Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

[dviss1]

Seems like you are poking around. What are you looking to find?

Poking around? Looking to find?

No. I just came to state facts. Now if our 1st amendment right can be regulated why can't we regulate our 2nd?

 

[Cippy91]

This.

Like I said: over 180 million people own over 320 million guns in this country.

If guns were the problem.....we'd know about it.

I told people on here, I don't give a shit even if you were to ban AR's. i don't have one, I don't care. Liberals on here scream and shout back at me but where is you solution. Mine was stricter background checks. As for gathering up the guns in this country, I just don't know how you do it and even if you were semi capable of doing it, how many more will be sold on the streets illegally? nobody on here has had any answer to these questions. More and more people are getting sick of the left. I am not down with any of the two parties but god damn at least the right doesn't walk around with a stick up their ass all sensitive. Meanwhile the left tries to tell me there are more than two genders and all this fuckin nonsense. I just can't get with it. Continues to make no sense. Just a bunch of virtue signaling morale superiority ideologues who think they are changing the world spreading one lie at a time, even going against science and biology, real facts. It's crazy

 

[Jade Falcon]

Poking around? Looking to find?

No. I just came to state facts. Now if our 1st amendment right can be regulated why can't we regulate our 2nd?

The whole "shall not be infringed" part? That's a pretty major part of the 2A....

By the way, far be it from me to believe conspiracies, but....

I find it very difficult to believe that David Hogg just happens to show up where violence occurs. Someone is paying this douche.

 

[dviss1]

Perspective. That's all I want.

So since more people die from other things let's not do anything to prevent gun deaths?

Sound logic...

 

[dviss1]

I told people on here, I don't give a shit even if you were to ban AR's. i don't have one, I don't care. Liberals on here scream and shout back at me but where is you solution. Mine was stricter background checks. As for gathering up the guns in this country, I just don't know how you do it and even if you were semi capable of doing it, how many more will be sold on the streets illegally? nobody on here has had any answer to these questions. More and more people are getting sick of the left. I am not down with any of the two parties but god damn at least the right doesn't walk around with a stick up their ass all sensitive. Meanwhile the left tries to tell me there are more than two genders and all this fuckin nonsense. I just can't get with it. Continues to make no sense. Just a bunch of virtue signaling morale superiority ideologues who think they are changing the world spreading one lie at a time, even going against science and biology, real facts. It's crazy

No one has ever suggested "rounding up the guns".

No liberal.

Background checks are low hanging fruit. We've wanted this for decades.

 

[Jade Falcon]

No one has ever suggested "rounding up the guns".

No liberal.

Background checks are low hanging fruit. We've wanted this for decades.

Every time I've bought or sold a gun, I've had to go through a background check. Whether it's at a gun show or at a gun shop.

Background checks aren't the issue.

 

[dviss1]

The whole "shall not be infringed" part? That's a pretty major part of the 2A....

By the way, far be it from me to believe conspiracies, but....

I find it very difficult to believe that David Hogg just happens to show up where violence occurs. Someone is paying this douche.

David Hogg has nothing to do with 18 kids dying. Point blank.

And the first amendment doesn't allow for regulation as written but it is regulated.

The 2nd is regulated too! It's already regulated. We need to apply MORE regulation.

 

[dviss1]

Every time I've bought or sold a gun, I've had to go through a background check. Whether it's at a gun show or at a gun shop.

Background checks aren't the issue.

Not if You sold one here:

http://www.armslist.com

 

[rasheedfan2005]

This.

Over on GlockTalk, there's a division over this topic. Like you, I could give two flying fucks about bumpstocks. But if adding them to the NFA meant that we could get National Reciprocity, then I personally would not pass that up.

The other side believes that banning one thing will lead down a slippery slope towards further confiscation and banning of other objects, regardless of how minor, that go with the basic functioning of a firearm, until you've basically banned a gun. And I can certainly see that argument. I mean, it's not like gun banners ever give up. Just look at some of the people in this thread.

And Democrats say "we're not taking away your guns". What the fuck do you think the word "BAN" means, you fucking morons?

I agree. It's one of those laws that i dont really give a fuck what the outcome is i just dont want it to be a stepping stone toward bullshit bans that actually affect me. I know if i lived in cali the magazine limit would piss me the fuck off, one of many reasons i dont live there. If that stupid fucking law goes federal ill go ape shit.

 

[Jade Falcon]

David Hogg has nothing to do with 18 kids dying. Point blank.

And the first amendment doesn't allow for regulation as written but it is regulated.

The 2nd is regulated too! It's already regulated. We need to apply MORE regulation.

You're right. He obviously has more to be concerned about. Like mean life guards....

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/vide...caught-on-camera-in-redondo-beach-goes-viral/

Not if You sold one here:

http://www.armslist.com

Armslist is a advertisement forum, not a sales distributor. Anyone who's ever actually been on Armslist before would know this.

Nice try though.

 

[Cippy91]

The whole "shall not be infringed" part? That's a pretty major part of the 2A....

By the way, far be it from me to believe conspiracies, but....

I find it very difficult to believe that David Hogg just happens to show up where violence occurs. Someone is paying this douche.

I don't think the whole thing was a conspiracy obviously, however I have heard this get david hogg is son of an fbi agent and I saw that video of him recently giving an interview where it looks like he forgot his lines. None of it seemed natural. So honestly it's not completely impossible or unreasonable to think this dude is an actor to push an agenda. CNN has always pushed the gun control narrative and who to do it better than a child actor that can say all the right things and tug on the heart strings of the left

 

[crandc]

The whole "shall not be infringed" part? That's a pretty major part of the 2A....

By the way, far be it from me to believe conspiracies, but....

I find it very difficult to believe that David Hogg just happens to show up where violence occurs. Someone is paying this douche.

Just happened to show up at the school he attends?

Jesus fucking Christ.
Prove "someone" is paying him or STFU.

I sure never dreamed that having a father who is a retired FBI officer would be considered "proof" of "far left" views!

 

[Cippy91]

Somebody try and tell me this isn't weird as fuck.

 

[Cippy91]

Just happened to show up at the school he attends?

Jesus fucking Christ.
Prove "someone" is paying him or STFU.

I sure never dreamed that having a father who is a retired FBI officer would be considered "proof" of "far left" views!

The two men in your pic make me hard

 

[rasheedfan2005]

I kind a wonder about banning the bump stock. If the effect is actually what is desired. I mean the practical effect of the bump stock is to waste the rounds in the magazine. Banning the thing seems to be nothing but a feel good, where as the practical effect is to make the ammo in the magazine potentially more effectively utilized if evil is the intent.

Exactly. When i discovered bump stocks and modifications to "bump" fire i was like, ok cool i guess. An attempt to legally have an almost automatic i suppose. Was never my cup of tea, i prefer target practice so when i set out to get meat i can get a good clean kill shot. Sure it's fun to blow through a mag or 2 sometimes but after a couple mags the nostalgia wore off for me.

The only reason i oppose these sort of bans is for like was said, they just keep trying to take and take. It'd be one thing if the bans actually saved lives, but they dont, so it's a waste of god damn time and resources.

 

[Cippy91]

Just happened to show up at the school he attends?

Jesus fucking Christ.
Prove "someone" is paying him or STFU.

I sure never dreamed that having a father who is a retired FBI officer would be considered "proof" of "far left" views!

Prove he is a student other than the news telling you he is

 

[rasheedfan2005]

CNN had an article up the other day asking if 16 year olds should be able to vote? why? well because of all these young kids at this school who have been yelling and bitching about the NRA and gun laws now. Yeah lets give these insane liberal kids the keys to the future, fuck it. Currently waiting for boston dynamics robots to takeover. Might be the better thing after all

Yeah at this point id prefer going to war with skynet. Id rather die from a bullet or a missle than have my brain die slowly listening to this drivel.

 

[Cippy91]

Exactly. When i discovered bump stocks and modifications to "bump" fire i was like, ok cool i guess. An attempt to legally have an almost automatic i suppose. Was never my cup of tea, i prefer target practice so when i set out to get meat i can get a good clean kill shot. Sure it's fun to blow through a mag or 2 sometimes but after a couple mags the nostalgia wore off for me.

The only reason i oppose these sort of bans is for like was said, they just keep trying to take and take. It'd be one thing if the bans actually saved lives, but they dont, so it's a waste of god damn time and resources.

Wow are you gonna kill kids next you gun nut!!!! jesus christ you must be trying to kill people since thats all guns do! wow!

 

[Jade Falcon]

I don't think the whole thing was a conspiracy obviously, however I have heard this get david hogg is son of an fbi agent and I saw that video of him recently giving an interview where it looks like he forgot his lines. None of it seemed natural. So honestly it's not completely impossible or unreasonable to think this dude is an actor to push an agenda. CNN has always pushed the gun control narrative and who to do it better than a child actor that can say all the right things and tug on the heart strings of the left

He's just some douche who thinks he's entitled to something:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/3710986-confrontation-between-lifeguard-bodysurfer-caught-on-camera-in-redondo-beach-goes-viral/

But he's 17, so there's still hope for him.

Just happened to show up at the school he attends?

Jesus fucking Christ.
Prove "someone" is paying him or STFU.

I sure never dreamed that having a father who is a retired FBI officer would be considered "proof" of "far left" views!

Obama put a lot of Feds in positions of power. Now look at where the FBI is today. It's a cluster fuck.

I'm surprised at you Crandc....I thought you'd be smarter than that.

Prove he is a student other than the news telling you he is

There you go.

 

[Cippy91]

Yeah at this point id prefer going to war with skynet. Id rather die from a bullet or a missle than have my brain die slowly listening to this drivel.

For lolz, here

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/opinions/parkland-shooting-voting-age-opinion-douglas/index.html

 

[rasheedfan2005]

Wow are you gonna kill kids next you gun nut!!!! jesus christ you must be trying to kill people since thats all guns do! wow!

I killed a baby once. My first deer. I had no idea what a full sized deer looked like at 300 yards. I felt bad.

 

[dviss1]

This.

Like I said: over 180 million people own over 320 million guns in this country.

If guns were the problem.....we'd know about it.

No.... No the FUCK we wouldn't...

You're either lying or just uninformed. I don't think you're a dishonest person so it must be the latter.

Here's why the federal government can't study gun violence.

On the heels of the deadliest gun massacre in modern U.S. history, Republicans and Democrats alike have decried the killings and offered supportive words to the hundreds of victims in Las Vegas.

With every major mass shooting, from Sandy Hook in sleepy Newtown, Connecticut, to Pulse nightclub in Orlando, come pleas from the public for officials to do something, anything, to address the scourge of gun violence in this country.

ADVERTISEMENT

On this case, politicians from both sides of the aisle, with the support of the NRA, have indicated they may be open to a conversation about common sense gun restrictions, including restricting "bump stocks," devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like automatic weapons.

But perhaps part of the reason Congress hasn't fully addressed the rising tide of shootings is that the federal government lacks basic research into which solutions work best.



Dickey: Why the feds don't research gun violence
Passed in 1997 with the strong backing of the NRA, the so-called "Dickey Amendment" effectively bars the national Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from studying firearm violence -- an epidemic the American Medical Association has since dubbed "a public health crisis."

The amendment, which was first tucked into an appropriations bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, stipulates that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." A similar provision was included in the Appropriations Act of 2012.

Named for Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, a self-proclaimed "point man for the NRA" on The Hill -- the Dickey amendment does not explicitly ban CDC research on gun violence. But along with the gun control line came a $2.6 million budget cut -- the exact amount that the agency had spent on firearm research the year prior -- and a quiet wariness.

As one doctor put it, "Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear ... but no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out."

Critics argue that the government should not try to limit the collection of scientific information, which is by nature apolitical.

"Facts are facts," Amalia Corby, the American Psychological Association's senior legislative and federal affairs officer, told ABC News. "Public health researchers do not have a vested interest in the outcome."

Besides, experts say, non-partisan research could uncover a plethora of suggestions to help stem the tide of violence -- education strategies, guns storage solutions, etc. -- that don't include limiting access to guns.

"Violence prevention researchers are invested in less violence, not fewer guns," Corby said. "Their end game is not to take away guns."

Though President Obama formally directed the CDC to "the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it" shortly after the Newtown mass-murder in 2012, the chilling effect had already taken hold, and the CDC has consistently declined to allocate money to study the issue.

In fact, to this day, CDC policy states the agency "interprets" the language as a prohibition on using CDC funds to research gun issues that would be used in legislative arguments "intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms."

Thus, researchers remain "afraid to even delve into that area of research because they're afraid of having their funding pulled," Corby said.

More than a decade after Dickey passed, Congressman Dickey himself came come to regret the law he had helped push.

"Firearm injuries will continue to claim far too many lives at home, at school, at work and at the movies until we start asking and answering the hard questions," he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed shortly after the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting that killed 12 in July 2012. "Scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries."

"I wish I had not been so reactionary," Dickey told ABC years later.

The congressman, who remained a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment until his death in April, said he once worried that the CDC's "agenda" was to take away guns. But he later joined forces with Mark Rosenberg, the former director of the CDC's gun research center, to promote academic inquiry into guns.

"Scientific research... it's our responsibility," Dickey explained. "It's silly for us to watch this nonsense take place, without doing something."



Why the ATF can't track guns electronically
Laws govern not only the tracking of gun violence statistics, but tracking of the firearms themselves too.

The Tiahrt Amendment, first sponsored by Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt and recently reauthorized as part of another appropriations bill, prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from maintaining a searchable database. Instead, officers attempting to trace a gun used in the commission of a crime must use a card catalog and phone system to track the weapon.

Often, officers find themselves forced to comb through boxes and boxes of paper records, many of them barely legible, by hand. The antiquated system -- which stretches the average processing time from hours to days -- cost taxpayers around $60 million over the course of 12 years, the ATF Tracing Center estimates.

Though proponents say the law prevents ATF overreach and protects the second amendment by barring a gun "registry," critics claim that Tiahrt has "unduly hampered" the agency from enforcing the law, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.



By the numbers
According to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that tracks firearm violence across the country, there have been 275 mass shooter incidents -- defined as a shooting involving four or more victims injured or killed -- to date in 2017.
In the same time period, more than 11,700 people, including minors, died by gunshot, whether intentional or accidental, and nearly 24,000 were injured.

The CDC -- which notes that the Dickey amendment does not prohibit public health data collection -- says that firearm-related injuries are among the five leading causes of death for people ages 1-64 in the United States.

The NRA did not respond to ABC News' repeated requests for comment. The organization spent more than $3.2 million on lobbying in the first half of 2017, according to the Senate Office of Public Records' lobbying database.

ABC News' Lauren Pearle and Geneva Sands contributed to this report.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I don't think anybody here is a gun nut. At all. What people want is some logic behind what you are saying because it sure as fuck sounds like you don't know what you are talking about. I have seen nobody here boasting about their sweet collection of guns, rather we are just telling you hey, settle down, it's not as crazy as you think it is. Anybody opposed to your belief is a "gun nut". Interesting

No Cippy, as per usual you take someone’s words, twist them and run off at the mouth. I call anyone who actually believes they are “constitutionally” entitled to unfettered and unregulated gun ownership (and who verbally castigate and attack those who believe in some sort or regulatory rules for gun ownership) “gun nuts” because they refuse to participate in meaningful dialogue. The point I tried to make with MY post is the same you attribute to those on the other side of the debate, mainly “hey, settle down, it’s not as crazy as you think it is.” The posts I responded to were borderline hysterical and utterly disrespectful of the beliefs and opinions of those who hold an opposing viewpoint. Maybe if you would quit jumping into conversations with both feet until you actually read (and try to understand) what’s being debated, your opinions might carry an ounce or two of weight. But until then..........

 

[Jade Falcon]

I killed a baby once. My first deer. I had no idea what a full sized deer looked like at 300 yards. I felt bad.

May I offer you a safe space? Some cookies, milk, and a blankie?

 

[rasheedfan2005]

For lolz, here

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/opinions/parkland-shooting-voting-age-opinion-douglas/index.html

I see the girls face and instantly close the shit. Just seeing cnn when i go to the gym makes me want to gouge out my own eyes. The narrative is beyond annoying at this point.

 

[Cippy91]

No Cippy, as per usual you take someone’s words, twist them and run off at the mouth. I call anyone who actually believes they are “constitutionally” entitled to unfettered and unregulated gun ownership (and who verbally castigate and attack those who believe in some sort or regulatory rules for gun ownership) “gun nuts” because they refuse to participate in meaningful dialogue. The point I tried to make with MY post is the same you attribute to those on the other side of the debate, mainly “hey, settle down, it’s not as crazy as you think it is.” The posts I responded to were borderline hysterical and utterly disrespectful of the beliefs and opinions of those who hold an opposing viewpoint. Maybe if you would quit jumping into conversations with both feet until you actually read (and try to understand) what’s being debated, your opinions might carry an ounce or two of weight. But until then..........

That's the dumbest reason I have ever seen to call somebody a gun nut. Usually gun nuts own several of these weapons and boast about them all the time. I think I read correctly. I am not twisting your words. That's Barfos job

 

[rasheedfan2005]

May I offer you a safe space? Some cookies, milk, and a blankie?

It was the best tasting 16lbs of meat of my life.

 

[Cippy91]

I see the girls face and instantly close the shit. Just seeing cnn when i go to the gym makes me want to gouge out my own eyes. The narrative is beyond annoying at this point.

"we are teenagers and know what we are talking about because our school got shot up."

It's actually kinda sick the media constantly uses children to try and hammer their views down others throats. Remember Sandy hook and obama using those kids from the school? like what the fuck? I mean this is just a thing the media loves to do. "BUT THE KIDS" type shit

 

[Cippy91]

It was the best tasting 16lbs of meat of my life.

By the way, WAY better for you than the poor treated and unhealthy meat at the grocery store but naw you are obviously a killer in training

 

[Jade Falcon]

No.... No the FUCK we wouldn't...

You're either lying or just uninformed. I don't think you're a dishonest person so it must be the latter.

Here's why the federal government can't study gun violence.

On the heels of the deadliest gun massacre in modern U.S. history, Republicans and Democrats alike have decried the killings and offered supportive words to the hundreds of victims in Las Vegas.

With every major mass shooting, from Sandy Hook in sleepy Newtown, Connecticut, to Pulse nightclub in Orlando, come pleas from the public for officials to do something, anything, to address the scourge of gun violence in this country.

ADVERTISEMENT

On this case, politicians from both sides of the aisle, with the support of the NRA, have indicated they may be open to a conversation about common sense gun restrictions, including restricting "bump stocks," devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like automatic weapons.

But perhaps part of the reason Congress hasn't fully addressed the rising tide of shootings is that the federal government lacks basic research into which solutions work best.



Dickey: Why the feds don't research gun violence
Passed in 1997 with the strong backing of the NRA, the so-called "Dickey Amendment" effectively bars the national Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from studying firearm violence -- an epidemic the American Medical Association has since dubbed "a public health crisis."

The amendment, which was first tucked into an appropriations bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, stipulates that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." A similar provision was included in the Appropriations Act of 2012.

Named for Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, a self-proclaimed "point man for the NRA" on The Hill -- the Dickey amendment does not explicitly ban CDC research on gun violence. But along with the gun control line came a $2.6 million budget cut -- the exact amount that the agency had spent on firearm research the year prior -- and a quiet wariness.

As one doctor put it, "Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear ... but no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out."

Critics argue that the government should not try to limit the collection of scientific information, which is by nature apolitical.

"Facts are facts," Amalia Corby, the American Psychological Association's senior legislative and federal affairs officer, told ABC News. "Public health researchers do not have a vested interest in the outcome."

Besides, experts say, non-partisan research could uncover a plethora of suggestions to help stem the tide of violence -- education strategies, guns storage solutions, etc. -- that don't include limiting access to guns.

"Violence prevention researchers are invested in less violence, not fewer guns," Corby said. "Their end game is not to take away guns."

Though President Obama formally directed the CDC to "the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it" shortly after the Newtown mass-murder in 2012, the chilling effect had already taken hold, and the CDC has consistently declined to allocate money to study the issue.

In fact, to this day, CDC policy states the agency "interprets" the language as a prohibition on using CDC funds to research gun issues that would be used in legislative arguments "intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms."

Thus, researchers remain "afraid to even delve into that area of research because they're afraid of having their funding pulled," Corby said.

More than a decade after Dickey passed, Congressman Dickey himself came come to regret the law he had helped push.

"Firearm injuries will continue to claim far too many lives at home, at school, at work and at the movies until we start asking and answering the hard questions," he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed shortly after the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting that killed 12 in July 2012. "Scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries."

"I wish I had not been so reactionary," Dickey told ABC years later.

The congressman, who remained a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment until his death in April, said he once worried that the CDC's "agenda" was to take away guns. But he later joined forces with Mark Rosenberg, the former director of the CDC's gun research center, to promote academic inquiry into guns.

"Scientific research... it's our responsibility," Dickey explained. "It's silly for us to watch this nonsense take place, without doing something."



Why the ATF can't track guns electronically
Laws govern not only the tracking of gun violence statistics, but tracking of the firearms themselves too.

The Tiahrt Amendment, first sponsored by Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt and recently reauthorized as part of another appropriations bill, prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from maintaining a searchable database. Instead, officers attempting to trace a gun used in the commission of a crime must use a card catalog and phone system to track the weapon.

Often, officers find themselves forced to comb through boxes and boxes of paper records, many of them barely legible, by hand. The antiquated system -- which stretches the average processing time from hours to days -- cost taxpayers around $60 million over the course of 12 years, the ATF Tracing Center estimates.

Though proponents say the law prevents ATF overreach and protects the second amendment by barring a gun "registry," critics claim that Tiahrt has "unduly hampered" the agency from enforcing the law, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.



By the numbers
According to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that tracks firearm violence across the country, there have been 275 mass shooter incidents -- defined as a shooting involving four or more victims injured or killed -- to date in 2017.
In the same time period, more than 11,700 people, including minors, died by gunshot, whether intentional or accidental, and nearly 24,000 were injured.

The CDC -- which notes that the Dickey amendment does not prohibit public health data collection -- says that firearm-related injuries are among the five leading causes of death for people ages 1-64 in the United States.

The NRA did not respond to ABC News' repeated requests for comment. The organization spent more than $3.2 million on lobbying in the first half of 2017, according to the Senate Office of Public Records' lobbying database.

ABC News' Lauren Pearle and Geneva Sands contributed to this report.

You're not understanding simple math here.

320 million guns.

180 million gun owners.

According to the FBI, less than 1% of the total number of deaths in this country per year is as a result of firearms.

We don't need special studies on guns, and we sure as hell don't need the CDC getting involved in this issue either. They can barely control their own issues as it is, and it would be a waste of tax payer money and resources.

What we DO need is a study by an INDEPENDENT group, not tied to the government or any political or social affiliation, about why our country is becoming more and more unstable and violent. And I'm willing to bet that overpopulation and media hysteria has a lot to do with it.