Even if democrats master enough
common sense and courage to
get rid of the Senate filibuster so
they can pass common sense gun
regulations like universal
background checks and
closing the gun show loophole,
Senator Joe Manchin,
a conservative democrat still wants
to be a problem.
Remember, there's a 50/50 split in
the Senate right now,
so Kamala Harris as vice president
would be the tie-breaking vote but
Democrats would need every single
democratic lawmaker in the Senate
to vote in favor of gun control
legislation, even if
they get rid of the the filibuster.
And what Senator Manchin has to say
in response to that is quote,
no, I don't support
what the House passed, not at all.
So what he's referring to is two
different bills that were passed
by the House, of course,
mostly Democrats in the house.
And if you read the legislation,
it is nothing extreme.
It's the most common
sense legislation that if you look
at polling,
even Republican voters agree on.
Just closing gun show loopholes,
ensuring that there's
universal background checks, but
Manchin says no no,
it's far-reaching, I'm not into it.
And instead I'm going to go ahead
and promote my failed legislation
from 2013.
He says, I'm still basically where
Pat Toomey and I have been,
they co-authored this legislation
together.
The most reasonable responsible gun
gun piece of legislation called
Gun Sense, which is basically
saying that commercial transactions
should be background checked.
Commercial, you don't know
a person.
If I know a person, no.
So what he's saying there is there
should be exceptions made when it
comes to private sellers.
And I disagree with that
wholeheartedly.
So let me give you more detail into
what the House Bill would do so
you guys kind
of understand the difference.
And then john, I'd love to hear
your thoughts.
So the version that the House
passed would expand background
checks beyond mentioned to me,
which failed to advance in 2013
to include transactions between
private parties at gun shows or
over the internet and
would close the so-called
Charleston Loophole by extending
the time a licensed gun sale can go
through before required background
check is completed, right?
So it's a little broader, but
not by much I actually went back
and read what Toomey and
Manchin had proposed in 2013.
And to be fair to them,
there are good provisions in their
proposal, but it does not deal with
the possibility of a private seller
selling guns to an individual who
has no business owning guns.
And that's a big problem,
why needlessly have that ridiculous
loophole?
But John, before I give more
detail, what do you think?
>> I mean, I I wouldn't ask you
your question, why then have that
needless loophole?
>> Well, you know- >> Can i anger
conservatives are, >> Yeah, but
here's the thing-
>> That's not a good enough reason.
[LAUGH] Like so if you if you if
you have two routes to selling,
you have commercial and you have
private and right now you can
pretty much get whatever you want
in a lot of states in either way.
Let's say in theory you were to
close one-off, even though anyway,
let's say you close one-off,
then they will just go for
the private sellers.
And maybe since it's going to be on
the individual, maybe some
individuals will be like, I don't
willing to forego sales because
they get a bad vibe or something,
maybe, but we'll all have them.
And so what does that mean?
Like instead of just going
to a store, you have to email three
guys like that's supposed to be
the thing that protects us from
a mass shooter, is that is that
hopefully, with these individual
gun sellers or like detectives.
And they are checking out each of
the people and
deciding whether they need
to look into it or something.
It's such an obviously flawed idea.
That, I think, would be proposed by
someone for whom stopping mass
shootings is at most a thing that
you occasionally talk about
being like a laudable goal but
isn't actually goal of yours.
And it's not like we have to move
past this point of thinking that
everybody shares the same goals,
less shootings it we don't like
right now in the chat I can see
this people who come in every time
there's a mass shooting they come
in to argue for why
there shouldn't been a gun control.
None of them seem like there's some
other thing they want to do that
would stop mass shootings.
It seems like the goal is just not
having the gun control, because
that's what the actual end goal is.
And I would argue [CROSSTALK]
Joe Joe Manchin, a guy who shoots
it stuff in campaign ads,
stopping mass shootings is not on
his top list of priorities.
>> No, of course it's not but
I don't think it's on the top of
the priority list for
most lawmakers to be fair, it's
just that some of these lawmakers
are worse than others in terms of
like being openly discussing and
transparent about it, but for
the commenters who h,ave that point
of view in the comment section,
I guess my question is are you
comfortable with the fact that
you're a criminal?
Because you being a criminal is the
only way you wouldn't qualify to
purchase a gun through a background
check like, what are you afraid of?
What are you afraid of?
If you're a law abiding citizen,
you're not beating your wife or
beating your partner,
what are you worried about?
Why is it a problem for you to go
through a background check?
Why is it a problem for anyone
who wants to buy a lethal weapon to
go through a background check,
to ensure that that person doesn't
have a violent past that
could lead to another one of these
mass shootings.
Like why is that a problem?
Like that's the thing that gets
to me because if you
aren't a criminal,
you have nothing to worry about.
No one's coming after your guns.
No one's coming out, I mean, it's
[CROSSTALK] the most milk-toast
legislation, like I want, but
I want them to answer the question.
I want them to answer the question,
let me know, let me know,
are you a criminal?
And if you're a criminal, I mean,
okay, sad day, sad day,
you shouldn't have a gun.
>> Can I briefly- >> Sad day.
>> I think I think it's because
we're we're talking about something
that is grounded in the real world
whether a person lives or
dies and how legislation
might influence that outcome.
For many of them, I I think some of
them I'm sure are probably
the criminals or you know have
passed domestic violence charges or
whatever, but for many of them,
all of this is just fun times.
It's just stuff we like to think
about and it's it's rule of
the government's coming,
it's all this stuff that isn't
attached to reality.
It has nothing to do with anything
real or outcomes in the real world.
It's I don't like the idea of that
or I've been convinced by some
a-hole on you know, Am radio that
if this happens, then some
days something else will happen.
It's all pure,
it's stuff that's floating freely
in their minds about ideology or
philosophy or whatever.
It has nothing to do,
like we said before with actually
stopping shootings because that is
not the goal.
>> And one other important
component of the Manchin-Toomey
legislation is that it would
do away with state laws that would
prosecute individuals who
are traveling across state lines
with a weapon.
And so I'll give you an example,
let's say you're driving from
Florida to California and
you decide what you know,
Florida has the relaxed gun laws.
You might be illegal gun owner in
Florida but California has
different gun laws so travelling
across the country, across state
lines you know, you could be
breaking statewide gun laws based
on what you're doing, and
just having possession of that gun.
Of course, with Toomey involved in
this legislation possibly Manchin
as well, they want to provide
protection to people who do that.
So basically,
who cares about states rights,
who cares about state laws if
a Floridian can't do without his or
her gun for you know,
a day or two, they should have
the right to travel across state
lines with their ridiculous weapon.
I mean, I, the addiction to guns is
amazing like, it's like, I gotta
get mine fixed, I gotta, I gotta
have my gun with me at all times.
Okay, all right, great.
So let's just be clear about
something, okay?
This country
doesn't value people's lives,
in story after story that we do, it
doesn't matter if they're cops, it
doesn't matter if they're children,
it doesn't matter who it is, okay?
This country has shown us over and
over again based on the actions of
our lawmakers that they value
profits over people's lives and
they value the feelings of gun
manufacturers and
the profits of gun manufacturers
more than people's lives.
So every time we get involved in
that ridiculous debate about
abortion or reproductive rights,
I'm not interested in hearing it
because the side that's arguing
that this is about protecting human
life, I don't hear loud protesting,
I I don't hear any campaigning on
the necessity of saving people's
lives by passing common sense
universal background checks to
ensure that lunatics don't get
their hands, legally get their
hands on these guns.
They don't care about that.
And that leads to far more living,
breathing humans
getting slaughtered in this country
on a regular basis.
They're so disingenuous and
I'm tired of politicians using
human beings and groups of people
as nothing more than props.