Toomey/Manchin background check bill?

[TB3]

Anybody got an opinion on this Toomey/Manchin bill? I personally have not found much discussion about what’s actually in it. I did read a run down of it on some site I can’t remember which at the moment. From the bullet points I read,it doesn’t sound horrible, as in (if we are going to get stuck with something then, better this than lots of the other stuff being proposed) and it sure sounds like we are getting stuck with something, thanks to two asshole monsters who could have cared less that murdering a bunch of innocent people is illegal . What I read specifically says it absolutely does not include a registry but I’m really foggy on the rest of what’s in it. It seems to still allow private sales so I’m just really confused as to what it really does and does it actually strengthen areas currently lacking? I’m guessing it does not. I absolutely hate the idea of doing something just to do something and satisfy the crowds screaming DO SOMETHING! As far as I can tell nothing in it would have prevented any one of these shootings or any of the other most recent ones. The media and the dems and unfortunately a lot of republicans and sadly our president are selling us on the idea that our current background checks are somehow lacking and I just don’t really see it. If changes need to be made to make sure certain information is being shared and actually making its way into the system then I’m fine with that, but I just can’t see the need to “expand” anything, especially since none of the high profile instances were a result of failures of the system. Maybe the Texas church shooting was a failure of info not making it in, but other than that I don’t know of any. So I don’t mean to be long winded but I was just thinking since it’s got our senators name on it maybe someone here would know more about what’s in it. Sounds like he has been in contact with the president and this may be the basis for whatever they plan to force down our throats

[ShooterInPA1]

What shooting would this have stopped?

None of them.

[john9001]

It might stop the Marxists from shooting off their mouth, but I doubt it. The trick is to offer a bill that does nothing so if they vote against it you say they are against "gun control", or the new "gun safety " thing.

[ditch]

What shooting would this have stopped?

None of them.

exactly.

[bogey1]

Heroin should be banned, maybe they wouldn't be od'ing as much,.

[TB3]

I’m not aware of any real need to change anything, seems to me the current system works just fine, the only real failures are simply when things don’t get reported but the system itself works fine. This whole need to do something is very frustrating. I heard McConnell say yesterday that congress would get together a make a law...so something bad happens and we need “a law” that’s just ridiculous. This whole “gun violence” issue is so overblown. When you really break down the numbers compared to the numbers of the population and the number of firearms we really don’t have a problem. Obviously any loss of innocent life is awful but come on..bad things happen within any system. Just once I’d love a leader who will stand up and say enough, say no law would stop any of this and therefore I am not going to erode freedoms of millions just to “do something” I know, keep dreaming right.

[internet troll]

There was a lot of discussion about it back in 2013 in several threads. Here is one.

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...Toomey+Manchin

[Aggies Coach]

If it doesn’t include National Reciprocity, I am not interested.

[Krichardson]

I think that that ship has sailed and sunk.

[wanneroo]

Basically as I remember it, ANY firearms transaction will have to go through an FFL. State laws vary on private sales.

It's pointless to expand background checks because when felons attempt to purchase firearms and get denied, the feds prosecute less than 1% of the cases. So what's the point.