Senate Panel - Background Checks ?

NO one is trying to take anyones gun away from them. That bogus claim is a scare tactic the NRA made up. Anyone who believes that is a "sheeple" IMO.
Allow me to cite an example of why private gun sales need some oversight. I have recently relocated closer to Dallas while the house at the farm is renovated and repaired. I own 30 acres and am surrounded by other houses. One of my nieghbors likes to drink and then shoot his rifle. Now if there were no houses or one of my pastures with horses located in the direction he aims I may not have a problem. He shoots at an embankment with a high powered rifle. This man is an ex cop who was relieved of duty because he pulled a pistol on his then wife during an arguement more than once. He cannot pass a background check but brags about buying guns from private individuals. Would you feel safe?
Now I do not see how any law enforcement agency can enforce a law like this but can clearly see the loop hole and potential danger our current system turns a blind eye to. Shalom

WRONG! Quite a few politicians have come right out and said they want to take our guns. Others think it but are smart enough not to say it out aloud but propose legislation to slowly chip away at gun ownership. Some don't want to take guns but honestly think more legislation will reduce gun violence. Some don't want anymore legislation. Some want to repeal every gun law out there.

While I respect a lot of your opinions DB, flat denying some politicians want to take our guns away is not being honest. That's not counting non politicians who want to take guns but don't have the power to do so.

I keep forgetting gun shows are not checked everywhere. In Oregon it's state law that back ground checks are done at gun shows and it's worked well. Don't have a problem at all having that done under a federal law.

When I say private sales I mean it's between two people outside of any organized event or store. I.E. I buy a firearm from a friend or co worker.

Darrin the NRA has used the claim that politicains want to take away guns for years to raise money and frighten its member into voting against and for anything the NRA says they should. Gun laws are not getting stricter Theya re getting more lax IMO.
We have a right to bear arms ingrained in our society and written into law . It has been upheld numerous times and any politician that wants to win a national office would be committing suicide by suggesting that the government take those rights away.
Both my neighbor and the Veteran that attempted suicide this weekend do not need to own a gun in the near future. Their right to own a gun ended when they proved themselves a danger to others or themselves. They perhaps should get it back when they prove otherwise.
Our current system and laws are useless unless we can track who buys a gun and what type.
Now I have nothing to hide and am in no hurry to use a new weapon so I don't mind the wait or the paperwork. Especially if it can prevent someone who might be unstable from obtaining a gun. Shalom

Actually DB, I agree with all you said except for the ability to track who owns guns. I'll never agree with a national registry for guns. There are gun takers out there and if we ever start a national registry there will be a serious run at taking guns following not far behind. Currently the attempts are only half hearted because politicians know there's no way of knowing who has what as the laws currently stand.

Again, let no crisis go to waste.
Look at the changing %'s and how politicians opposed to guns or semi automatic guns PRIOR to these tragic events are capitalizing from them and forming the publics view with the media and finally starting to achieve their agenda.

To claim that an American citizen or organization is a "sheeple" if they are distrustful of their government or their representatives is just down right un-American. Sheesh DB.
If your neighbor wanted to harm someone and didn't have a gun to do so he could get a girlfriend or a friend to get him one, or steal it, or whatever. A tracking database will only track the law abiders. Just like how the "un-documented" workers flooding our borders don't sign up, it's easier not to follow the laws.

(Sorry about the annoying neighbor, drives me crazy when the townies come out here to target practice every saturday on the ridge next to me!! I want to do my house in brown fire proof shaker shingles, but it must stay yellow and visible for safety reasons, yuck!)

My sheeeple comment was in response to Joe using it about liberals.
I also wanted to use one of Facemans words and finally had the opprotunity
That pesky neighbor has a right to fire his gun because he owns over 10 acres.
The tenats that were living here would not allow their horses in that pasture even though they were paying to rent the whole 30 acres. That is where the pond is that their children fished in until a couple of rounds went over their heads. One of the major reasons they moved. Along with their rent money.
What should have happened. The police should have accessed a data base seen the neighbor was not allowed a gun and arrested the man and confiscated his firearm. Since he is no longer on probation there is no proof . Shalom

actually he is not allowed to own a gun if he has been
Charged or convicted of domestic violence. He is breaking the
Law . See my point, Criminals don't abide by the laws.

What would say about a person who has been publicly lobbing for
A ban on AR type and semi-auto rifles, who goes out and buys one
For himself along with a 45 cal. Handgun? As is his right and filled
Out the paperwork and passed the background check. After getting
Called out on the purchases, he said he was going to turn the
AR rifle into the police dept, but he was keeping the 45 pistol.

Former Rep. Giffords' husband Mark Kelly's purchase of rifle draws online criticism | Fox News

Regalcharm since he is no longer on probation there is no list a police officfer can access to determine that he might be a danger to society. Remember I live in Texas one of the states with the easiest access to gunownership in this country/
I will defend anyones right to own a weapon that is not a danger to society until I draw my last breathe. Allow me to assure you of that fact.
My point is there are far too many ways to obtain a firearm and as many as you want with little to no oversight.
We are not discussing taking away or denying most people their constitutional right . A small minority of people would be affected/ If it could save lives why not even discuss it? That's the part that I really don't understand. Especially in light of the violence we are seeing far too often. Something has to change/
Those who are resisiting any reform are failing to take into consideration the safety of the general public and law enforcement personnel.
NO one IMO ever needs to own an assualt rifle unless you are in a combat zone and then only as long as you are deployed there.
Off to have some minor surgery today might be able to post a reply later after the stuff they knock you out with wears off. Shalom