes, the modern gun rights movement is right-wing. Largely this is because most pro-firearm politicians are right-wing. If we had more pro-firearm liberal politicians this wedge issue would be negated.

[rl6214]

72. It's just too easy to paint the NRA as the bad guy

because of who they historically support. They NEED a bad guy.

[jpak]

5. No - the GOP/NRA is currently passing highly unpopular gun bills at the state level nationwide

asking for all gun sellers to conduct background checks will be highly popular

except among the teabagger nutjob set

yup

[ManiacJoe]

36. Making the NICS checks available to the public would be popular.

Current federal laws prohibit private sellers from using it.

[PavePusher]

55. Civil Rights laws were "highly unpopular" in many places in the 60's and 70's.

I guess they were a bad idea, huh?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. Those *unpopular" have broad bipartisan support and are quite popular

Yup yup

[bowens43]

24. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing.

despite the rants and lunacy on the far right , your civil liberties are not being assaulted. You have no constitutionally protected right to own firearms. The bastardization of the second amendment by the lunatic fringe in the supreme court does not alter this fact.

Unless you have an absolutely compelling reason for needing a gun, you should not be permitted to have one.

[PavePusher]

56. "You have no constitutionally protected right to own firearms."

Obstinancy, ignorance, or reading comprehension fail?

Inquiring minds....

[DainBramaged]

80. Assaulting YOUR civil liberties?

:rofl:


Hell if taking away the ability to buy truckloads of guns whenever you want is an assault on YOUR precious liberties, why not ask someone who is denied the right to marry how they feel about civil liberties.


Amazingly self-centered

[PavePusher]

81. Personally, I'm working to get the marriage thing fixed too.

Your omniscience... isn't.

[Riftaxe]

7. She wants to congress regulate intra-state commerce?

or is this something she is proposing just in FL?

[tridim]

9. No, she doesn't want criminals buying guns from private sellers.

[Riftaxe]

11. She wants criminals to buy from other criminals?

I would prefer it if criminals did not have guns in the first place.

[tridim]

10. No, she doesn't want criminals buying guns from private sellers.

[Riftaxe]

13. Why not just outlaw crime

in the first place?

[tridim]

14. Crime is outlawed.

She wants to outlaw unregulated gun sales.

[TheWraith]

18. Why not just outlaw criminals owning guns?

Oh wait--that's already outlawed. And criminals don't OBEY that law. And they wouldn't obey this one. So, in fact, the only thing she's doing is pissing off the law abiding.

[right2bfree]

35. Simple math: Gun owner kills innocent person=A criminal now....

got it or do you need more education?

[PavePusher]

57. How often do non-prior-criminal people do this (outside of self-defense)...

compared to prior-criminal people?

Hmmmm.....

[rl6214]

63. Simple math, gun owner does nothing illegal with his gun

no crime committed, leave him and his guns alone.

Got it now?

[TheWraith]

74. And how would mandatory background checks solve that, hmm?

Your condescending attitude aside, you have absolutely no evidence that mandatory background checks would prevent crime. Particularly when the FBI's own statistics show that most guns used in crime are stolen.

[Common Sense Party]

88. Simplistic math: Knife owner kills innocent person=A criminal now...

Outlaw all knives?

More simplistic math: A baseball bat owner budges an innocent person to death-A criminal now...

Outlaw all baseball bats?

Got it or do you need more education?

[RSillsbee]

49. Criminals don't buy guns from private sellers they steal them NT

[ManiacJoe]

19. Did I miss the part where Schultz introduces a bill to allow the checks?

Currently private sellers are prohibited from using the NICS system for background checks while it is required of dealers. Seems like an obvious starting point if Schultz is not working a separate agenda.

[bowens43]

21. about freaking time.

It should require extraordinary circumstances for a private citizen to own a hand gun. They should be VERY difficult to get.

[virginia mountainman]

22. about freaking time.

It should require extraordinary circumstances for a private citizen to own a printer. They should be VERY difficult to get.

[Paladin]

25. Next Time Somebody Uses An Ayn Rand Novel......

....to turn a school or office into a slaughterhouse, I'll give your lame comparison some consideration---instead of just laughing at it.....

[TPaine7]

31. Everyone who voted to ratify the Second Amendment knew that arms can be used to kill.

Yet they protected it, just like the First Amendment, and the Fourth, and the Fifth and the Sixth and...

Since--realizing that arms can be used to kill--they put all of them in one Bill of Rights, they are all comparable. By definition. Your laughing notwithstanding.

[Katya Mullethov]

48. Freedom! Horrible ... Freedom!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnPGDWD_oLE

Just think of the millions of overstuffed little kids that would not any idea how the world really is if it weren't for the Simpsons and South Park .

[RSillsbee]

50. You do know

the largest mass killing in a school in this country did not have a single firearm involved right?

[rl6214]

30. SUVs kill many more that handguns

I think it should require extraordinary circumstances for a private citizen to own an SUV. They should be VERY difficult to get.

[right2bfree]

32. SUV's dont kill people from 1000 yards. How dumb can it get? nt

[mvccd1000]

39. Apparently neither do guns in the US

Can you find even ONE SINGLE instance of ANYBODY being killed at a range greater than 100 yards?

Not that such a silly point matters, anyway. Do you feel that the family of the 70-something year old grandfather killed by an SUV while riding his ATV in San Manuel, AZ this weekend feels any better knowing he was killed up close by an automobile instead of further away by a gun? http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_central_southern_az/tucson/san-manuel-dirt-road-accident-leaves-one-dead%2C-three-in-hospital

Let us know if you ever get in touch with reality....

[RSillsbee]

71. When I was 19

I did a guy in Laos from 1000 yards out. In a high wind. Maybe 8 or even 10 guys in the world could have made that shot. It was the only thing I was ever good at.

I shouldn't need to use this buuuuuut :sarcasm:

[ManiacJoe]

73. Good movie though.

[RSillsbee]

77. I especial like the part

Where Riggs has one hand occupied w/ his cigarette and one hand holding his gun and is yet able to drop the magazine and clear the chamber before handing it over to Murtaugh

[beevul]

41. You're right.

They can drive 3000 miles before killing someone.


Did you think you had a point?

[rl6214]

65. About as dumb as you wanting to take away a legal right to own a gun

[right2bfree]

37. Indeed so!! nt

yup

[ileus]

42. How many of us would have supported this with 43 was president?

[GreenStormCloud]

43. The commerce clause of the Constitution could be a problem.

If both the seller and the buyer are in the same state then it becomes a purely state matter and can't be regulated by the Federal government.

[jpak]

46. Nonsense

yup

[Glassunion]

51. I'm afraid it is not.

The federal government cannot regulate any sale between two private parties that live in the same state.

Sorry.

[oneshooter]

60. And if they live in seperate states there are several Fed laws for that. n/t

[Glassunion]

61. Exactly...

In my state two private parties can not take part in the sale of a handgun or a rifle with a barrel length of less than 18" without having a background check performed. This is regulated on our state level.

This works great in PA, however it may not work in other states. We are a rather populated state with lots of sheriff department offices and FFLs around to run the required background checks. It is not a burden nor is it costly(only $2.00) to have the checks performed.

This may not work in other states where only FFLs can run the checks or the land area is so great as to cause an expensive and time consuming burden on the seller or buyer. If you need to drive 4 hours to the nearest town with an FFL or Law Enforcement Office, it is not as accommodating.

[GreenStormCloud]

66. Read the Constitution. N/T

[Atypical Liberal]

70. I don't have a problem with this.

I don't have a problem with requiring background checks for all private sales, so long as firearm ownership anonymity is preserved.

[Pullo]

75. How would this proposal be funded, and more importantly, enforced?

Since its illegal for the government to create a registry of who owns what firearms, there's no way for them to enforce this.

[Logical]

76. I have no issue with this dependingon the cost and the time required. n-t

[DainBramaged]

79. Guns GunsGunsGunsGunsGuns GunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGuns

GunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGuns
GunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGuns
GunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGuns
GunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGuns
GunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGuns
GunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGuns
GunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGuns
GunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGunsGuns


I prefer kids.

[Straw Man]

83. Another irrelevant appeal to emotion.

Mindless repetition and Hallmark non sequitur. But thanks for playing.

[DainBramaged]

84. Meh, meh and meh

[Straw Man]

85. And meh.

Your point is...?

[DainBramaged]

86. Speaking of hyperbole, if you don't understand, go polish your guns

[Straw Man]

87. I'm not sure you know what "hyperbole" means.

I'm not seeing any in this subthread.

[Common Sense Party]

89. I have both.

I love my kids. I own a gun. I also own a hammer, a drill, a car with seat belts, a life insurance policy, and many other things.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Abq_Sarah]

90. Even in broad daylight!!!!

Keep clutching those pearls, Debbie.