Thom Hartmann vs. Noel Flasterstein: Gun Background Checks

halfway through my list here of these
idiots who said yes but it may have drug dealers bias all weapons to the internet
it’s fine with me at fifth third wife beaters didn’t just you know that uh… yelled and they want and i will just go quickly uh… high
inc high camp heller holden inhofe isaacson joan’s
johnson leave mcconnell mitch mcconnell yes indeed moran workout
uske paul rand paul l mister freedom means rob portman for a while mister
moderation where prior uh… risch roberts rubios scott sessions shelby
soon bitter and who are these idiots who were suggesting yeah it’s fine with
their fear no you don’t have a gun show in more than
seventy five guns are being sold in somebody wants is a lot about uh…
terrorist from model cut our bhaiya acting on that this witness on broader
operation going in mexico and i’d like to buy you know or forty five or fifty
eighty four he said let us know flashers team maybe he has
the answer is interning has of the guys show is what the site gun rights four u dot
com knoll wallabies idiots thinking well but i i wouldn’t call made it the people that really begin the propose
build our product of that before them in that were i would compare champions of the
constitution them and we do you have affected amendment right uh… and you have a wreath does he
think that all the rights of a constitutional absolute update your
right to free speech is absolute you can run down the street absolutely naked is an expression of
free speech screaming at the top the airlines and
that’s just fine uh… you feel that you can run into a
private landowners are scrambling headed by manassas firing i think part of that well andrew beckett that the person in
america make a very narrow g_r_u_ and uh… you know and now after i got
with the you know i was brought before the supreme court actually whether
nudity in the in the case of the battle in the long delays and deep throat whether nudity is a form
of both of uh… free speech expression and in fact whether obscenity whether
whether pornography is and with the second amendment is no more
signs of brought before the supreme court is there any absolutely right to own a gun in the supreme court has
never zero and you know this is well as i do
neil said there is no there is that there is an absolute right
there can now be no limits whatsoever never said that just like there are no limits on any
other right there’s this thing called responsibilities let me know when i
write operating trucks that and that and uh… by people from
using drugs are we have also people you talk about
laws under article writers are not talking about and i a sp please tell me where it says that there is a war on eight for a
person who has been convicted of killing people with guns to go out and buy a gun well i would agree with you there when
you are killed and why would they would vote for the support of his bill
yesterday but i’d have overrun etc had been
individual own and it’s all right below it but i want to know i have no i have
no matter how i got a student convicted of beating your wife are at least under
this legislation website so i can admit that go ahead i
said under this legislation you do not have a right to buy an assault weapon if
you have been convicted republic here wif why do you have alright now anybody
who’d been convicted of a man respirator appellee electrical outlet later that
the but cannot purchase a pirate that is that so i think bacon or senator lautenberg people that and you don’t have a vision or poor have
or prohibited in some of them are not necessarily there is no mechanism to
stop them and they can walk in any gun hero or expect ninety nine percent camp
it’s going to be granted because director err on the credit card
you and i’ll carried out the curtain at at happy pay
better actually start important to protect content sometime that you know people trying to
pick apart necessarily meatball private the quark uh… big impact on a person ability and
they’re right their own apartment of a constitutional
quebec a rock even came toward the electric-powered
hadn’t been arrested cornell medical board of directors disappointed or
anything else i was so you’re saying basically is you know if we have a law it’s not going to it’s not going to be
m_i_t_’s somewhat successful in keeping guns out of that he has a crazy status
equity entirely successful so why even bother and and and and uh… you know
bolle j i got that why don’t why it while i don’t even
bother having laws inspec robbery people still rob banks well we’re trying to attract behavior by
having a lawyer do bank robbery and that decreases the likelihood that’ll occur but then
why do you have a lot of seventy airplane you are you’re a killer or your
wife beater yet and i cant god well what would it not the intended
target all in a while but they were trying to book prompt oregon treatment
by the people are buying recruiter right will to restrict movement by bible patrick
pipeline accomplishing that they were on and that is talking about i
think that they’re much more territory here you know it nice to ride changing
the subject here and all but this legislation specifically said that anne in any borealis grouping any gun show
basically with is more than seventy five weapons being sold falls under the purview of this a lesson
that you know crazies can still buy guns but any missiles locals but it was the
beginning it was it was a simple stab more than seventy five guns being sold
that they at least have to do a background check and make sure that the
person by the gun is not a convicted felon a person who is being treated for
mental illness or a person who has violent uh… violent criminal past that yum itne what is a video though the
wife beer thing is it’s it’s uh… it’s a uh… the cliche that it’s uh… but i think
it stands quite well because uh… you have the lotto winner killed by their
husbands and more often than not buy guns and anhydrous don’t get your your
outrage united india can you explain to me i will latency routine my access for the law-abiding
american resigning your answers firearms running back that nobody’s living in exile in that
the criminal now what will happen if it will keep a
look at what here you have what are you saying well you know that i’m not in a
way without violating three minutes our over-the-air background check going
through your being limited breakthrough will decide paperweight alright individual of armor
film there’s not a has passed with nonsense in fact that’s the life of the president more plaster saint bernard’s from death you’re listening to the comma hardman calling six six nine eight seventy
eight-year-old northeast online i’d buy i apologize if i called you a line item
internship with the behind us and that that has a call now multiservice

31 thoughts on “Thom Hartmann vs. Noel Flasterstein: Gun Background Checks

  • Unless these NRA/"Gun nuts" are violent offenders, convicted criminals or mentally unstable they WILL be allowed to purchase a firearm. Being inconvenienced by a background check, safety course, or wait period does not mean its a violation of their "constitutional rights". We weren't talking AWB, or any restriction, just common sense measures. I hope it bites them in the ass in the next election. And Obama was absolutely right to call out the republicans over this fiasco.

  • I don't mind Thom debating people against these common sense laws, but he came off as somewhat rude and silly.
    There's plenty of ways of breaking down this guys argument without this losing what should have been a debate. I'm upset over it too, but even I have to show restraint.

  • enough laws? there is no uniformity between states, there are HUGE loopholes that allow felons to purchase with no check systems in place & agencies like ATF are horribly underfunded…. Clearly we have different opinions on what constitutes common sense. I subscribe to the textbook definition however.

  • Fact is; the bill to expanded background checks was necessary, and supported by the majority of america. There will never be a national database on mentally ill, because of privacy concerns (for one). So for pete's sake keep weapons out of the hands of convicted felons, habitual drunks, and violent offenders (incl. domestic). People don't need to lie, they can obtain it without any check whatsoever. THAT is the point Thom was making. Too many loopholes, incl. the gunshow/3rd party.

  • NCIS doesn't include third party sales and in gun shows…. It doesn't include individuals who get a friend or relative to purchase it, then (without any check whatsoever) they transfer ownership to someone else. The NCIS is a joke, not due to lack of funding but because its not a national system. Blaming the NCIS is such a shortsighted view of a much larger, and disturbing gun culture in the usa.

  • I often watch your program and think its very good and I know we all have bad days, but it's unnecessary to get all're in the right anyway Thom!

  • PLEASE start telling these people to shut up more often. A simple, "please stop talking", when said very very loudly, might have a very good effect on how willing they are to listen to what you're saying. That being said, as I hear this "Flasterstein" man speak, I am reminded very strongly of an ostrich with its head in the sand, or perhaps an elephant being terrified by a mouse.

  • I find it funny when the NRA types talk about knee-jerk reaction, or letting emotions dictate politics.. Often times they are the loudest voice in this debate. Talking about THEIR rights, how they're being infringed upon THEM. Having the same knee-jerk reaction as they accuse the other side of.. I could almost respect their position; if they didn't argue the NRA points (almost verbatum) and stick their fingers in their ears like insolent children and chant LALALLALA (figuratively speaking)

  • so i guess he will not pass the background check and is a crazy person or has beat his wife or is a violent offender, since its trying to stop ppl who have this behavioral history from buying guns. i know of a guy who sells drugs and goes to gun shows and buys guns here in richmond, va. then, takes them to ny and sells them. he has also been locked up for many months before in jail. definitely able to buy as many guns as he wants at the gun show no questions asked. love the show, thanks.

  • I wonder if the same people who feel they have a "right" to beat their wife & children into submission (spare the rod & spoil the child), are the ones who object the most. If it becomes illegal to sell a gun to a convicted wife/child beater, they would no longer be allowed one.

  • I agree with you except for one exception. I don't think non-violent drug offenders should be banned for life (essentially) from owning guns. I just don't think a stupid mistake some kid makes selling weed in college or something should prevent him from excercising a constitutional right for the rest of his life. But I guess that really has more to do with drug policy than background checks…

  • True, except it isn't even a matter of the needs of the many over the needs of the few. Because a tiny fraction of a percent of the population is murdered with a firearm (.0036% CDC). We are talking about curtailing the rights of nearly half of all households in some manner to save the lives of a tiny minority of the population. And I know that this may sound harsh to some people but it is no more harsh than saying the hundred thousand+ lives that could be saved by banning alcohol isn't worth it

  • this guy you know of, he is clearly violating the 1968 Gun Control Act, why haven't you called the ATF hotline and turned him in? Since most sellers at gun shows are FFL holders, who must do BGCs, and are cop magnets anyway, you might want to double check your source.

  • I guess we're gonna have to amend the 2nd Amendment; to me, it guarantees the states' right to a national Guard Unit, if anything, not the right for ordinary people to own bazookas. Let's amend it to make that point clear.

  • I went to a gun show in Tampa, Florida last year (scared the shit out of me), and actually purchased a shotgun, without showing any I.D. (I told the guy it had been suspended and confiscated for D.U.I. offenses), and while joking with him that I was planning to take my neighbor out for letting his dog crap in my yard. I also told him that if my "old lady" didn't stop bitching, I might use it on her. Got the gun with no problems at all. Cash deal, no records. Go figure, huh?

  • No where in the 2nd amendment does it outline the right to form militias buddy. The first line is what is known as qualifier in the English language. It essentially says BECAUSE it is necessary for a free state to have militias, the right OF THE PEOPLE, to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is, because in order to have strong militias (civilian army), you need an armed populace! Another example of a qualifier: Because free elections are important, the right to vote shall not be infringed…

  • I'm an English professor, and what you're describing isn't a qualifier; a qualifier comes after the subject/predicate. Nonetheless, what you're describing here is a large group of people, unrelated to each other and unregulated in any way, with the exception that they all possess firearms. This sounds like a well regulated militia to you? You just want an excuse for everybody to own a gun.

  • "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It never says or implies that only militia men in well regulated militias have the right to bear arms. It simply says that THE PEOPLE (everyone) has the right to bear arms BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state.
    Militias are civilian armies. The point was, you need an armed civilian populace to have well regulated militas!

  • You know, maybe in 1789 the civilian populace could actually have overthrown the established government; do you really believe something like that is possible now? At any rate, the militia the amendment describes are of course, made up of the people the amendment describes LOL.

  • NO…I don't. I never said that. I am just explaining what the 2nd amendment says and its original purpose…But we have a living constitution and over the past century and a hald, the 2nd amendment has been protected for the traditional purposes of defense, hunting and sport…And this changing attitude towards the importance of guns was reflected in D.C. v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago..And yes, the militias are made up of AN ARMED POPULACE! The entire point of this amendment (contd)…

  • (contd)…is that the founding fathers felt that a strong govt army., especially a standing federal army, were to corruptable and capable of creating tyranny. Instead they pushed for a loose connection of civilian militias. The point being that the general public would be ready to fight for the Federal government when called into temporary service. It was basically preparation for a draft! We really should go back to a draft…maybe we would think twice about invadng countries on a whim…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *