Reply to How likely for save act to pass senate?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "How likely for save act to pass senate? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The SAVE Act is predicated on the false belief promoted by the GOP that elections are being stolen by Dems because they have illegals voting in large numbers to swing elections blue.

Except, that's completely false.  Study after study shows that the numbers of illegals proven to have voted in elections are astronomically small, nowhere near enough to swing an election.

So - passing the SAVE Act doesn't actually help Republicans from that perspective.

Will it disenfranchise legitimate, legal voters?  Very likely yes.  But what happens then?  Likely lawsuits to hold up implementation, or legal challenges for voters purged from rolls, or challenges around provisional ballots - and longterm I don't see how Republicans come out on top there either.

Serious question to Republicans - WHY are you so heavily invested in the SAVE Act when it's probably ultimately still going to fail you?[/quote]

Why are you so invested in background checks for firearms purchases that are actually implemented and not just nice words in law that never are followed?[/quote]

You're either naive and uninformed or dishonest.  When you say "actually implemented" it's implemented with holes so big you could float the USS Abraham Lincoln through them.

The core weakness in America’s background‑check system is that it was never designed to cover the full universe of gun transfers. Federal law only requires checks for sales by licensed dealers, leaving a massive parallel market:  private sales, gun‑show transactions, online listings, and informal person‑to‑person transfers, where no check is required at all. That gap is not theoretical: a large national survey found that 45% of people who bought a gun online in the previous two years did so with no background check, meaning millions of firearms move through channels where prohibited buyers can shop freely.  This loophole is so large that only 19 states and D.C. have closed it with universal background‑check laws; everywhere else, a buyer who would fail a check at a gun store can simply walk around the system and buy privately.

And even when a background check is performed, the system is built on incomplete, inconsistent, and often outdated records. The federal NICS database depends on states voluntarily submitting criminal, mental‑health, and domestic‑violence records, and the quality of those submissions varies dramatically. Domestic‑violence cases are especially prone to falling through the cracks: restraining orders, misdemeanor domestic‑violence convictions, and related court records are often missing or delayed, even though they are supposed to disqualify a buyer.  Mental‑health disqualifications are even narrower - only certain adjudications or involuntary commitments count, meaning that people with documented histories of violence, threats, or severe instability often remain legally eligible to buy guns because their records never meet the technical threshold for reporting. The system screens for a tiny subset of mental‑health‑related risks, not the broader reality of dangerous behavior.

The result is a background‑check regime that looks strict on paper but is porous in practice. It blocks some prohibited buyers at licensed dealers, but it leaves open a vast unregulated market, relies on incomplete state reporting, and fails to capture many of the behavioral red flags: domestic abuse patterns, escalating threats, violent outbursts, untreated crises - red flags that correlate most strongly with gun violence. Policymakers have begun tightening rules around private sales and trafficking, but the underlying structure still allows guns to flow easily to people who would never pass a check in a fully functional system.

Sorry but you walked right into that one and it blew up on you.[/quote]

Oh. You don't like incomplete and outdated records? Why?

But slipshod voter rolls are OK?

I see nothing in the Constitution about background checks to keep and bear arms. Do you?

I do see in the Constitution qualifiers such as being over 18 and being a citizen to vote.

Policymakers mean nothing. The Constitution is the highest law in the land and is not to be abrogated by statutes, US Code, state laws, or policy created by bureaucrats.

What did you walk into, pal?[/quote]
Which part of the constitution says you can only vote if you have a hundred-dollar passport or special type of driver’s license only available in five states?[/quote]

REAL ID is available in all 50 states.[/quote]
Real ID is not sufficient to prove citizenship in the law as currently written.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics