Our agreed on was the license of gun dealers

Our
debate between the Democratic group and Republican one has brought no final
common ground. Our Democratic Party group mentioned we need to reform the
Background Check Bill. More specifically our Democratic Party agreed and wanted
universal background checks covering all the sales- private and public (mental
health included, federal data base, registration of guns), assault weapon bans,
where and in what manner can they carry a gun, education on gun laws.

On
the Democratic agenda we brought up some of the main issues with the old
background check bill and that there is a need for background checks on a
national level: there are certain loopholes. Not regulating private sale of
guns at gun shows.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Our
proposal was more rules regarding private sales. Laws regarding concealed
carriages. Rules on where guns can be carried. Guns are not prohibited in
schools; there are no laws for that.

My
House of the Representatives Mike Thompson wanted to focus more on closing the
loopholes around the background check bill through making sure the mentally ill
people get proper check-ups, introducing gun education in schools and
prohibiting having a gun in public institutions like schools and kindergartens.
On his agenda as well as my fellow Democratic Party members there was the
improvement of the federal database system through sending incentives to people
to submit mental health issues and criminal records that happen throughout the
state and the country, in order to have a more complete database. Republicans
also agreed upon the issue. Another issue we and some of the republicans agreed
on was the license of gun dealers and the ones that sell guns at gun shows
illegally. But the problem from the republican’s perspective was that these
issues are not big enough to deserve funding.

The
main argument being that the Republicans considered the background check bill
is not worth investing in because it is unconstitutional by restricting the
Second Amendment rights.

4/10
American households own a gun and 60% claim it’s for their safety, but we think
that we need to limit gun- free zones. Every one citizen has the right to
protect themselves but can’t relied on specified groups that have guns in time of
danger. Therefore it is limiting security options. Mentally ill and terrorists
should not be allowed to own guns National terrorist watch list: prohibiting
them to having access to guns. The republican argument was that it is not about
guns but more about terrorism. Also, another important argument brought up by
Republicans was of the issue with terrorism; democratic no fly list had 83000
terrorist names, but less than 1000 were American citizens hence, issue is not
about American public but terrorism, immigration and security.

The
Republican point of view upon the issues was that we need guns to defend
against shooters and that criminals target gun- free zones.

Agree
on background checks: but there are going to be loopholes with that too.

Finally
the last decision was that the no fly list distracts from the issue and funding
for the universal background check is unnecessary. Therefore our proposal was
refused by the republicans.