E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday advanced legislation requiring all gun buyers to get a background check, voting along party lines to send a version of the bill to the full Senate.
But the bill passed in committee does not represent the legislative language that both sides ultimately expect the full Senate to consider.
Instead, it's a Democratic version of a background check bill, voted upon by the committee because a bipartisan group of negotiators haven't yet been able to compromise on its specifics.
"I've been talking and continuing to talk to colleagues across the political spectrum and across the aisle about a compromise approach, and I remain optimistic that we'll be able to roll one up," Sen. Chuck Schumer said at the Judiciary Committee's meeting on Tuesday. "But we're not there yet."
Senators are working on a package that would require all gun buyers to get a background check before they buy a gun. Under current law, only licensed dealers have to get a background check from a buyer before they sell a firearm. The bipartisan group had agreed on some exceptions, including one for people selling or giving guns to family members.
If that group -- led by Democrats Schumer and Joe Manchin and including Republican Sen. Mark Kirk -- can find common ground, the bill they produce is expected to become the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's gun control agenda in the Senate.
Those negotiations stalled when Republican Sen. Tom Coburn -- who carries an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association -- couldn't agree with Democrats about whether to require private sellers to keep records of the guns they sell.
Schumer and Manchin are now looking for a second Republican co-sponsor, preferably someone with a top NRA rating. They've reached out to a number of GOP lawmakers, including Sens. Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Johnny Isakson. Schumer is now taking meetings with some of those Republicans.
Senators also advanced a school safety measure on Tuesday. That bill had bipartisan support.
This story was originally published on Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:21 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
Please, Congress! Show us you aren't completely useless and work together to get a law requiring background checks passed!
Amy B. and DJ-lotsanumbers at 2.0 -
I don't want to get too optimistic, but it is starting to look as though we have finally achieved critical mass with this gun violence issue. It is becoming quite clear that the NRA is nothing more than a front for gun manufacturers. It is quite clear that there really are gun nuts who are amassing arsenals based on paranoia.
You don't need a damned gun to make things right. We're proving that.
Too late for that.
Regarding the background checks, I give up arguing against them. Somebody come back in a few years and let's discuss whether or not it made a single bit of difference though. I'll put it on my calendar for 3/12/2015.
And the gun nuts arrive in 3, 2, 1..... These are the same people who are screaming about drones - which will most likely NEVER be used in the US. But, sell as many guns as possible to someone without a background check or registration - when we KNOW these guns are used daily to kill! Makes no sense at all but it's soooooo Republican!
It will be fun to see who cries first when their mental status is on the internet for all to read. Soon as I have the ability to do a background the sooner I get to post private information on people who are brave enough to use their full names right David? You have any skeletons you want to keep in your closet? I sure hope not. This should bring a lot of light to those who seem a little off on their posts. It will put my creeping skills to good use.
Bring on the background check. I would like to know who deserves my time.
Morgs74 - the fact that you HAVE that much time and the desire to dig us dirt on people, says everything about you. None of what is says is good but it's pretty predictable!
SeekingSanity - Well I hope it gives you pause to think about what you are asking for. Give stalkers the keys to your info and then cry about why no one can protect your private information
As I said, I am for it but only because I am squeaky clean.
Way to go Seeking. Very informative on your part. Really glad you could add to the discussion. lol
what is a gun nut? one who owns 1? 5? 25? 5rnd 'clips' or 30? what about the constitution and Federalist papers and various other papers that support the founding fathers vision of the rights of the people to bear arms. Those gun nuts too?
especially in Chicago because those background checks are going to Stop criminals right..RIGHT...
when you have cotton in your head, i can see why it makes NO sense..then again youre a bleeding heart libtard without rational thinking...kinda remind me of Chick Blunder or Jethro
Seeking
Please for the love of all that is good, tell me HOW do you regulate PRIVATE sales? What's to stop me from selling my gun to my lunatic neighbor? How do ENFORCE this?
What? They would have private individuals keep records like gun dealers do? Who are the anti gun morons that concocted this piece of tripe?
This garbage is simply one more piece in Obama's long desired goal of the total disarmament of the civilian population, something he's promised the UN clowns that he'll get done, one way or another.
Historically, all socialist governments have strived to disarm their people.
This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police will be more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future. - Adolph Hitler - 1935
Wet Willy
Currently there are lots of people in places like Arizona who buy lots of assault rifles for "personal use" and never have to account for the whereabouts of those guns. People like you would protect those buyers with weak gun laws and lack of enforcement, but it is obvious to everyone but morons and gun nut boneheads that the bulk of those guns are sold to drug traffickers, gang members and other criminals.
And don't you realize that every time you bring up yet another tired, boring, misused and inflammatory Hitler reference you just identify yourself as yet another tired, boring, inflammatory NRA shill with neither the ability to think rationally nor communicate effectively.
Nothing in this article was about disarming, but whenever gun nuts see anything about gun regulation they make it about disarming and violations of Constitutional rights, which is pure fantasy. You lie and exaggerate, then believe your own lies and exaggeration which leads you into an irrational rant.
Wet Willy
I'm waiting for the "this is for your protection" argument to start. Wouldn't surprise me to have people have a gun dealer oversee the process like a broker and take a cut of the profit, or see that information written into the legislation.
I'm not opposed to background checks but what most of you are not taking into consideration is this...
criminals disobey laws period, end of story. a stolen gun resold on the street is not going to have a background check, and NO law will prevent the transfer. The newtown killer, MURDERED his mother, STOLE her guns, transported them in a car, shot his way through a locked door to the school (breaking and entering) MURDERED numerous people once inside. OF NOTE, HE DID TRY TO BUY A GUN LEGALLY AND WAS TURNED DOWN !!!!
Drug dealers, gang members and their ilk do not go to a gun store and fill out BATFE 4473 to purchase a gun. Neither will they wait around for you to send to the police for your own background investigation. Our own government wilfully allowed sales of guns to straw buyers (straw purchases are a felony by the way) in the misguided "Fast and Furious".
Mentally deranged people do not care about laws, only their own twisted agenda, you can outlaw guns, and take everyone of them away, and you will have timothy mcvey's blowing up buildings just the same. Take the violent, deranged people out of society and you will solve the problem, unless and until you do so, you can pass all the gun control you want, it is not going to work.
laws DO NOT prevent a single crime. they set the standard for permissible behavior, and the penalties are what prevent people from commiting the crime, but, that being said, anyone willing to take their own life in the end, is not going to be deterred by any penalty. For the rest of us, jail time or financial penalties are sufficient, but we are for the most part law abiding citizens. The criminal on the other hand has a higher threshold, as well as more means of committing his crime, such as stealing a weapon, or buying a stolen weapon (or car for that matter) provides for anonymity that is why no one going to commit a crime is ever going to go about buying a weapon in any LEGAL means.
I'm not clear about the background check bill. Correct me if i'm wrong but every time I have bought a pistol I was required to go through a background check. In getting a concealed carry liscense I was required to go through an extensive background check plus have my fingerprints put on record. I think everyone here agrees that the vast majority of gun deaths are committeed using pistols and are in urban environments. Most states have laws about background checks being required and leaves rifles alone as rifles constitute such a minor percentage of the overall gun deaths. Rather than trying to ban these "Assault Weapons" why not be smart about it and require a background check be done if it meets the criteria for leathality or "scary features." Futhermore, a background check is required on private sales of handguns if the deal is "interstate in nature" because this falls under the perview of the federal govt. If the deal remains within the state it is up to the individual state to determine the rules dealing with the transaction. Let each state determine the background check requirements based on their culture and elected officals.
We have still yet to see any legislation that would have prevented or lessened the most resent mass casualty incidents.
ACS Jax - Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be using logic here. Hand guns are clearly the winner when it comes to homicide so it would make perfect since to go after hand guns. They aren't scary though. We need to react as emotionally as possible in order to provide the people with useless laws but at least makes them feel good inside.
They don't even bother to target the deadliest of guns. There are much more lethal guns out there than a .223 but people don't get that. And if they do get that, they will next on the list to go.
Fienstien, great peace of work. Writes a law that bans guns but at the same time goes out to get a conceal and carry permit. What is she so scared of? Why does she need to carry but not let other do the same? Is she better than us? What a piece of @!$%#.
HONESTLY, background checks on everyone is the LEAST Congress can do for guns.
While not solving every problem, this will go a long way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
For those complaining that criminals always steal guns, look at the Newtown case. This guy wasn't a criminal until he shot those kids.
it's not about disarming? You can't have that AR-15. when that isnt the problem..next will be you can't have that Springfield XD 9mm, when that is ineffective, it will be that Marlin 36, then the Mosseburg 870 etc etc etc down the line... because : "this is for your protection" argument.
Maybe we should register guns..and our religions and our mouths...you know, to protect us
I'm a gun owner and I'm totally fine with background checks. What I'm not fine with is forcing private citizens to to execute a background check on someone that they want to sell their personal weapon to. I wish they would allow us to go to a gun store and have a background check run and then give you a card that is good for a period of time, say 4 years like a drivers license. Once I have the card I can buy guns when I want.
This would solve two problems. First, as a private citizen, I don't have to run a background check on anybody. Just show me your card, then I know I have complied with the law. This would also solve the gun show loop hole. Also, it would allow for a much more thorough background check. You would plan on getting your card in advance of a gun purchase, you could even apply online.
Second, It is personally frustrating to me to go to a gun store, wait in line for an hour to get my background check run so I can buy a gun, then should I decide while I'm there, there is another gun I would like to buy. I run home to check with the wife, come back to the store and guess what, I have to get a second background check. It's a stupid system.
Bart Conner
Breaking in, stealing guns and killing your mother doesn't make you a criminal? come on man.
Speaking of, did anybody see where she essentially said only retired cops and government employees should be exempted from an assault weapons ban? Those crazy veterans (PTSD is a new phenomenon according to her) and the general public just can't be trusted.
http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/08/dianne-feinstein-fool-california-ptsd/
Traveler: Good point.
What Liberals also don't recognize is this "background check" is nothing more than a front to create a gun registry list. Sorry, I am not going to be on a list. Most of the guns I own (legally) I purchased from private sales so there is no records.
But there is another issue with background checks Liberals don't understand. For example:
1) Let's say your mother calls and she heard a noise last night and was frightened. So you bring one of your guns over for her to keep in her drawer by the bed. According to the intended background check law you just committed a felony by not transferring ownership and control of a gun.
2) Say your daughter just moved to a new city and you give her a gun that she has used and is comfortable with but the gun is in your name. According to this law you would have just committed a felony.
3) Say your brother is going on a hunting trip and asks to borrow your derringer just to have a small pocket gun in the event of a snake/etc. You hand over your derringer. You just committed a felony.
4) Say your friend of 20 years is trading his laptop for one of your guns. He hands you the laptop and you hand him the gun. You just committed a felony.
5) Say your grandfather just passed away. Above the fireplace is his favorite rifle. You put the rifle in the backseat of the truck and take it home. You just committed a felony by not transferring it to yourself.
You see this background check idea sounds good to the naive and uninformed but it is actually a ridiculous law being considered and will affect even families. You really need to be informed and get a little smarter on what this law ACTUALLY says and what the intended purpose is.
This is gun control - period. And will have NO affect on making anybody any "safer".
Don 1.11
I purposely avoided responding to your inane posts in the past because of your obviously debilitating ideology.
However, You dismiss the Hitler quote regarding national firearms registration, while at the same time espousing Obama's call for national registration, an integral component of his desired "universal Background Check".
Hitler's national registration of all firearms was a necessary precursor to his next step which was confiscation, and registration made it easy for him to carry this out.
This is Obama's ultimate goal but recognizing this is obviously beyond your grasp.
Wet Willy
You had a fantasy dream about "Obama's ultimate goal" and now you have decided that it's true. That is exactly the kind of thinking that caused me to call you irrational in the first place. Keep on believing everything Wayne LaPierre tells you and you will continue to be a dupe for the misinformation campaign bought and paid for by the gun manufacturers.
@ Wet Willy
This is hyperbolic paranoid BS. No additional explanation is needed.
Our government, and Obama specifically, is NOT Socialist. Again, no additional explanation is needed.
@chuckzul
I've mentioned this in other threads, and some people called me "delusional" for it, which is strange because it's a pretty common sense solution.
Private gun sales must go through an agent who will conduct the background check. For example, two parties take the firearm to their local FFL dealer (e.g., likely Walmart), do the paperwork, pay a small fee to the agent ($25, or there about, is the running cost I believe) for conducting the background check, and the transaction is settled.
If you sell a firearm WITHOUT going through this process, and your gun later turns up at a crime scene (and it can be traced to you), then you are considered a "gun trafficker" and do considerable jail time (like 5 years minimum).
@Rhino40
This is also a viable solution, although it opens up the possibility of forging "background check certificates" to purchase guns privately. I still think the "going through an agent" idea works the best cause the agent will conduct a background check in a face-to-face fashion.
Your idea is not bad altogether however, I may steal this and suggest it during later debates :)
Yep, Congress.....let us see you work together and get a Voter I.D. bill passed.
BTW: why not ENFORCE CURRENT FEDERAL GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS ? Nah, just keep muddling the pond.
Don97524 - Currently there are lots of people in places like Arizona who buy lots of assault rifles for "personal use" and never have to account for the whereabouts of those guns. People like you would protect those buyers with weak gun laws and lack of enforcement, but it is obvious to everyone but morons and gun nut boneheads that the bulk of those guns are sold to drug traffickers, gang members and other criminals.
Replace Arizona with Washington DC and it sounds like you are describing the POS Attorney General Eric Holder. Good job Don!
Multiple background checks required for multiple purchases is the price you pay for not having a national gun registry or firearm database.
The background check info is destroyed within 24 hours (by law I believe, at the behest of NRA lobbying) so that
no mistakes can be correctedyour privacy can be protected.Mark
That program you gun nut boneheads keep talking about began during the Bush administration and Holder became aware of it after the fact.
But regardless of what anyone else has done, the situation that I described should not be allowed to continue and if the NRA gets its way it will. You imply that because you believe that the AJ did something wrong that we should not fix the gun laws to prevent assault rifle straw purchases. Flawed thinking! Why not try to make a rational argument next time?
Don, you should probably do a little more home work on your claim.
"President Obama Falsely Claims Fast and Furious Program "Begun Under the Previous Administration"
Google it, I am sure you are going to claim I pulled this from the Fox News website but that isn't the case. Staight from from ABC. You really should check it out. Just one of a continual string of lies from Obama.
To be completely honest (because I am eithe a moron or gun nut bonehead in your opinion) there was a similiar program under the Bush administration but it wasn't "Fast and Furious" which resulted in numerous deaths. Both American and Mexican deaths.
Same program, new name ..... began under Bush. But, again, why does that matter when we are discussing private citizens making straw purchases of guns for drug traffickers for other criminals. By bringing up this admittedly poorly executed ATF program you a introducing a red herring that has little to do with straw purchases by private citizens.
When the government is at fault that problem needs to be fixed.
When private citizens are at fault they need to be stopped with more enforcement and, where necessary, more effective laws and prosecution of those laws.
DrowningGrover
It is actually the stated goal of many on the gun control side. While many know better than to come out and say it outright, a logical conclusion can be made that this is in fact the goal, whether stated or not. What else could be the motivation of one nonsensical gun control proposal after another that would accomplish nothing in terms of reducing gun violence?
1. He probably didn't have to break in to his mom's place.
2. Viewed as part of the larger act of getting the guns, shooting his mom and then going to the school, Bart's point stands...he wasn't a criminal until that day.
DingleB
DingleB, the part he was referring to as hyperbolic BS was that it's Obama's goal. We all know there are people who would love to be rid of the 2nd amendment in it's current or any form and some of those people are Senators.
Thankfully a lot of the proposals are so harsh that they won't get enough votes to actually be signed into law. If the group writing this gets together and decides background checks and other provisions are necessary and get signed into law, both sides have voted for it to move it forward.
In terms of what can be the point of nonsensical gun control proposals? That's just an attempt to write feel good legislation. We can target "assault rifles" all day long, but when we casually ignore the fact that handguns make up most of the gun deaths in the U.S. and "assault rifles" account for a very small portion, it tells me all that I need to know.
There you have it...someone with knowledge...AR's are insignificant to this debate..in fact a .22 rifle causes more deaths than any other rifle caliber.
Caesar
The only people who "need" assault rifles are mass murderers, drug traffickers, and gang members and the AR murders are mostly committed by those people. Mass murderers, drug traffickers and gang members would not have ARs if the general public were not able to purchase those weapons. All of those in the general population who demand ARs for their "personal use" can claim partial credit for the fact that mass murders, drug traffickers and gang members have those weapons.
Universal background checks are effectively useless without firearm registration. Federal firearm registration of Title I firearms is illegal per the FOPA. Ergo, universal background checks are effectively useless.
Universal background checks sound perfectly sane until you realize the insane baggage that they contain to be meaningful.
The danger, even if the intent isn't an outright ban on guns, occurs when these gun control laws inevitably fail to stop another mass shooting and people start looking for even greater, more restrictive feel good meausures. The end result is the same whether intended or not.
Before anyone actually gets a wet willy...
4. Hitler and Gun Control
The following quotation shows up about a 665,000 times on the Internet last I checked (21 April 2012):
However, Hitler never said it, even though fabricated sources are sometimes provided. Guns weren’t that much of a problem in the Nazi era (at least within the country...). In fact, the Nazis liked guns, and started training kids early on in their use.
http://bytwerk.com/gpa/falsenaziquotations.htm
don97524
Guns lost by Bush's Gun Running: 0
People killed by Bush's Gun Running: 0
Guns lost by Obama: ? Thousands?
Lives lost by Obama's Gun Running: Well, lets not talk about that.
Da Noid -
That is some weak @!$%#. Tell me when he started going crazy? Maybe someone should have been proactive vs reactive.
don97524
Or personal enthusiasts. They're legal to own at this time, and so long as they are properly secured and cared for this shouldn't be an issue. Handguns still account for more deaths than assault rifles. Are you going to throw them under the bus too and claim everyone who ever purchased a handgun is responsible? There is also still the unfortunate fact of handguns killing more than assault rifles. Handguns might not be used to take out 20 people in one sitting, but are you going to tell me 20 lives are more valuable when they died in one place versus 20 people being taken out individually with hand guns? A life is still a life, at least to me.
Suggesting they wouldn't have it if the general population wasn't allowed to purchase it sounds like a sound argument, until you see that a lot of what they are obtaining aren't legal for anyone to purchase anyways. The same people who you lump in to this argument hold all kinds of illegal things that aren't legal to purchase by the general population, such as drugs or fully automatic rifles that are outside the scope of what your average civilian could purchase outside of a gun dealers license.
All of those in the general population who demand ARs for their "personal use" can claim partial credit for the fact that mass murders, drug traffickers and gang members have those weapons.
Just last week one of them was stolen out of a Police Car in California. So to use your rational, Police are at fault too? Here we go again, blame the many for the faults of the few. So we can assume that many gun control advocates would be all for disarming no one but black young men in the inner cities? They are the ones committing the crimes. No? We can't hold them ALL responible for just the ones doing the criminal acts? Same thing.
so you're calling me one? i own a couple of these scary guns...
care to back that up with some stats? quite the conclussion you drew..geeze, cocaine is illegal, how many public shops in the US sell cocaine? nice strawman argument
Im sure the criminal element will abide by this, hahahahahahah you stupid tool.
WOW after reading the ridiculous, close minded, uneducated, ignorant rants of VERBAL DIARRHEA from both sides, I'm not even going to bother to post
don97524 - Getting tired of calling out your misinformation Don.
What happens when I print an untraceable gun? http://defensedistributed.com/
For $2000, close to the price of an AR-15 I can print one. Untraceable. One right after another. Your worst nightmare I am sure.
Don - it's pointless to talk about what you "need". All you truly need is a source of water, food, shelter from the elements, and (arguably), the ability to procreate. Anything more than that is a convenience to life. People who argue about what people "need" have no leg to stand on. The question you should be asking is..."What legitimate purpose does a law-abiding citizen have with an assault rifle?". Barring the unfortunate misnomer, you'll actually get a respectable response from responsible people to that question, and you might learn something about gun culture in the mean time.
Rhino40 - I'm coming late to this discussion but really appreciate your suggestion/idea.
_______
Rhino40
I wish they would allow us to go to a gun store and have a background check run and then give you a card that is good for a period of time, say 4 years like a drivers license. Once I have the card I can buy guns when I want.
This would solve two problems. First, as a private citizen, I don't have to run a background check on anybody. Just show me your card, then I know I have complied with the law. This would also solve the gun show loop hole. Also, it would allow for a much more thorough background check.
we all need our Lebensraum...so check out the 1928 and 1938 German weapons acts... Heil Obama!! do i qualify now ;o)
Thank you Amy B. Because from my view they are TOTALLY USELESS when it comes to the people. The Republican Party and their Sycophants have reduced themselves to calling people Takers and Freeloaders, Moochers if they disagree with them on Common Things for the Country, the People that any SANE PERSON could agree to.
Those things that help the People have Suddenly become NASTY WORDS AND ENTITLEMENTS - Health Care, Social Security, Medicare, a System that people have PAID INTO ALL OF THEIR LIVES WHILE THEY WERE WORKING. Now that is a Problem for the GOP/TEA. However, closing TAX LOOP HOLES for the Rich is too HARD for them to get their "Pin Heads" around.
That is just a BRIDGE TOO FAR for these Neanderthals in Congress.
DingleB
Probably true, but the more restrictive the suggested measure, the less likely it is to pass. At least in the arena of gun control, it will have to be bipartisan to get anything done. Any sort of gun control proposal that largely ignores handguns or doesn't target "all" guns is going to be addressing the symptom rather than the actual problem anyways.
I do rather enjoy the fact that some of the guns being spoken about are mostly because they "look" military. AR-15 might go under some serious lockdown, but an actual M-1 Garand I can purchase from the civilian marksman program. It's funny that a varmint rifle might get made illegal but the actual service rifle is the one that will continue to be legal.
Caesar Augustus-
I wonder how many of the .22 rifle rounds are actually being fired out of a pistol that's converted to take the .22 LR in terms of statistics.
The ATF program you are talking about originated during the Bush administration and the major reason that it was a bad program is that the ATF has been operating without a leader for the past seven years. The Republicans have blocked Senate confirmation during that entire period of time.
Describing the situation as "Obama's gun running" is ridiculous. There was a lack of leadership and the NRA has been successful at blocking attempts to confirm a leader in the ATF. The reason ...... because ineffective gun law enforcement is desirable to the NRA.
don97524 - So you are saying once it fell under Obama everything went to hell. Tell me something I don't know.
The term gun running is ok for Bush but not for Obama? Weird.
Only a bonehead would resort to this over-the-top, irrational Hitler argument to try to make a point.
Hopefully. It does make the 2014 election a little more exciting than a mid-term election usually is.
Not to mention modern sniper rifles, and if you asked a sniper, there isn't anything more deadly.
If you read what I said ant interpreted it the way you did you have identified yourself as a biased and irrational partisan with either an inability read with comprehension or one who is willing to spin the truth into any lie he believes will make his point. It's obvious what I said ..... that the ATF needs leadership and its time for the Congressional NRA puppets to stop blocking confirmation of that ATF leader.
i was trying to at least keep it apples to oranges in terms of rifles. since this 'AR' thing is what sparked it [debate for a lack of a better term]..not the mutliples of murders by criminals and the mentally unstable that kill with handguns. I still think the 9mm is the highest percentage over the .22. more stopping power in a 9
hey Donnie boy, have you read your 'arguments' for gun control...seem pretty boneheaded and over the top...THats ok, go follow Chick Blunder around for awhile...you'll see what real stupid is
Then quit trying to blame bush. Yes, it started under him and he @!$%# canned it because it was dangerous. Obama picked it up and royally @!$%#ed things up and got american's along with an ass load of mexican's killed. Keep blaming Bush.
For damn near every program you say Bush started Obama has either extended it or refused to kill it when he had the chance. These are now his programs.
What is irrational about these facts?
Guns lost by Bush's Gun Running: 0
People killed by Bush's Gun Running: 0
Guns lost by Obama: ? Thousands?
Lives lost by Obama's Gun Running: Well, lets not talk about that.
You try and spin these facts and call me someone who is willing to sugar coat everything? Get real. You are blind to whatever your party tells you to think. Welcome to slavery you dolt.
Caesar Augustus-
That makes perfect sense. That and I doubt a criminal would resort to doing a .45 to .22 conversion anyways, since usually the reason that an enthusiast does it is going to be less of a concern that someone who is mostly doing it the illegal way anyways.
Morgs
You are irrational. I did not "blame Bush" ..... I merely pointed out to someone who claimed the program started under the Obama administration was wrong. I am not defending the program. It was dumb. But it was an attempt to trace the flow of weapons to the wrong people and it was poorly administered. It was not, as you biased bunch of gun nut boneheads like to say, "gun running". My main point is that the ATF needs a leader to be accountable for all of the actions of the ATF, whether those actions are good or bad.
The NRA led the effort to make the head of ATF a position that must be confirmed by Congress and they lobbied NRA friendly Congress members to block confirmation. We all deserve to have accountability for all ATF actions. It is ridiculous to blame those who are too far removed from the leadership role.
Are you suggesting we make "going crazy" a crime? Good luck with that!
Da Noid
No, but I believe that most of the regulations that people want would suggest someone with a mental imbalance or who has previously 'gone crazy' to be sufficient to be barred from gun ownership.
Yup, Don, you are certainly the typical liberal. Your mentality is so @!$%#ed up I wouldn't know where to start with you!!! I think you would be more comfortable in a nice socialist country somewhere so you can be told what to do and what to think!
I have been asking for a president that would do this for the past 5 years. I still have my fingers crossed.
So the ATF had no leadership. Obama still gave the OK to run Fast and Furious. You are making the president look even more incompetent. Quit while you are ahead.
Repo, those doing the illegal things are less likely doing it to a hand gun..instead, they saw off the bolt catch to the banned AK47 to make it an automatic..
Besides criminals owning pre ban AR style weapons have acquired these NFA weapons illegally, not in some shop like Don said..bonehead indeed
the name of the Bush gun walking program was called Operation Wide Receiver, for all those interested.
@ DingleB
the outright banning of firearms is NOT the "stated goal of many on the gun control side," it's a goal of a few and it's a pipe dream. The occasional reactionary Congressperson, and one particularly noticeable relic in the Senate (/sigh, Feinstein poisoning the well again) does not a majority make.
There is no need to "say it outright" as you claim because these people are just members of the vocal minority (they're the equivalent of the "vocal minority" on the pro-gun side, that is Wayne LaPierre in all his crazy NRA nutjob glory).
So no, it is not a "reasonable conclusion" to claim that the outright banning of guns is the endgame.
I love all of the nazi references and conspiracy theory lunacy on this page. If you are a member of the NRA (aka gun manufacturers lobby and special interest group) then you are already on a list. Do you honestly believe that having to register your gun is going to lead to a "kristallnacht" situation? If you do then you are deranged, naive and WAY to easily influenced by the OPINIONS you follow from Fox, Rush, Bill, Shawn, Anne and the other fascist pundits out there and must be relieved of your weapon and have your tube tied so you can never reporoduce thus ensuring a smarter and more reliable country in the future.
Morgs
There is no evidence whatsoever that President Obama was even aware of the program before it went wrong.
don97524
Do you think the executive order to seal all these documents where to protect citizens of the US or his own ass? If I were going to get taken down for incompetence and it was within my power to hide it I certainly would. History will not be kind to Obama.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan
Anyone who THINKS this is just a "background check" is seriously lacking in any knowledge about IT.
"Yeah, we'll flush all our databases of all transactions every 24 hours."
Come on, that's a JOKE! The most that will happen is the record will be lucky enough to get an "Expired" or "Archived" tag after 24 hours.
You can say you're for or against this, but if you're going to sit there and say "it's just a background check, not a registry" you're just a fool.
so somehow more background checks are going to fix everything? here are some facts for you anti gun people that think this is really going to make a change.
columbine - guns stolen from parents.
arizona - shooter did and passed a background check
aurora - shooter did and passed a background check
virginia tech - shooter did and passed a background check
newtown - guns stolen from parent after parent was killed
new mexico - guns stolen from parents after they were killed with them.
were in any of these is a background check going to fix the outcome? am i missing something here? i am not aware of a lawful gun owner using his gun to do this except those that purchased their guns for that reason. the anti gun crowd says no one is talking about taking our guns, but what is the next step when these new laws don't work? well that didn't work we must ban all guns no exceptions. is that where we are heading? it sure seems like it and if it is then the civil war that this country fought already will look like a brawl on an elementary school playground. when that is said and done any country will be able to come in and take control of the country. is that the answer? i guess so since i am just a gun nut and the anti gun crowd have all the answer they just refuse to share them with the rest of us.
Liberals want federal background checks to post the name of the gun owners in the Internet, like they did in New York. Libertads think that the police will take care , like government does with our lives. But this is not all about self protection, this is about the second amendments and the right of the citizens to raise against the tyranny of the government, the left has experience in usurping Government in democracy, this is why the right don't want give up and the left want to take away our guns.
his numbers reflect that the present isnt being kind to him. I would say Nixon, Carter for the late 20th cent as horrible presidnents..21c started off on the wrong foot with Gdub and now Olbamo.. we Americans know how to pick em dont we
Where's Dangerfield lately anyways
no they werent. Robin Anderson bought the carbines and shotguns for Harris and Klebold at a gun show...Mark Manes sold the tec 9 to Klebold...he served a few years for it too..
I reply to DingleB:
Not to mention modern sniper rifles, and if you asked a sniper, there isn't anything more deadly.
Argh! Messed up my little quoting are! Haha! You know what I meant I hope!
Who's going to pay for the background checks? Isn't it unconstitutional to have to pay to excercize rights? My caffeine deprived brain vaguely remembers something about getting ID to vote being horrible.
Giddie up -
The current law is this:
If you purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, whether it's a used gun, consignment gun or new gun, you fill out an ATF form 4473 and undergo a NICS background check. The only way around the background check part is if you have a state CCW permit, and your state allows you to circumvent the check because of it (aka, your CCW permit acts as your background check). This CCW provision is allowable by federal law.
All other sales are considered private, and there is no background check required on the federal level. States may choose to implement a program, but many do not. The only stipulation is that the buyer is a resident of the same state and that the seller has no knowledge of any prohibitions that the buyer may have (knows to the best of his/her ability that the buyer is not a felon or otherwise prohibited). If the buyer and seller are in different states, the seller must ship the firearm to an FFL in the area of the buyer, and the buyer must go through the process in the previous paragraph. I suppose it's also possible for two people in the same state to undergo this process if it's easier (because they lived so far away), but often, a drive is easier to do.
Gun shows attract both parties. There are private sellers who are simply just gathering together in a centralized area to sell their firearms privately, and retailers, who sell their firearms (but also must go through the 4473 process and written disposition).
Note that everything I've just told you only applies to Title I firearms, which are your average, everyday handgun, rifle or shotgun. For Title II firearms (machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles/shotguns, weird things that the ATF considers "destructive devices", etc), it's a completely different, much longer, and much more intrusive process that already requires registration.
giddie up yes there is and as my post from earlier points out three of our past mass shoorters all did and passed those checks. so what is the answer? more laws that won't be enforced.
Rhino40,
i don't know about where you live, but in Georgia, my Weapons License IS my background check. i already had to go through an extensive background check by the FBI/GBI just to get my permit to carry. when purchasing a firearm i already can use that permit as my background check.
sort of the same thing you are talking about
What part of "Shall not be infringed" do all of you liberals fail to comprehend?? if we required you to follow ANY of the rules for guns in order to excercise ANY OTHER ENUMERATED RIGHT you'd be marching on Dc and demanding the heads of senators and congressmen. Well, guess what? We can march too!!
SouthernBelle
I understood what you meant, and you're right. The proper wording is important.
DrowningGrover
I'll conceed you point about Feinstein not representing the majority in congress, but my point is still that many (not necessarily in congress) still openly state that a complete ban should be the goal.
It's still a reasonable conclusion given the fact that without a complete gun ban as the endgame, nothing else they're doing makes a lick of sense. That leads one to conclude that 1) Nobody on the gun control side knows what the hell they're doing 2) They know exactly what they're doing and they're just not letting on.
Background check will just result in people running moonshine with guns in the future- it's Prohibition part Deux coming to a theater near you!
Could of sworn that we already had checks... You gun snatchers are just plain dumber than a box of rocks like this is going to make a difference, are you kidding me? It changes Nothing people, not a damn thing, because if a bad guy wants a gun guess what they'll find a gun, you idiots believe so much crap coming outta the Obama Nazi Party its crazy, a following you will soon regret I'm sure. Now if Odumbo tries to get registration, now that will start a war, and not of words . You people better wake up to what this is all about, it aint just guns.
Hey SouthernBelle, I just Bought a Sniper Rifle, and Guess where I got it?? Right from the US Government. So Douh! Its an M1 version. I swear the Obama Slaves are thick these days, but they seem to be dwindling in numbers
@Drwning, Thats why I think the idea of a card is a good one. Once you have the card you can buy the gun you want without any paperwork. Thus your privacy is protected. Second, it makes the law enforceable. If you tell people they have to go to a third party (and presumably pay a fee) to sell their gun, there are a lot of them who will not do it. especially if they are planning on selling multiple guns to different buyers like when grandpa dies and they decide to sell all his guns. A card makes the law enforceable without being overly burdensome to the private law abiding citizens. As a person who buys guns I love the idea of a background check card. I personally want to make sure that no one who shouldn't own a gun has one, but not at the expense of those who who should be able to buy a gun, not being able to do so.
Rhino40
I like what you're doing, and if we must go to a mandatory background check on private sales, I (as a law-ablinding gun owner) would definitely be for the card, assuming various privacy concerns are satisfied. It would beat having to get a background check on every purchase and sale I made.
That being said, your idea for a background check card still skims over the fact that criminals, who wouldn't pass a background check, will continue buying guns in the same manner they are currently.
DingleB
I think that the idea Rhino proposed is a good one. It's not going to do anything about the criminals, but some of the events in recent history that are being brought forth as the reason for these didn't involve illegal "guns".
The card isn't a bad idea. I vastly prefer this over some of the more restrictive forms that are suggested but have no hope of passing. I accept it as a reality that something is going to have to give in relation to this, and if it's going to be background checks I think the card is an acceptable answer.
Reminds me something similar of a CHL.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." - Justice Antonin Scalia, DC v Heller
how do you implement this card, what burden does it put on the ATF or local LE. (the ATF should be a convenience store), and how much does this cost, what bureacracy does this create (more employees, more taxes?) ?
wasnt going to go there today but glad that was brought up as well
@ Caesar & DingleB: you guys don't have to like my idea but I do think it's a fair compromise. It seems to me that the biggest issue liberals have right now with gun purchases is the "gun show loop hole" And as an avid gun owner and law abiding citizen I can see their point. A convicted felon who can't buy a gun at Sportsman's Warehouse can walk into a local gun show and buy all the guns he wants with no questions asked. I admit, that is a problem. That said, it's not fair to put the burden of eligibility on the private sellers at the gun show either. These are just private citizens selling their personal stuff. I think most of these guys would not be willing to sell to a person if they knew that person should not own a gun. Most of us "gun nuts" are good honest decent people. We are not out to protect criminals, just our freedom.
As to the cost, I think a card issued once every few years would be far cheaper to administer than a BC every time someone goes to purchase a firearm. I myself tend to buy 3 or 4 guns a year. That's 3 or 4 background checks that must be run. Why not just issue me a card on the first check and call it good. I think if I can pass the BC the first time, anything I might do that would cause me to fail the check in the next couple of years would also land me in prison for at least that long so it's not like I could be out buying more guns with a valid card after committing a felony. Plus, with that same card, honest guys at the gun show can see that you have passed a BC without having to run one.
I really don't see a down side here.
where did i say i didnt like it, just some questions that i think are valid...The gunshow loophole is from private sellers however you know that gunshows have heavy markup on most guns...they want that fancy AK 47 MAK90, you're gonna pay big bucks..criminals want quick,cheap easy guns...stolen, black market hawked from the street by the meth addict looking to get the next fix. I say criminals buying guns at gunshows are amateurs at best and probably look out of place for that 'strawman' purchase. I think the dirtbag criminal that gets a gun from a gun show illegally pales in comparison to where they truly are getting the guns...
@caesar, that is a very good point. I think you are probably right.
That said, I think a side benefit to the card would be lower prices at gun shows. One of the big reasons the prices are so high is because there is no background check and no paper work. Not because people are trying to buy them illegally but because of the fear that all registered guns will be subject to confiscation. With the card, that fear goes away and the prices at gun shows will return to what they were supposed to be, a place to get a good deal.
Amy B. Portland, ME "Please, Congress! Show us you aren't completely useless and work together to get a law requiring background checks passed!"
Does that include people with mental issues?
And how do we get a list of people with mental issues into a database? Are doctors going to be willing to put their patient's names into a government database, where some newspaper can use 'Freedom of Information' to publish a list of your neighbors that have serious mental issues?
How do we balance Privacy Rights with the government's desire to know everything about you?
Rhino you are wrong. You must still get a background check if you purchase froma licensed FFL dealer at a gun show. There are very few individuals that are not dealers (if any) that sell at shows. It is not cost effective since most individuals do not have many to sell. There may be in few cases deals made in the parking lots, but again not many.
How are you going to deal with permit holders in the states that already issue them? Are they grand fathered in and automatically get your 'card'? Are you going to prevent the issuing agency from keeping a record of everyone that receives the 'card'? unless you answer yes to both the above, I wouldn't be in favor of it.
I have been to many gun shows in many different states and have not found one table to buy from that didn't require the BGC. I want to know where you are going. It would save a lot of time since it takes a while to get done and you get a little tired of the wait.
I'm not wrong. I have personally purchased a gun at gun show and guess what, no background check required. I just handed the guy the cash and walked out with a .44 magnum. To be fair, I only did it once because quite frankly It was not that good of a deal. I was just having problems finding the gun I was looking for anywhere else.
Personal anecdotes aside, if there was really no way to buy guns at the gun shows with out a BGC then why all the fuss about the "gun show loophole"? That is not a term I just invented.
As to permit holders, I think if you are are a CC holder that absolutely should count. It requires a much more intrusive background check, you have to provide finger prints and have your application signed off by a certified CC instructor. I think that should meet the requirements of a card and in fact it does. In my state, if you have a CC permit you don't have to submit to a BCG. All I'm suggesting is why not offer a card that states you have already passed a BCG but without giving you the right to carry concealed unless you have gone through the class and want to take on that responsibility.
Why would there ever be a need for an exception to a background check? That's like buying a $5000 dollar alarm system, and then leaving your front door open. It shouldn't matter if it's a family member sale, a gift, or any other transfer. ALL persons acquiring a gun should be required to go through a background check.
It's a sane thing to do...
Why would there ever be a need for an exception to an ACA recipient? That is like being forced into something that you don't want but having someone so high up in the chain that they can pull strings for you. It shouldn't matter if your are in Congress, are the President's children or a big corporation that makes huge donations to a political party. ALL person needing health care should be require to go through ACA.
It is the sane thing to do.
DJ,
Should you need a background check in order to buy a black powder rifle? Should you need one to buy a crossbow or longbow? How about a Bat? Any tool can be used for evil purposes. The issue we face here is the law and where the law belongs. Each state has the ability to to pass background check laws and most states have. I'm guessing you are worried about the Assault weapons, so why not petition your legislators to put these tools on the background check list. If you are worried about pistols, its to late they are already on the background check list in every state requiring a background check. If you are worried about a private sell of a pistol between two parties then you should again petition your state legislator and require that the sale occur at a state FFL dealer as if the sale were interstate in nature. While these are all worthwhile and potentially in accordance with the wishes of the people of your state, I would say they will still not save you if someone wishes you harm nor will they stop another mass casualty incident from occuring.
"The bipartisan group had agreed on some exceptions, including one for people selling or giving guns to family members."
I feel the need to point out that many of the recent incidents with shootings happened with guns that the perpetrator got from a family member who legally owned the gun. Having a family member who can pass the background check doesn't mean that someone in their family is clean, or sane, enough to pass it them self.
You have to register the sale of a car...
You have to register the sale of a house...
But lethal weapons? Why would we want that? Instead the gun lobby cooks up a bizarre talking point that it's PEOPLE who should be registered...the mentally ill to be specific. Of course their own talking points conflict because there'd be no legal justification for interfering with the right of people who aren't quite right in the head to own guns...until they use them on someone. Then of course just change channels to "see, he's a criminal and no law would've stopped that."
So the entire gun lobby position is nothing but an unending cycle of circular logic which somehow isn't impeded by mountains of body bags.
Guns don't make people violent, but they make violent people far more effective. Once you confront that truth it becomes possible to make progress toward a solution. So far the NRA chooses to pretend it makes no different and effective laws would only cause mass murders by spitwad.
The vast majority of Americans favor common sense gun regulations including universal background checks. Long practice of constitutional law demonstrates that as acceptable under the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it merchants of death.
fair enough, then lets make you register your mouth or writing utensils..your religion..why stop right John? after all the bully pulpit and pen are mightier than say the AR15...besides we dont need Religious zealots out there marching around creating upheavel...common sense approaches right ;o)
"For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know."
Caesar
Do you actually believe that you convince anyone of your point of view with that childish and irrational argument?
Firearm registration is illegal per the FOPA, and criminals are exempt from firearm registration due to Haynes v. U.S.
Also, you have no constitutional protection of the right to bear vehicles or houses (assuming anyone thinks they have the right to either). And history has not shown that the registration of a house or car sale/purchase has led to more nefarious intent later.
Sorry, but it's just the truth.
John,
Let me explain this so that you might get it. The Bill of Rights does not guaranty the right to home ownership or the right to own a car. The Bill of Rights does provide that the citizens have a right to be armed to protect against a tyrannical government. You are probably well versed in the NDAA, Patriot Act, National Preparedness Act of 2012, and the proposed drone strikes on American citizens here and abroad. Yes, I am talking about that trustworthy guberment. President Obama signed all of those things into law or renewed them so you get off of your high horse that Bush did it. What you don't understand is that the right to bear arms also shall not be infringed! What all of these politicians are doing is a form of treason! These people swore an oath to defend the Constitution! When they illegally circumvent the US Constitution that is treasonous! These people will eventually get what they deserve even if their judgement comes at the hand of God. If they don't like the Constitution, it can be amended. Good luck with that!
Just ignore him Don... He's a re-reg of "hyper-bully"... The last name fit him waaaaay better.
Geeze Bluder, looks like ive been here longer than you..09 how bout you? not under Ruken or Xaber..as Blunder
Don, I think my childish point was a worthy as John B's...you wont see it because you parrot the WH talking points on 'gun control'...
It make no sense DJ to have universal background checks. If memory serves, none of these mass killers had a record of criminal behavior. What would be a disqualifier on a background check. Run of the mill criminals and gang bangers are not very like to go to gun shops or gun shows to get their weapons. This is just another feel good (about themselves) law or requirement that left wingers love to dream up.
"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress."
- Ronald Reagan
What part of the 2nd amendment do any of you not understand? The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. So now we are going to let the gov't judge everyone and believe it's in our best interest? First it will be the felons denied, ( which is already a law) them maybe you had a mental breakdown and went to a hospital for evaluation again denied. Then maybe you got a speeding ticket or a summons for town ordnance violation. This will only lead to a list of all gun owners and eventual confiscation. Stop being so afraid of every thing the MSM pumps up. It's their job to get the masses scared of their own shadow so the oh so wonderful gov't can save us from ourselves. It's them we need to be afraid of not each other.
Think about it
Do you actually like the Ten Commandments as they are? Don't you think it's dumb to be breaking a commandment whenever you "covet your neighbor's ass"? Do you really think that "graven image" stuff is worthwhile? It seems to me that the Ten Commandments really were designed by a committee and once they got through with the important stuff like not killing and not stealing the conservatives decided to try to control the lives of people for no good reason.
JACKSON
What part of "well regulated" do you fail to understand. We have an obligation through democratic process to make the rules that govern the right to bear arms, just as we have rules regarding the right to free speech and all of our other freedoms. It is all about responsibility regarding our freedoms.
i find it funny that those wishing to change the 2nd amendment because its old and outdated aren't saying the same thing about the 1rst amendment.
was
I find it funnier that so many who rant about the "right to bear arms" want to completely ignore the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment. Free speech has its limits. Every one of our freedoms have limits.
what part of the right of the people shall not be infringed do you not understand...How many alter egos do you have seeking?
Don, go look at the S.C. rulings on the 2nd Amendment..however maybe you can make the case for what 'well regulated militia' is...
What were the minute men again? talk about fvcking ignorant
Hey Dj if you have a Concealed to Carry Permit, THAT is your Background check... None other Needed. Duh!
Caesar
Are you too " fvcking ignorant" to understand that the phrase "well regulated" in the Second Amendment is the reason the ban on machine guns was deemed to be Constitutional. It is also the reason the current system of background checks, however ineffective, is constitutional. Before you call anyone " fvcking ignorant" it would be good if you know what the @!$%# you are talking about.
don,
"well regulated" pertained to the militia and not to individuals. "well regulated" had to do with their training, not with controlling or limiting their firearms. "well regulated" had to do with the vernacular of the time, go do some research. the Supreme Court has definitively held that the 2nd amendment protects an individuals rights to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. i do believe it was SC vs. Heller 2008 if you wish to look it up. i think that perhaps they know more about constitutional law than yourself.
you are completely ignoring the second part of the 2nd amendment.
if free speech has its limit, then by all means tell that to the Westboro Baptist Church
Well regulated means working properly, or in working order. It has absolutely nothing to do with being overburdened with government regulations.
Think about it for a minute, do you really think the people that wrote the Constitution to be free of a tyrannical government would put heavy government control in only after one amendment?
And there is a limit on the 2nd, it limits the government on its ability to infringe on the rights of the people.
Don - there isn't a ban on machine guns.
A
Minor point .... machine guns are so highly regulated that a virtual ban exists.
cannonballer
You have a conservative gun nut definition for "well regulated." "Well regulated" will be interpreted, if necessary, by the US Supreme Court following passage of gun control laws. We already regulate .... just not enough.
Don - but that's not what you said. And it isn't a minor difference at all.
There is only a ban on the manufacture and important of machine guns for non-dealer civilian use. There is no ban on ownership. Any civilian dealer with the appropriate license and SOT can own any machine gun ever created. Furthermore, any dealer with those licenses can also MANUFACTURE a machine gun out of anything they choose with another appropriate license. None of these licenses are financially or legally difficult to obtain.
And every machine gun manufactured prior to May 19, 1986 is fully transferable and can be owned by anyone who could otherwise own a firearm. There are hundreds of thousands of legally owned transferable machine guns in the U.S., untold numbers of post-dealer samples that can be freely sold between dealers AND untold numbers of manufactured machine guns in the hands of appropriate dealers.
Also, he is correct about the phrase "well-regulated". It has a different definition now than when it was written. This is why the supreme court has ruled in favor of individual ownership.
Don,
are you blind my man? the Supreme Court has already interpreted "well regulated". most people against guns in the hands of law abiding citizens always want to bastardize the 2nd Amendment by misquoting it or taking it out of context. The 2nd amendment is in 2 parts .... one is the individuals right to keep and bear arms, the other is for the formation of a well trained militia.
yes a virtual ban...again Dumazz don, please splain to us what a WELL REGULATED MILITIA IS...then tell me what the minute men were (try US HISTORY)
But speaking of Virtual ban, you know you can own a machine gun FULLY AUTO... maybe you can brush up on the BATFE's regs and get back to me when you figure out what NFA is (class III dealer)... FR is News for DUMFUX
don97524,
Nice try, I have a historically correct definition of "Well regulated", history isn't like a poorly written love letter, if you don't like history you don't have the option of re-writing it. You keep using words in the wrong context sunshine, I hope it works out well for you.
wasneversane
You are a bonehead. The very commonly used example of the limits of free speech is that "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre. There are other examples but why should I bother?
Expanding the nation’s background check system has the broadest support, with nine in 10 Americans supporting a proposal to require background checks on people buying firearms at gun shows. Eight in 10 strongly support closing the “gun show loophole” — a six-point jump from a similar poll in January. New background check legislation has strong support from gun-owning and non-gun-owning households, the poll found..................http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-control-poll-public-split-on-whom-to-trust--obama-or-republicans/2013/03/12/22be985e-8a82-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html?hpid=z3
SOrry but your dead wrong.
1: "On gun control, Obama is trusted by 42 percent of Americans, compared with 41 percent who trust Republicans". So the nation is actualyl divided straight down the middle.
2: "The public continues to favor stricter gun-control laws by a margin of 52 percent to 45 percent," But the question is actually vague. When an actual list of gun laws is mentioned then support for new laws drops dramatically. basically the questions asks do you support a law that prevents gun violence. Hardly telling.
3: "42 percent of respondents strongly favoring stricter laws and 36 percent strongly opposed to new legislation." Again, straight down the middle.
4. And here is your statistic... "82 percent of the public and has support from large majorities of gun-owning households" But this for illegal selling and purchasing of firearms under existing laws. Not the expansion of any laws. In other words, a strong majority don't want anyone to sell a gun to a criminal. But this is already the law.
5. "Eight in 10 strongly support closing the “gun show loophole” What is the gun show loophole? No background check at a gun show. This is not private sales of guns, which is part of the background checks that Liberals want.
6: "Americans support a ban on assault weapons by 57 percent to 41 percent" But when definitions of assault weapons are given support for bans decrease quite a bit. In fact it reverses. For example almost all pistols currently owned are by definition assault weapons under New York's new law.
So sorry, but you are completely and to0tally wrong and you even gave the link to disprove your own arguments.
So Candlewycke, care to address IR's point?
Ok, John, apparently 9 in 10 Americans don't know that this is a gun registry. Period. If you have ANY knowledge of how IT works, there would be no doubt in your mind.
C'mon, Ind. Redneck from Va. If you've bought a hand gun in Virginia, whether its from a store or gun show, you have to go through an instant background check. Most people do not have a problem with instant background checks, however, the devil is in the details. Do you want to sell your neighbor of 25 years a gun you've hunted with and then do a background check on him? That's what the Democratic Senate bill would require. Private citizens background checks are just too much government intrusion.
Last time I checked, every Redneck I know in Virginia (and I know quite a darn few) own a gun and is not supportive of this bill.
Here in Pennsylvania, if I want to sell my car to someone in a private sale, I have to register that sale with the Department of Motor Vehicles. It has never stopped me from selling a car. Why not the same thing with guns?
Steeler
I guess it would only matter if you wanted to keep your car ..... or your gun ..... a secret. Maybe if we could make up some asinine story about the government coming to confiscate our cars .....
Steeler, I just looked through the Constitution, sorry to inform you that you have absolutely no right to have a car, nor to have the government not infringe on ownership of said car. Nice try though.
Think you can now say you do know one then can't you? And just for the record I own numerous guns of several varieties. Also used to be a Certified Instructor for Private,Police and Military. So what's your point? If you know anything about it you also know that Va. Law has more holes in it than a buckshot sieve. And if quick back ground check would assure me that my neighbor wasn't going to turn the gun around and rob me with it I'd say that's a small price to pay. Ain't it you'll Yahoo's who are always saying that if your a Law abiding citizen then you don't have nothing to worry about anyway. Seems to work real good for you with the Patriot act back in 'Ol George's day so why should you worry about a little background check now.
9 in 10 support? Where are you getting your numbers? Do you even understand what the word criminal means? Gun control will not stop murders. If you believe that, you are more naive than capable. The people who committed the school and movie theater crimes were insane. They will find another way to vent their anger against a society they believe has shunned them, believe it.
Grow up.................. :o)
So when this universal background check fails miserabley to do what these "legislators' claim it will, can we now hold our political leaders liable for failing to enact sensible laws to protect our population from an ever increasing and bolder criminal element?
America's incarceration rate is higher than just about every country in the world. What new laws would you like?
Regulate training, register and license. Had these steps been in place 25 to 50 years ago, we most likely wouldn’t be having this debate. Remember, tougher law 25 to 50 years ago would have stopped the people who should not have guns from getting them.
Guess what, the second amendment would have still been in place, and the Nations People would be seeing a lot less gun deaths.
blackcatwhitecat
Excellent point. We already live in an over-criminalized police state. Now we have people wanting to criminalize the transfer of a hunting rifle from a father to a son (#2 - Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:33 AM MDT). We have laws on the books which already make illegal every imaginable offense which robs another of their right to life and liberty. Why all the talk about gun control?
@Job1
And how exactly do you get the criminals to commit to these new laws? Who regulates training? Guns are already registered when you buy them, but how do you get the criminals to register their illegal guns? People who have CCW's are already licensed. Please come back when you have a more well thought out argument.
I could care less how high it is! Do a gun crime and do hard time. Enforce the laws we have right now to put buyers, sellers, and shooters behind bars for life where they belong. This ridiculous slap their hands and tell them no approach to dealing with a growing criminal element is a complete waste of time, money and lives. And background checks, limits on ammo or any other thing you declare illegal is not off the shelf for these guys. Suprised the gun grabbers haven't figured that out yet!
Job1, your post is completely hypothetic and logically flawed. Did you even stop to look at the number of gun deaths caused by police? They've already gotten that "training".
How about better mental health 25-50 years ago (that's an EXTREMELY broad range, btw)? Electro-shock thereapy? How about mandatory birth control for the mentally challenged? At least we wouldn't be having this discussion then. You wouldn't be here.
F Hugh Kim Jong
Still feel that in addition to background checks on the buyer, the seller should be held responsible as an accomplice should the buyer use the weapon in a crime resulting in the death of an individual (or group). If guns are so safe to own as the NRA keeps claiming, there should be no objection to this. An accomplice clause would certaininly put more of a safeguard on the selling of guns (especially semiautomatic guns) than anything else. I feel the reason the NRA and its lapdog GOP are fighting these measures so fiercely is because they like being able to operate in the dark, under the radar, and anonymously.
Right... So don't sell your car, used baseball bat or any other item that can kill someone either. You wouldn't want to be held responsible for someone elses decisions in any of those cases that resulted in someone killed either!
Airbborne - silly comparison and you know it. See, when you have to use a ridiculous comparison - you've really got NO argument!
So Seeking
repeat drunk drivers (even those convicted of vehicular manslaughter) should keep their cars...pathetic. You really are THAT ignorant.
@ NCAN
So let me get this straight. Buyer passes mandatory backround check, and sale finalized by seller. The seller & the buyer complied with the law with flying colors. Then said buyer goes out and kills someone, and the last seller should be held responsible as well?
My argument is simply to not hold someone responsible for legally selling a gun to someone else for their actions. That ridiculous argument can be applied to anything done legally. Thats my argument. Not surprised you grabbers don't agree though!
chuckzul - pretty sure the ignorance you show proves my point! But, post away - you're almost worth a laugh - not quite but almost! Typical idiotic Republican who knows nothing but is eager to shout it at the top of his lungs!
Seeking Sanity.....I wish you would stop your name calling in all your posts. You are hurting our feelings. If not, can you come up with something new besides your common "pathetic little man" comments. I think I have received that one twice. Thanks.
Chris never been a Rhodes Scholar - you've received it because it sooooo depicts who you really are! And, as usual, you call me out but not the person who called me names. Typical Republican - think YOUR group should be able to do anything but then whine when it's directed at you! As I said, YOU'VE NEVER even come close to a Rhodes Scholar!!!! LOL What a joke!
YOU'VE NEVER even come close to a Rhodes Scholar!!!! LOL What a joke!
Like you have ever came close to finding sanity?
Seeking, lighten up old before you soil yourself.
Deerhunterbow1 - nope, keep seeking sanity in the Republican party but as ChristneverbeenaRhodes scholar and you show daily, there is absolutely NONE to be found!
stopfreeloaders - deflecting again I see. So sad!
NCAN You really cant be that stupid, right.
So, Seeking Sanity, what do you say about the FBIs statistic that MANY more people are murderd with hammers than with rifles?
Anything?
If you are going to hold the seller responsible if the buyer does a crime with the gun then Eric Holder should of been in prison a long time ago. Then the feds should also be responsible. Who is going to pay for the background checks and who are you going to get to run the checks? If this passes next we will have to get background checks to sell a car or motorcycle. Constitution says the right to arms shall not be infringed: do you know what this means
With your twisted logic, anyone can be held liable for anything that they had ever owned. For example, some punk steals your car and takes out a family while joy riding--you are an accomplice. Someone steals your credit card and purchases the materials to make a homemade bomb. They then blow up a building killing dozens of people and you are an accomplice. You sell a chainsaw at a yardsale which winds up in the hands of a psychotic serial killer and you are, you guesses it, an accomplice. So NCAN, do actually care about people getting murdered or only people getting murdered where guns were the weapon? You libs are so obtuse that you would be entertaining if you weren't so scary.
@ Godbless
You just won the award for being a COMPLETE moron. Enjoy
I am fine with background checks for ALL gun sales, as long as they don't keep the information, just like the NICS system is currently. NO GUN REGISTRATION!
As an FYI to those who consider guns as useless and dangerous to their owners.
GUNS ARE USED FOR SELF DEFENSE AT LEAST 100,000 TIMES PER YEAR!
David Hemenway, an eminent public-health scholar at Harvard University, and a gun
control advocate- admits his research indicates that guns are used for
defensive purposes 100,000 times per year in the USA. Making various
reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that
perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.
This comes from an article in Bloombergs Business Week from December- hardly known
for their gun advocacy. Google "businessweek how often are guns used in self defense" to find the article.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
MW, why is registration such a bad thing?
Yes, if you are not mentally ill or have a prison record, you can still own a gun and defend yourself.
Not sure why having a background check prevents you from defending yourself.
Why is registration such a bad thing? Because it is costly and doesn't have any effect on anything. Who's going to keep and update this registration? Please don't say the Federal Government, because they can't keep track of anything. The best thing that Congress and the President can do for gun control is to stay the hell out of it and leave it up to the States to decide what is best for their state. We already have federal laws on owning automatic assault weapons and federal licensing of gun dealers.
@Mark, That is a fair question. Here is why it is a bad thing. In every country where a national registrar has been enacted it has quickly been followed with confiscations. This whole argument about gun control has been warped by the media and this administration. They have tried to convince us that gun control is about safety but it's not. It never is. It is about control. The constitution was never designed to keep us safe, it was designed to protect our freedom. The governments job is not to keep us safe, it is to uphold the constitution. In trying to enact gun laws, the government is is trying to take away your freedom under the guise of keeping you safe. A gun registration is a critical part of this. After all they cannot confiscate guns if they don't know who owns them.
I know what you are thinking, that will never happen, this is America. Well, I never thought the government would violate my 4th amendment rights but they do every time I go to get on a plane. or even make an international phone call. They have already chipped away at the second amendment. I can no longer buy a fully automatic weapon, and now they want to ban guns that look like automatic weapons (which is stupid by the way) We are headed down the same path as England, Australia and Canada.
If the government doesn't have an agenda to keep we its citizens safe, of what good is it?
I think people do not realize that the government wants our guns so they can control us. Why else are they buying 2 billion rounds of ammo that can not be used in a war zone but they will use it right here in the U.S. and why are they buying 2700 armored personnel carriers and purchasing assault rifles and hand guns from Heckler and Koch and Sig sauer. This is all for DHS and TSA.
Mark Thomas, they have an agenda, bu it's not to keep us safe. If a mugger has you at knife point and there are no police around, who is going to protect you? And the old saw about "just give him what he wants" is no guarantee that you will not be injured or killed by this person. If someone breaks into your house (armed or not), they are not there to do your laundry. Too many people are killed because they do not have the means to defend themselves. Unarmed, you can be injured in too many ways before the police are even called, how are you going to feel if your wife, child, mother, dog, whatever, is injured or killed by a crowbar wielding loon and you could have scared them off just by having a gun in your hand. No one says you have to fire it, but I for one would like to have the option.
Rhino40,
you CAN still purchase fully automatic firearms, silencers, and sawed off shotguns. you just have to pay the tax, wait 8 months to a year for the extensive background check and pay the exorbitant prices for the FA firearms. still legal though
We need to register those who CANNOT purchase firearms, NOT
those that CAN. No database of gun owners period. It's already been proven that
liberals will misuse the information. Just look what happened in NY where the
news media published an online searchable map with the names and addresses of all of the registered
hand gun owners. Screw that!! Talk about an invasion of privacy!
MWP
The large number of straw purchases of firearms should be sufficient proof that those who CAN purchase firearms should not be trusted to act legally just because they have not yet been caught. I am not stupid enough to trust anybody who can pass a background check to act in the interests of public safety.
If you buy 100 semiautomatic weapons during the next year I think that if those guns start showing up in the hands of gang members or drug traffickers then law enforcement should be paying you a visit.
My rights do not exist at the whim of don or any other liberal who makes up statements implying that all gun owners are criminals that have yet to be caught.
I posted proof as to why I don't trust you or the liberal media to keep my private information private, and even if someone abuses their rights doesn't mean you get to take mine. I do support background checks for all purchase, but the more virulent you get the less likely moderate gun owners like myself are going to be willing to compromise on anything. Keep it up, your side is already losing...
Below is the story about the map of gun owners I pointed out earlier...
cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map
@wasneverhere: you are correct sir. touche :-)
MWP
I implied no such thing. What I did imply is that we have a system that makes it easy for straw purchasers and we have a bunch of gun nuts who stand in the way of identifying and prosecuting those criminals. You want an ineffective background system that will hinder the ability of law enforcement to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
I frankly don't give a @!$%# about your distrust. I don't necessarily trust every moron who can pass a background check to own a gun either, but I don't stand in your way of owning a gun. Let's just try to keep guns out of the hands of those we already know should not have them.
@Don, I promise if you buy a hundred guns, or even 10 that show up in the hands of criminals, law enforcement will already be paying you a visit. There is no need for any new laws there.
As to acting in the interest of public safety: 10's of thousands of soldiers did not fight and die on foreign battle fields for public safety. They fought and died for freedom. In this country we are supposed to be free until we are convicted of a crime and those rights taken away. Any law that proactively punishes us or limits our freedoms for crimes we might commit is not only unconstitutional but immoral.
IMHO, anyone who supports such laws are both traitors to the constitution and gutless cowards to boot. As a patriot I would be willing to fight and to die to protect your freedom, likewise I am more than happy to put a bullet in the head of anyone willing to fight to take away my freedom.
Rhino
I was one of those "10's of thousands of soldiers" and you cannot speak for what I fought for, even though I didn't die. A law that forces people who buy guns legally to act responsibly with those guns and to not sell them to criminals is not "proactively punishing us or limits our freedoms". That is exaggeration and hyperbole. Your rant about "traitors to the Constitution and gutless cowards" is moronic and childish. You call your self a patriot ... I call you a selfish bonehead.
Rhino
As you may have guessed I am completely out of patience with selfish @!$%#s who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a traitor and a coward. You are a fool and a blowhard and I have no respect for you whatsoever.
@ Don, if you served then I thank you. As to " A law that forces people who buy guns legally to act responsibly with those guns and to not sell them to criminals" Thank you for making my point. People who buy guns legally already act responsibly and we do not knowingly sell them to criminals. That is the problem with these laws, they only affect people who are not breaking the laws we already have.
If you were not fighting for freedom, then what were you fighting for?
"Not knowingly" selling to criminals is not good enough. We need a system that makes it very difficult for a criminal to get a gun and if that is an inconvenience to you, too bad. "Not knowingly" gives irresponsible gun sellers an easy out.
I was fighting for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and too many conservative Christians in my opinion do not care enough about those Constitutional imperatives that I care about. I believe in civil rights even when people complain that they should have "freedom" to refuse to do business with people they choose to exclude. I believe in marriage rights even when people complain that the GLBT community should not have the "freedom" to marry the adult of their choice. I believe in the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of women even when Republicans do not agree. I did fight for our rights, even the right to bear arms, but I also believe that every right we have is accompanied by responsibilities and when the right to bear arms comes with an unacceptable price to public safety, responsibilities need to be legislated democratically.
.
Give em an inch and they will take 10 miles
As far as I understand it either background checks are made universal and mandatory or they should be eliminated entirely.
Allowing exemptions is tantamount to no law at all.
It's supposed to be a "well regulated" militia, so why object so strenuously to regulation? It seems that the gun worshippers conveniently forget that part.
You need to learn a little more about history. The well regulated Militia was in fact every man. This means that if we were to follow the constitution and rely on the well regulated militia then the debate would be mute because even you would be considered eligible for the militia and thus could have access to a gun of suitable quality to use against any standing army. Or in other words, a well regulated militia gives you access to a fully automatic military rifle. And by the way, do you even know what well regulated means?
""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."
This is the way it would be written today. Every historical scholar agrees with this....
It is necessary that the citizens be ensured the right of a free state and that they have the ability to protect themselves from all forms of tyranny. To this end all citizens shall be able to join militias, whose formation (regulation) shall not be dictated by the federal government. In order to secure the rights of free citizens and ensure that all men shall be eligible for the militia no law shall be passed to restrict gun ownership.
Notice that the framers did not say a militia, well regulate by congress. This is very important and is the reason why you are so dangerously wrong. And why people need access to firearms, to effectively combat the outcome of your foolish ideas.
The Bill of Rights itself exists to prohibit federal power and to give greater power to the citizens as individuals.
But here is the most important reason why you are a fool and dangerously mistaken. The 2nd amendment is a right of the people, not of the federal or state government but of the people. It says very plainly "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."... Shall not be infringed. In other words any law that restricts gun ownerships infringes on the right to bear arms and in fact such laws actually negate the ability to form militias.
Noah Webster - "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe."
James Madison - "the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.
db
I would not feel more safe if my neighbor had an arsenal of weapons. I do not feel more safe when concealed carry laws are relaxed to allow more armed people to be in more public places.
don97524
Then you are way to paranoid. Your neighbors already have arsenals. People around you are probably carrying concealed & you don't know it. We are everywhere & always have been. It's just the Media & President Titty Baby & his minions that have you all worked up.
Well, if the neighbors have an aresenal of weapons, perhaps they are paranoid?
What exactly does, "we are everywhere & always have been" mean?
You act like your in some sort of club.
Yourekidding-1544479
It is a club. It's a club of citizens that excercize their rights written out in the Constitution. Don't confuse that with clubs like the bloods, and MS-13 though, they don't obey laws like the club deerhunter and I belong to, well I can't really speak to deer's actions, but I follow the laws even the ones I don't agree with. I can't seem to find the part in the 2nd where it says I need a permit, but I follow the rules anyways.
The time I quit following the rules is getting closer I think, my handguns are registered, but my rifles aren't , and never will be.
Every time someone attempts to pass a new firearms regulation to make the public safer, there are floods of comments to the effect that criminals won't follow them and they wouldn't have prevented a recent massacre. Well, weapons already in the possession of criminals do get confiscated, so they sometimes need to get them from people who possess them lawfully. Making that process more difficult can only enhance public safety. And can anyone point to a massacre that was stopped or a potential one averted by the possession of a high-capacity magazine by a civilian?
Well, if the law abiding citizen had been allowed to carry his firearm, there might have been a chance.
Do you know why the Aurora Co. shooter chose that theater? Because it had a sign that said "No firearms allowed", in a state that allows concealed carry.
Bobthevet
I would feel less safe in any theatre that allowed firearms.
Dick B., or they might get them from gun smugglers maybe? You do know there are guns smuggled into the US right? I'm thinking those guns, that were brought in illegaly, don't go on to legitimate gun dealers.
There were 3 filipino's that were just convicted of smuggling high powered military weapons,machine guns, rocket launchers, and explosives into the US, the Philippines has strict gun laws, most citizens aren't allowed to have guns.
I'm thinking that after being smuggled into the US those weapons weren't going to go on to legitimate gun dealers and be sold with background checks to law abiding citizens. Where are our politicians waving fists and talking about keeping us safe from gun runners from foreign countries? All I'm hearing is crap about restricting the people that already follow the law.
There are literally at least 100,000 defensive gun uses per year, many of those included guns with high capacity magazines. Just because they may not have needed every round is irrelevant.
The lady in GA recently probably wished she had a few more rounds, she emptied her revolver into one intruder, and still did not kill him. What if there had been others with him? Fortunately, the intruder just laid down and waited for the cops and an ambulance.
Also, a Texas teenage boy used an AR-15 to protect himself and his younger sister from multiple home invaders when they were home alone one afternoon.
The teenage son of a Harris County Precinct deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon in the 2600 block of Royal Place in northwest Harris County, deputies said.
The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.
The teenager grabbed his father’s assault rifle and knew what to do with it.
“We don’t try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.”
The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood.
Its your right to bare arms. Don't loose it.
I will bare my arms to get a sun tan. I hope my arm doesn't come loose from the rest of my body.
I think you meant the right to BEAR arms. I could definitely go for some people losing the right to walk around with bare arms, I mean c'mon not everybody has decent looking guns!
HONESTLY, background checks on everyone is the LEAST Congress can do for guns.
While not solving every problem, this will go a long way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
For those complaining that criminals always steal guns, look at the Newtown case. This guy wasn't a criminal until he shot those kids.
Right! and the guns were purchased legally by his mother and then stolen from her when he killed her. So he WAS a criminal before he committed his following crimes So your current background checks as well as future universal background checks did and will do nothing to stop this from happening. Now you're starting to see the big picture! We need to deal with the mental midgets we have running loose on our streets. We need to enforce current laws that sellers, buyers and shooters are breaking daily and all you Dems want to do is bitch about. Why aren't you and your politicians demanding these laws be strictly enforced and those who are breaking them dealt with harshly? Do that and then you can come to me with an argument as to why we need to modify these laws!
He became a criminal when he KILLED his mother so he could get her guns. He tried to buy guns twice in the weeks prior to this event & was turned down. The existing laws worked the way they were supposed to. He could have killed a neighbor & stole their guns. He could have walked up on a Police Car & broke a window out to steal those guns. There are any number of ways that someone hell bent on getting guns can get one.
Oh, so he wasn't a criminal when he shot his mother in the face and stole the guns?
i still am in awe at the stupidity of my fellow americans. this is the same govt as wounded knee (well lets just lump that entire genocide together for brevity's sake) watergate, 9-11, japanese internment camps, ect...... and you wish to give them more authority over your rights? traitors. every last gun grabber. traitors.
Hahahahahahaha! Yep, the MAN is coming for you!!!
That's what the Japanese Americans said, and he did.
Funny how these same gun lover who don't want any registration are among the first to demand ID checks for voting.
It appears some gun owners could give a crap about finding a solution, or the anti-gun crowd, for that matter. They stand in opposite corners and spew, spew, spew. All freaking day long.
Wrong, as ID checks for voting would be unconstitutional as well.
Great Britain outlawed handguns and enacted what are considered some of the strictest gun laws in the world. In the first two years of the ban, use of handguns in violent crimes increased 40%. Since last year, gun crime jumped 35% in England and Wales. There have also been dramatic increases in robbers, burglaries, assaults, and drug-related offences. Overall, the amount of gun crime and violent crime in general has doubled in Britain. Also, there are up to 3 million illegal firearms circulating in the country since the ban.
Background checks will only be as good as the database you are checking the person against. I don't see this working very effectively. So all this money spent by Feinstein and company, all the press conferences, all the splinter group meetings, etc. What a waste of time and money. Any intelligent person who relies on facts rather than emotions will conclude that assault weapons bans don't work and background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable.
I have decided to buy a gun. It seems that the type of gun that I need most is the kind that can shoot down the drones that the gubmint is going to send for me when I become a gun owner. What kind should I buy? Or, should I just cut to the chase and buy a drone? Money is no object because I can use my guns to rob banks. Advise, please?
50 cals are pretty cool. The bullets are huge. ;)
You don't need a gun, you need a higher IQ so you can at least make an effort at being sarcastic or funny.
I have to register my car. I have to register to vote. I have to license my dogs. I fail to understand why there is so much angst about registering guns. What is all the fear about? I'd like to hear a reasoned argument without name-calling or sarcasm, please.
Not everywhere. But the libs piss and moan any time it's brought up. I find it hilarious how the gun haters so willingly bring up registration for things like cars but then turn right around and flame the pro gun people for bringing up the similarities in the way people are killed by the same two. A bit hypocritical ya think?
Just to set the record straight, please don't assume I'm a gun hater or a liberal. I own a gun, and have no issue with registering it. I don't consider myself liberal. I'm actually just wondering why there is such a hue and cry against gun registration. I haven't heard anything of value in this forum...just a lot of flaming rhetoric without substance.
Historically registration has led to confiscation and we would prefer not to go down that road.
And to add to FreeGecko's post, gun registration does absolutely NOTHING until after the fact it's used in a crime or is part of a crime. Just like tuffer jail sentences. It amuses me to no end to listen to the anti-gun, or in your case those calling for more non working restrictions, types attack the reactive laws of dealing harshly with criminals "after the fact", yet want to impose registration that is reactive in nature itself.
So, what's your solution Dad??
Your car and your dog are not guaranteed to you under the constitution. And yes, your right to vote is guaranteed under the same constitution, which is why they cannot ask for id when voting. However, the voter registration law is a loop hole. The government likes loop holes that allow them to control the population.
you do not have to register a car when purchasing it nor do you have to purchase insurance to drive around......if you want to do it illegally. how many illegal aliens do you think purchase insurance or register their vehicles???? probably not alot of them!
there are also other exemptions as well. i used to race autocross in the SCCA (Sports Car Club of America) and the vehicle i used was a race only vehicle. we trailered it to ever race as it wasn't a legal steet car. it wasn't registered and it didn't have insurance. now being as this was when i was younger i did do some stupid things in that car including putting plates on it from another car so i could take it out on the streets a few times. luckily i never got caught as i would have gotten in trouble for breaking the law
Why is it that the liberals and especially the left wing nuts are all for the Federal Government controlling everything in our lives from cradle to grave? The left won't be happy until we have no local laws, only federal laws. The Federal Government is out of control and can't even manage to police themselves, yet some expect them to police everyone else.
Requesting that a person demonstrates he/she isn't a sociopath before we allow that person to own an assault rifle and 30-round magazines isn't exactly "controlling everything in our lives".
It's a reflection of the right the rest of us have to a reasonable degree of safety.
Mark - Typical left wing response. Do you really believe the Federal Government can control the sale of guns better than the States? The Federal Government can't control a damn thing, get real, the Federal Government is to big and to involved in our daily lives. All this BS about registration is nothing but political posturing.
I have asked who is going to control the so called "registration" and keep it updated? The Feds sure as hell can't do it. They can't even maintain the proper over sight of their own agencies, remember the fiascos by ATF in "fast and furious", Ruby Ridge and WACO?
Tougher gun laws in states like CA, NY, Mass, & Ill, have done nothing to prevent the use of guns in violent crimes, so what can the Feds do that the states haven't been able to?
Mark, this is certainly another step towards the control sfcret mentions. What it is is a reflection of the fear people now have of their fellow Americans and their willingness to give up their rights to pretend like that can be solved.
"For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know."
sf, some states don't control gun sales at all and guns are very transportable so if state A doesn't control them, state B effectively can't. Tougher laws in MA have resulted in an influx of guns from NH.
Who does the registration, the federal government, who else?
The alternative is to let any mentally deranged person from legally owning assault rifles and 30-round magazines. And we can see that doesn't work out very well.
Sorry Mark...we will not give up our rights to keep you from having to face your irrational fear of your fellow man. This "cross state lines" BS is just that, BS. That in and of itself is a crime. More laws wont make it illegal twice. Stop doing things that only impact the law abiding citizen and focus on the problem.
Nobody is asking you to give up any right. All most people are asking for is some kind of assurance you are not a demented sociopath.
Is that really asking too much?
That aside, greater regulation will be the result of intransigence by gun owners for even the most rudimentary controls. You can count on that.
Here is the kicker, the Constitution wasn't written to keep us safe, it was written to protect our freedoms. The founding fathers of this country understood that to be free, you needed to be able to protect yourselves. This is no better exemplified then by the famous quote of Ben Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Plus another great quote by him is the follow:
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.
So everyone out there saying the government should do something for them, isn't really true it is about the person doing for themselves to make them happy.
But don't get me wrong, I also believe the following one too:Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning.
But I take that as growth in ourselves, not on what the government can do for me. But that is my interpretation, many on this site will call me names and disagree with me, while others may agree with me.
Vodi, good post. Our rights come with an inherent impact to safety. The 4th and 5th alone allow criminals to go free and have the opportunity to commit more crime because the proof we have does not meet the burden required for action. We need to stop being afraid of our rights and celebrate them. If we work on the real causes of these problems we can make progress without violating the rights we claim to cherish.
Here's another kicker, "rights" are concepts and guidelines not strict rules.
Your right to free speech doesn't permit you to incite violence against me, just as your right to own a firearm doesn't permit you to carry an UZI into a playground, nor does it permit a mentally deranged sociopath to own an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine.
MT - you are right, the first amendment does not give me the right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded area. This could cause unnecessary harm to people. If I do, I will be punished by the law. But I would never do it because I don't want to face the punishment, do you really thing a criminal cares? No.
As in your examples, there are already laws preventing these actions, but they are not enforced. You can't take a gun in to a school in most states or play area where children are playing, but does that stop a criminal anyways? No, it doesn't. We already have laws the say killing another person is against the law, again does it stop the person from doing it? No.
Laws are nothing more then state unacceptable behavior and a punishment that goes with them. So if you don't care about the punishment, no law is going to stop you from doing it. It is only the people who already abide by the law that will be hurt by these laws.
Mark Thomas....what is an assault rifle?
Would it be like the following:
Assault knife
Assault baseball bat
Assault skillet
Assault car
Assault pen
Assault hammer
Let me know......
That's right we need background checks before a person can do something that effects other peoples lives. It is time we had background checks for voting. Oh, wait, Liberal democrat only want background checks when it suits their agenda. And yet more people have been harmed by a bad vote than a gun. True for both sides. If you voted for Bush to liberals you are responsible for tens of thousands of war dead in an illegal war. If you voted for Obama to a conservative you are guilty of the destruction of freedom in America. A simple background check to make sure you should be allowed to vote would solve all of that. If you need to pass a background check to buy a constitutionally protected rifle then why not a vote?
" If you need to pass a background check to buy a constitutionally protected rifle then why not a vote?"
That'll never happen
...it makes too much sense.
Why would we need to do a background check to vote? Even if they did republicans will still lose
How about making it where you have to have a job and be a property owner to vote. I wonder who would win then.
Yea its only fitting for republicans to try to change the current rules since they see it is impossible to win with the current system
All gun laws are unconstitutional! All gun laws are criminal. And those who seek to pass them are traitors and deserve to dealt with as traitors!
"if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights "
-Alexander hamilton, the Federalist Papers # 29
Well said.
Just another attempt to confiscate guns, disarm the populace, protect a tyrant
government, and tax gun owners
You people are pathetic, so background checks=confisctation? You peoples logic is very interesting
Sorry Charles but he is right. Its been stated often by the anti-gun folks that this is one of the steps in their goal of total confiscation.
Confiscation for what? Obama already has the majority of americans on his side, so why would he need to take your guns for? You people have no argument that can be supported by facts. Just speculation
He doest not have the majority on his side. And frankly, even if he does, who cares? These are rights...they cant be taken by a simple majority.
75% of americans support background checks and 54% supports assualt rifle ban. So that would be the majority correct? A typical repulican response," who cares what majority of americans want"
When it comes to rights that is indeed my response...the majority does not rule there.
Charles Sosa, those stats came from a poll of a little over one thousand people. Hardly representative.
You also have to look at the phrasing of the questions asked.
Anyone who believes that a poll of 1000 people cannot be representative must have failed statistics class. If this was a true random sample the poll would be accurate within a few percentage points. Actually, many polls show that around 90% support background checks. I have seen no polls in which less than 75% support background checks. Maybe you can hunt around until you find a poll that supports your opinion, like Fox News did on election day last year ..... and were wrong.
Charles Sosa....if you were to ask those same poll takers to define an "assault rifle" you would likely get a "deer in the headlights" look or also a definition of a weapon that is only available to the military (or under a Class III license).
Most think just because it looks like an automatic weapon used in "war movies" that it must be an automatic weapon.....wrong!
Besides, look who sponsored that poll.....anti-gun zealots.....hello!
What the majority wants is irrelevant. If we were a democracy your point might be valid, in the constitutional republic we have the will of the majority is tempered to protect idividual rights.
Step 1 of the communist agenda to rid us of all of our rights is taking place. Find out where the guns are and it will be easier to kick in our doors and take them from us by force. So long to the free U.S.of A. Hello to the United Soviet Socialist States of Obama
So what exact reason would the fed govt would want to come take your guns and kill you? Paranoid much?
Maybe they decide they dont like our religion. Or maybe they dislike our being vocal about our freedoms. It could be any number of reasons. No one says its happening today but we have seen it happen in other nations and we would be foolish to ignore that history and just assume it cant happen here. Thats not paranoia, that just learning from the past.
Yea in american these things you speak have never happend. You spewing your hate for the govt means nothing since most of the time they are voted in by the majority of the people. America has never a religious govt like arab countries so i doubt that will ever be a problem.
Ask the Native Americans and the Japanese Americans how they feel about your statement.....
Chucky, your head fell out of it's ass and is ranting uncontrollably.
So i should fear the federal govt?
Charles, Yes you should. We are a young nation by the age of most nations of the world and history has shown that young nations that rise in power most often fall sooner than older ones. Yes you should. Our 2nd Amendment makes us different than ALL other nations in the world, it is what has made us strong. We are a people that will not take government control lightly, we will fight back. People will argue with the fact that Japan did not land invade the US in WW2 because of the mass population with weapons. You will say in this age what does a rifle have against a Drone...it has it's operaters refusing to deploy against his own people, it has a military that can and lawfully refuse to harm it's citizens and it has a citizenry that will back it's military. Our military's first oath is to defend the Constitution, it's second is to defend the President....Does that tell you anything???
Yep, the MAN is coming....
Do any of you anti gun people remember Kent State?
Thank the 2nd amendment.
How many convicted felons who can't legally own a gun are in Congress (it might surprise you)? If a convicted felon cannot be trusted with a firearm, why do we trust them to make important decisions concerning the nation? If you can be denied owning a firearm based on a background check, why can you not be denied holding public office based on a background check?
John Smith: But watch as this progresses. Members of congress and their familes and ALL politicans will be granted waivers along with Unions and G E and those major Democratic contributors. It will be the little guy out there to defend himself with a spoon. You can buy justice in this country and you can definitely buy as many politicans (both parties) as you can stomach.
Hear, hear.
.
Wet Willy is correct. History shows people like Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton opposed gun control. It also shows people like Hitler, the Clintons and most mindless liberals support it.
Really? Hamilton did a pretty fine job defining what "well regulated" means in Federalist #89, and his definition did NOT include people being armed to the teeth without the government oversight.
Oops, typo, Federalist # 29