Universal Background Check bill passes House vote

BTW, there were 20 GOP traitors who betrayed gun owners and everyone should know who they are.

Edited to add:

I'm sorry, I got my issues confused. The blood is in the water and there has been a lot of anti-2nd activity lately in congress.

These were the (so called) Republicans who voted for the virulently anti-gun Attorney General Merrick Garland.

So either way, they voted against us once already, and we need to put pressure on them to not betray us again in these issues.

The Senate is our last stand now, before these bad legislations are passed. Lose there and then we'll need to go to the Supreme Court. If the court will even choose to listen.



Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Shelley Capito (R-WV)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Joni Ernst (R-IA)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
James Lankford (R-OK)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Mitt Romney (R-UT)
Mike Rounds (R-SD)
John Thune (R-SD)
Thom Tillis (R-NC)
 
Last edited:
At least 5 of those senators are retiring and are now beyond pressuring.
Click to expand...

"Well, you could pressure them to stand up for our rights and do the right thing!" said Captain Clueless. (Naive is his middle name)
 
The background check in Colorado does not use the guns info at all. It has the persons info submitted to CBI and the only gun info input is “long gun” “handgun” or “other”.

No registry needed for this background check.
 
The latest from Grass Roots NC. See link here.

House Resolution 8, the so-called "Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021," opens the door to a repeat of history. Remember when, under Bill Clinton, attorney general Janet Reno refused to purge NICS background check records, claiming that they were needed for "audit" purposes? Thankfully, George Bush's attorney general John Ashcroft reversed that de-facto gun control.

We now face the same Trojan horse, and we need to act immediately. HR8 passed in the House ... and if it passes the Senate and becomes law, it's a certainty that attorney general Merrick Garland will follow in Janet Reno's footsteps and will turn the NICS system into a de-facto gun registration system.

Sadly, eight Republican house members voted for this terrible bill, but none of them were from North Carolina. Needless to say, all of North Carolina's Democratic house members voted for it including Deborah Ross and Kathy Manning.

And if you still don't think this is an urgent issue, remember how Britain and Australia were able to ban guns — it was through their registries. Overnight, law-abiding citizens became criminals when the government decided that your guns were too dangerous for you (but perfectly fine for them). This article from Vox admits as much - that "Further legislation, such as gun licensing or a registry, is likely needed ..."

Read what North Carolina Congressman Richard Hudson had to say about this bill: "... the bills – they’re bringing up four this week – which would do nothing to have stopped a single mass shooting in this country, yet, they threaten the rights of law-abiding citizens ..."

HR8, in conjunction with HR1446, would allow the federal government to shutdown NICS and block all lawful gun sales in the country. Do you really want Joe Biden and Merrick Garland being able to terminate your rights on a whim?
Click to expand...
 
H. R. 1446 is designed to eliminate the so called "Charleston loophole"; that allowed Dylan Roof to obtain a firearm after three days. Roof then shot up a church killing 9 people.

Now the political hacks intend to punish gun buyers for some nameless bureaucrats failure to notify the the FBI that Roof had admitted to illegal drug possession.
 
The question remains, how would any of these legislative attempts have prevented what happened recently in Georgia?

The murderer bought the gun, apparently legally, the same day he committed the crimes.

In this case, after the act, he would have to prove he had a cleared background check. Or else, what?
 
No background check can affect anyone who has not already committed some act that leaves a record. Period.

many of the mass murderers had no criminal record before committing mass murder.

No law would, or could stop that. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.

something that stinks...
 
No background check can affect anyone who has not already committed some act that leaves a record. Period.

many of the mass murderers had no criminal record before committing mass murder.

No law would, or could stop that. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.

something that stinks...
Click to expand...

That’s literally my entire argument against gun control when a mass shooter is focus of the argument. Almost every single time one occurs, the shooter either had no history at all, or had a history and should have flagged the NICS check but didn’t because either the fbi or another reporting agency dropped the ball in entering info. UBCs would have largely had zero impact on most mass shootings. At least the memorable ones which fuel the anti gun hype. Few, if any mass shooters that currently recall, purchased the firearm used in a back alley or off armslist.

There are so many guns in circulation today, and so many gun owners, that there is literally no way to make effective fun control. Even if there was a total ban after the 2nd amendment had been repealed (not happening), there wouldn’t be enough compliance to put a large dent in total firearms in circulation. Certainly there would be far fewer firearms carried daily. But the only ones who would disarm are those who don’t intend to do harm.
 
According to "The News" (I know, I know) the Senate is gearing up to vote on rescinding the 60 vote cloture rule. Earlier this year (2) Democrat Senators stated they would vote no on just a rule change. According to the News, Schumer thinks he has the votes.

If that rule is changed, then all that is needed to pass this legislation and all legislation is a simple majority which the Democrats have.
 
According to "The News" (I know, I know) the Senate is gearing up to vote on rescinding the 60 vote cloture rule. Earlier this year (2) Democrat Senators stated they would vote no on just a rule change. According to the News, Schumer thinks he has the votes.

If that rule is changed, then all that is needed to pass this legislation and all legislation is a simple majority which the Democrats have.
Click to expand...
Even from their own point of view that is so short sighted and stupid.

That is going to come back and bite them next time they are the minority party.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
There were actually TWO background check bills passed by the House, and it appears that HR 8 isn't the one we need to worry about, so much as HR 1446: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1446?q={"search":["hr+1446"]}&s=3&r=1

I'm not saying that HR 8 is good -- but don't lose sight of other bills.
Click to expand...
LOL, 3 week wait.

Look, at first I thought that the Democrats were willing to make all votes in the senate a simple majority to pass, but even Sinema of Arizona isn't willing to do that for certain votes and gun control is one of them because Arizona loves their guns.

I'd like to see which 10 senators on the Republican side would vote for that bill and justify to their constituents why they have to go from a 3 day wait to a 3 week wait. I mean, even establishment Murkowski would get slaughtered in her re-election in 2022 if she voted yes for that.

I'm more concerned about all the retiring senators like Burr, Toomey, Portman, McConnell and those who don't care if they get re-elected like Romney and those who are actively anti gun like Rubio.
 
44 AMP said:
The simple answer is because that's the way THEY WANT IT, and that ALL we're being offered.

They NEED a registration of all guns, so they can answer the question "PROOVE you had a background check done ON THAT GUN",, which to my mind is a question that should NOT be asked.

Their entire concept of tying the background check to the specific gun (by ser#) is only needed if the desired end result is to create a registration list of guns. (Along with the repulsive base concept of assuming guilt and having to have the gun owner prove their innocence ).

They could run the check only on the person, but they don't want that, and won't accept that when we offer it instead of their system.

Note that, right now, and since it started, the Fed "instant" check has never required the gun serial#. The only gun information used is "handgun or long gun" (because of the age requirements) and nothing more.

The current check is on the records OF THE BUYER and has NOTHING to do with the gun being purchased.

This is not what the gun control people want. They WANT a system that includes the firearm data (ser#) so that they might compile ownership list from that (no matter what other laws may say they WILL try to do that IF they have the information in the systems).

Personally I detest the idea that I may have to prove when I didn't break the law. That's not how it's supposed to work in the US.
Click to expand...
Best way to explain it where everyone can understand. Wish all Americans could read and understand what you wrote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top