Liberal Forum

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 5:37 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 5:37 pm

The current background system is very flawed, though. The FBI instant background check is just that: instant. It takes an average of 108 seconds to get a response from the database, which flags things like a criminal record, addiction, a restraining order, or having been hospitalized for mental illness. However, this FBI database is missing millions of records, letting many dangerous people purchase firearms. The other issue with the current background check system is that it doesn’t catch dangerous people who don’t already have a record. So, that dangerous person, like the Atlanta shooter who bought a gun the morning of his attacks, could get a gun in 108 seconds. There is another system that could prevent this from occurring.

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 5:35 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 5:35 pm

On March 16, 2021, eight people were shot to death at three massage parlors in the Atlanta area. This horrific attack comes as the latest symptom of America’s gun epidemic. A mass shooting is defined by the FBI as an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence, and these specific types of tragedies often bring the conversation on gun control back up to the national stage. Nationally, mass shootings hit record highs, jumping nearly 50 percent during the Covid-19 pandemic with 95 reported incidents in June 2020 alone.

Most Democratic politicians support universal background checks, like in their new bill, H.R.8, that has passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill would require background checks for all gun buyers, and extend the time the FBI has to veto those flagged by the national instant check system. This bill accomplishes the popular proposal of universal background checks but doesn’t check all the boxes. Expanding the current background check system to be required in all gun sales sounds like the right solution, but wouldn’t necessarily decrease the number of gun sales to dangerous people. H.R. 8 is co-sponsored by at least three House Republicans, but the vote was pretty split down the partisan line and is unlikely to pass in the Senate with Republican support.

At the moment, background checks are only required at licensed gun stores, meaning that a buyer at a gun show or private sale would not have to undergo a background check. Universal background checks would mean that anyone who wanted to purchase a firearm, no matter where, would have to do a background check.

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 5:50 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 5:50 pm

Yet

Lets be quite clear on that

YET

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 5:50 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 5:50 pm

Yet

Lets be quite clear on that

YET

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 5:35 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 5:35 pm

On March 16, 2021, eight people were shot to death at three massage parlors in the Atlanta area. This horrific attack comes as the latest symptom of America’s gun epidemic. A mass shooting is defined by the FBI as an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence, and these specific types of tragedies often bring the conversation on gun control back up to the national stage. Nationally, mass shootings hit record highs, jumping nearly 50 percent during the Covid-19 pandemic with 95 reported incidents in June 2020 alone.

Most Democratic politicians support universal background checks, like in their new bill, H.R.8, that has passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill would require background checks for all gun buyers, and extend the time the FBI has to veto those flagged by the national instant check system. This bill accomplishes the popular proposal of universal background checks but doesn’t check all the boxes. Expanding the current background check system to be required in all gun sales sounds like the right solution, but wouldn’t necessarily decrease the number of gun sales to dangerous people. H.R. 8 is co-sponsored by at least three House Republicans, but the vote was pretty split down the partisan line and is unlikely to pass in the Senate with Republican support.

At the moment, background checks are only required at licensed gun stores, meaning that a buyer at a gun show or private sale would not have to undergo a background check. Universal background checks would mean that anyone who wanted to purchase a firearm, no matter where, would have to do a background check.

Vegasgiants » 21 Apr 2021, 5:50 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 5:50 pm

Yet

Lets be quite clear on that

YET

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 4:29 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:29 pm

There's the argument.  Have at it.  If you can't read it have your daughter explain it to you.

Vegas » 21 Apr 2021, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:57 pm

As predicted, more sources, no thoughts of your own. 100% accuracy.

@Blackvegetable  you two clowns are too easy.

Vegas » 21 Apr 2021, 4:40 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 4:40 pm

You two are hopeless. @Blackvegetable  I literally just gave you two twits an example of what it looks like to provide your own thoughts, and the first thing this **** moron does is post a drive by copy/paste quote with no thoughts on it whatsoever. 

How **** stupid do you two get?

Prediction
1. More drive by quotes with no thoughts. 

Morons. Absolute morons.

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 6:30 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 6:30 pm

You're literally dumber than ****..

Unemployable.

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 6:27 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 6:27 pm

Apparently you believe it is an argument.

Break it down into its alleged components and you'll see that it isn't.

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 6:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 6:36 pm

Dorry, idiot.  You have my argument.  Take it or lose.

FOS » 21 Apr 2021, 6:34 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 6:34 pm

In my country
you would be unemployable.

Not just cause you are a *** Jew. No. 

You are also **** stupid.

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 6:40 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 6:40 pm

I'm gonna guess only one of us is employed..

Am I right?

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 6:38 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 6:38 pm

You have failed to demonstrate that it is an argument, or that you can even vaguely describe an argument.

You remain on an epic losing streak.

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 6:38 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 6:38 pm

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 6:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 6:36 pm

Dorry, idiot.  You have my argument.  Take it or lose.

You have failed to demonstrate that it is an argument, or that you can even vaguely describe an argument.

You remain on an epic losing streak.

 

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm

You're dumber than ****.....

Never, ever presume to dwarfslpain ANYTHING to anyone

So, we have destroyed your alleged counter argument concerning the number of magazines in circulation that will not fall under the law.  Let's move onto another point I made you did not address, simply calling it irrelevant which is your code that you have no clue what is being discussed.

Let's say this cheese law manages to pass.  Meaning no more magazines with 10 + round capacity.  You with me so far?  We will not be discussing clips. 

In this REAL world example I own a 380 EZ that I carry.  It is an 8+1 weapon.  I know you are not schooled in the terminology. That means the magazine carries 8 but I have one chambered when I carry it.  That is the +1 meaning I have nine ready to go.  In my front pocket I have another 8 round magazine.  That means I have 17 rounds.  Remember, it takes a second to change.  That is normally what I carry.

Now if I wanted too I could carry more.  I don't but I could.  I could put 2 magazines in each pocket.  That would be 4 mags x 8 =32.  You with me so far?  So, with the 9 in the weapon we are up to 41.  But wait, there is more.  

I have a shoulder holster I wear sometimes that has two magazine pouches.  Usually in the winter under a jacket.  Two more 8 round magazines = 16.  16 plus 41 is 57.  And no one would ever know.  And it is all perfectly legal under the law you support.  

So according to the law you support a person who was inclined (I am not) to do so could effectively shoot 57 people and the law has done nothing to stop it.  Just like the VA Tech shooting you claimed was irrelevant.  

That is how a man makes an argument Mr. Irrelevant.  I gave you a realistic REAL world example.  

 

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 6:38 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 6:38 pm

You have failed to demonstrate that it is an argument, or that you can even vaguely describe an argument.

You remain on an epic losing streak.

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 7:02 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 7:02 pm

Sniffle sniffle, ****** says he can’t make an argument,

Here is a tissue, physical coward.

See what you got tomorrow, Scrawny.

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 6:51 pm

@Blackvegetable  

Have your mom or your daughter read this to you and explain it to you.  I will check tomorrow to see if you have a response.  Until you read it you are in no position to question it.  I have owned you on gun issues for almost 4 years. 

When you formulate a rebuttal let me know.  Till this point, on this thread, as with all gun issues, I have kicked your ***. 

Stick to bough and paid for cap stubing stripes.  Even with that you got your *** kicked in your own driveway.