E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSenators negotiating a bill mandating background checks for all gun buyers are privately expecting the National Rifle Association not to fight the measure -- provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks, NBC News has learned.
If that requirement is met and key Republican negotiator Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma signs on, the powerful gun lobby has signaled to lawmakers that they would not actively oppose the bill -- and not count votes in favor of it as part of its highly influential NRA lawmaker ratings -- according to Senate aides familiar with the stalled negotiations.
Such a deal could clear the way for a universal background check bill, a central tenet of President Barack Obama's gun control initiative, to pass the Senate with significant Republican support. Odds of passage in the House would brighten significantly as a result.
The NRA denies being part of any agreement. "We do not take positions on hypotheticals. We will make our position known if and when legislation is introduced," said Chris Cox, the group's top lobbyist.
The NRA is still adamantly opposed to expanding background checks to private sales. "To be clear, the National Rifle Association does not support legislation that would criminalize otherwise lawful transfers of firearms between law abiding Americans," Cox said.
EARLIER: Panel advances background check bill, but its path remains clear
Such a decision would mark the first major compromise from the group in the wake of the elementary school shootings that killed 26 in Newtown, Conn. The NRA has signed on to a bipartisan mental health bill and are talking to senators about gun trafficking legislation. But with an assault weapons ban not likely to pass, the background check bill is the main legislative fight over new gun restrictions.
Still, Democrats have balked at this development: Leaving such a provision out, they say, would make the law toothless and would never earn support from gun control advocacy groups.
But without the record-keeping provision -- and the blind eye from the NRA -- Democrats would instead have to squeak their way to the 60 votes needed to pass in the upper chamber, potentially risking the whole package.
Both sides say it's tough to compromise on the issue of records. Coburn and the NRA argue that requiring private sellers to keep a record of each background check and gun sale would start down a slippery slope to a national gun registry. Gun control advocates, on the other hand, say enforcing any background check law would be all but impossible if records aren’t kept, and thus would have little impact on the criminals the bill is designed to target.
Jacquelyn Martin / Jacquelyn Martin / AP
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. walks toward the Senate chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Dec. 31, 2012.
"With about 90 percent of the public calling for a comprehensive background check system, the incentive to agree to a bill that only law abiding people will comply with, and that people we're trying to reach will ignore, is vanishingly small," said Mark Glaze, the executive director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group headed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"Background checks do not and cannot lead to gun registration. It's a lie meant to muddy the debate and distract from our common goal -- saving lives with solutions that Americans support overwhelmingly," Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords, said in a Tuesday statement.
Coburn, who holds an "A" rating from the NRA, has been locked in closed meetings with Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., over the background check legislation.
Coburn and Manchin insist they're still talking, and Manchin said he was on the phone Tuesday with the NRA. He and Coburn have shared legislative language with the group as they've worked on an agreement.
"Tom Coburn and I come from a culture, a background, a culture of guns. So I think the NRA would respect and appreciate where we're coming from, with the understanding that we understand our NRA members," Manchin told NBC News on Tuesday. "I'm an NRA member, Tom's an NRA member, and they're looking at that. And hopefully we can find some common ground."
But the background check discussions with Schumer have stalled -- and the New Yorker is now reaching out in an effort to find another Republican who might be willing to sign on. The list includes moderates, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and Republican senators who aren't running for re-election, like Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss.
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
Sen. Chuck Schumer boards an elevator at the U.S. Capitol on March 12, 2013 in Washington, D.C.
Sources familiar with the negotiations suggest that Schumer has only made a public break with Coburn because he's trying to convince groups on the left -- the Bloomberg group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and others -- that they need to give in on record-keeping in order to save a broader package.
Glaze said that's a no-go, indicating that his group -- backed by Bloomberg's billions -- would instead air ads in senators' home states attacking them for not going further in their quest to stop gun violence.
"We're going to take the time to get out into the country and have that conversation with members and their constituents, and we will see where we end up in the late summer," Glaze said.
Asked about the groups' position Tuesday, Manchin emphasized the realities of getting a bill passed.
"I respect their position, but basically, we have 535 members, and they all have certain concerns and considerations to be taken. If you want to pass something, you have to work within a, a compromise if you will, bipartisan arena," he said.
NBC's Mike Viqueira contributed.
This story was originally published on Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:01 PM EDT
Leave a Comment:
OK, there is something positive - willingness to compromise from the NRA.
Sandyhook Babies deserve a vote. I sincerely wish the lawmakers can find a fine compromise to guarantee both our 2nd Amendment Right and these Sandyhook Babies' right to life.
The NRA is just looking for members of Congress to sell their souls for background checks, NO, find another way.
What is wrong with members of Congress who sell out to Grover Norquist and the NRA?........... it seems money truly does own them.
"...has signaled to lawmakers that they would not actively oppose the bill -- and not count votes in favor of it as part of its highly influential NRA lawmaker rating"
==========
From my perspective, key word here is "actively". And how sweet of them to not count votes in favor of it against the law maker...but right there is where things get a little funky.
Functionally, it may be the person in Congress who does the "law making", but in reality it looks like it is the NRA who is making the law.
The NICS was an NRA idea in the first place.
This will do absolutely nothing but make law abiding citizens the victims of another tax.
Wayne-The-Little-Peter is becoming more & more irrelevant all the time.
He does NOT represent the will and ideology of NRA members - he is a TOOL of gun manufacturers.
.
CONGRESS: VOTE FROM INTEGRITY, COURAGE, AND JUSTICE, NOT FROM FEAR!
.
FORWARD! :-)
Compromise is not what the Constitution is about...
SECEDE from DC..... the only solution
pigotry
enough with the sandy hook babies this and the sandy hook babies that!
laws will not stop the insane! If you libs are so hung up on checks , what about making sure you are legal to vote-- oh wait that would knock out a large part of the lib voting block.
Just for the gun nuts. Perhaps we can find these nut a place to live.
Pigotry your Obama like reference to Sandy Hook babies makes me sick. All you people want to do is make a knee jerk emotional reaction to a tragic event without thinking about it. You follow blindly Obama who evidently has always wanted to ban guns since before his time in Congress who has reprehensibly taken political advantage of "the Sandy Hook babies" event to push an agenda. It was NOT some serendipitous coincidence, it is politics and you are the ugly face of it.
Tom Coburn is apparently the puppet of the Gun Manufacturers via its NRA mouthpiece, Wayne LaPierre; Coburn puts a hold on what the Gun makers tell him to.
riley, your inability to comprehend Sandy Hook as America finally saying ENOUGH; your post is the ugly face of indifference.
Diane Feinstein and Mark Kelly (Gabby Gifords husband) own and conceal carry the very firearms they are trying to prevent the general public from having. I think hypocrisy is way the hell worse than someone who loves to hunt and is an NRA member. What hunter wouldn't want to protect a product he uses in high regard?
Sandy Hook was about a mentally unstable individual there genius, a topic that has been absent during all the proceeding and posturing that this administration has been doing in regards to the tragedy. They arent focusing on the problem just the restrictions that would hit everyone who hasnt committed a crime.
No compromise, Mr. President.
The NRA leadership is a paper tiger; beat them down and beat them down HARD.
Beat citizens down HARD who wish to own a weapon for home protection. Response times for police in and around NYC can be up to one hour. What the hell do you want me to do in that time-frame to protect me and my family when someone breaks down the door? Scream?
You people are amazing.
riley,
I am referring to the NRA leadership and said as much. Perhaps next time you should try reading more closely.
Much like Mitt Romney was a poor choice to represent the best interests of average Republicans in the last presidential election, the current NRA leadership (including but not limited to Wayne LaPierre) does NOT represent the best interests of the average NRA member.
Background checks won't solve the problem, felons and gang members will still get guns illegally. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise...........
MSNBC,
You have no idea if the NRA represents the average Republican. hey do a dandy job of representing me.
The NRA "leadership" can still just go straight to hell. They do not listen to their own membership. They do the bidding of the manufacturers of 5.5 million guns a year.
Yeah they do. It's called polling. Independent companies do it all the time. News organizations report those findings. Didn't see them on Faux Nuts? That's because I said NEWS organizations report them. Maybe pay attention the next time a poll comes out stating that over 80% of NRA members want Universal background Checks and provisions in place to prevent 'straw' purchases.
From the article:
Does anyone really believe that a Government with a data base of gun "owners" cannot lead to registration?
Damn, our schools are really failing and so many sheep are being produced. Mutton for everyone.
So the assinine democrats want everything again. They say "records keeping" is essential to make the law work, it would be "toothless" without records keeping???? The friggen current background checks sure have a lot of teeth don't they? 44 prosecutions out of 80,000 denials? Get real.
Reject background check additions to current laws until they have at least 75% prosecution of the denied applicants. That will stop those assinine dems in their tracks. They don't have the guts to follow through on their costly ideas. They need to save money to buy votes. That's all they care about. But you just can't let a good crisis go to waste.
Last I checked there were thousands of guns being imported by the Mexican Cartels to MS13 and other gangs across the US for their version of drug distribution enforcement. These guns were often automatics, Uzis and Tech 9s. How exactly would this registration fix this problem again?????
IXLR8
At least they won't get their guns privately or at a gun show legally. It puts a cog in their wheel... a flat in their tire... a pain in their ass. It stops a sale or two to Joe Crazy who won't know what to do otherwise. Today it is legal for a felon or known gang member or psycho to buy a gun... that makes a whole lot of sense, right?
riley-1759556
It won't. Neither will New York's attempted ban on massive sugary drinks. What you're talking about is already illegal. Please take a class in critical thinking.
Dear NRA:
The HELL with what you want. Your day is done, we aren't going to be bullied any more.
Love, newdayDAWNING
NRA is nothing. Don't give them anything. We need records to fight straw purchases especially. We need the records. The NRA is up to no good as usual. Don't give in.
This is just crazy, the NRA is protectin gun runners, you must keep records of all back ground checks for all people. Also, gun dealers need to keep back ground checks on all people they sell guns too. Also, they have to keep the records for 25years, this way you stop gun running.
Does anyone else out there have a problem with a private special interest group having this much control over our Congress? Why is everyone so willing to cede our democratic process to the gun lobby? The NRA is welcome to wave protest signs around in front of the Capital Building like everyone else but who elected the NRA to make national policy?! How many of the Senators and Representatives who are supposed to represent the people are owned by the NRA and the gun manufacturers that the NRA really represents. This is insane. How about a Congressional investigation of the NRA as a possible terrorist organization? I'd happily pay taxes for that.
I'd just like to know: how is the federal gov. going to know if I sell a weapon unless I am forced to register all the weapons that I own in the first place? I take it that my failure to register the make,model and serial number of any weapons may allow them to prosecute me for either failure to register,or failure to produce such weapon. So now we come through the door with a warrant to search a law abiding citizen for weapons they might never have had. ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID!!!!!! God,if it were possible to explain my dislike for the average "American" I would never be allowed to speak again.Never mind,I'm going back to sleep now,don't want to wake up liberty.
mountainlady
The NRA is a group of more than 3 million Americans. Most of the members are also voters. When I am a member of an organization I prefer to have that organization represent my values and way of thinking. I also prefer to have that organization approach elected officials to get them to vote in my favor. That is the American way. Too bad if you don't agre with it. I do not belong to any terrorist organization.
R - I understand.
It is frustrating to be stuck with talking "to a rock."
Unfortunately we have diminished our county and our culture to many dried turds who haven't a clue.
We have a "everyone is treasured" culture and a "everyone should have all" mentality.
We have way to many non workers and liberals. I know I just repeated myself.
NC in Post 1.15,
Don't you guys EVER read the posts you hope to refute?
That is why you're political dinosaurs.
By the way, has Wayne LaPierre been arrested yet?
@LmareT, I don't disagree with your point as it may slow some down. I would like to ask the question, where do all the gangbangers in Chicago get their guns? This is supposed to be one of the strictest areas for gun control. It has not worked there with 500+ murders last year.
The violence does have to stop but the background checks will not save enough lives. I think it is a breakdown of society, lack of parenting and/or parents, and general hopelessness of youth addicted to terrible drugs like crack and meth. That's what the street wars are bloodied over and over............
JH: the 3 million Americans had better get their mentally ill leadership some help. The NRA has been throwing its weight around, bullying and threatening members of Congress and the leadership exactly long enough.
They are the very DEFINITION of a terrorist organization. If you don't like that, TOUGH.
Bill from ....... Thank you. You are a TRUE american.
newday
You're wrong. And if you don't like my saying so, TOUGH!
NRA won't oppose something that they were for years ago. Scumbags.
In some states, felons are not even allowed to vote. Some of them in that circumstance in part because of the hand they were dealt. People whom society has in many ways failed are denied a chance to make their government pay attention to them.
But to the gun totting, bible thumping, god guns and country crowd, come heaven or hell, they should allowed to arm themselves up to their teeth if they so desire.
Inevitably, they will end up having our attention.
[When I am a member of an organization I prefer to have that organization represent my values and way of thinking. I also prefer to have that organization approach elected officials to get them to vote in my favor.]
Kinda like a Union...but you loves you some Union, right JH?
Sure ya do...hypocrite...
Sounds to me like nothing will change.
All firearms sales which do not involve a background check are private sales.
And the dog and pony show continues...
Typical NRA. Do whatever it takes to make laws unenforceable, then whine that "we don't need new laws; we just need to enforce the laws we have". This organization is dishonest to the core and their input should be ignored.
Gun rights versus the right to not get shot. I'll favor the rights of Sandy Hook Babies. Everytime.
NRA being conservative and gun advocates should advocate for high standards and regulations that ensure real law abiding citizens that they can continue to legally own guns. And at the same time ensure non-gun toting law abiding citizens the confidence t ogo through their daily lives without getting gunned down by the local cheap thug.
It is time to value American lives at home the same as we value American lives abroad.
Why does the NRA think that they get to choose.
Folks are b uying weapons and ammo at record pace anticipating the coming regulations, that all execpt are reasonable and necessary. The only thing left to do is enact the regulations.
what regulation or law would have prevented sandy hook?
You stupid libs are getting something you want, but you still badmouth the NRA and one of you idiots said don't do it because of the NRA. The NRA is all about freedom. You libs are all about subversion, treason, sedition and feel good knee jerk reactions to absolutley everyithing. Just @!$%# the F up and lets get on with background checks. Even I support that.
Shame on the NRA. Never compromise with gun grabbing libtards. They will rentelessly push further and further until the Second Amendment is effectively circumvented completely.
I'm not pro-NRA but I'm not really understanding this push for stricter gun checks based on what happened at Sandy Hook. Last I heard was that Adam Lanza was prevented from buying a gun because he failed the background check, it did what it was suppose to do which is why he killed his mother who was legally able to own guns and took hers. So how would more stringent background checks have stopped Sandy Hook? It wouldn't have unless your going to deny guns to people who are associated or related to people who can't legally own a gun or all people period. Draconian background checks are not going to stop crazy or bad people from killing those who have guns legally and taking them. I'm no gun nut but I certainly don't believe that no one should be allowed to have a firearm for protection. There are a lot of people who kill others with cars but I don't see anybody ramping up for background checks to buy one. And if you don't think there are nuts out there behind the wheel of 3-4 tons of speeding death you obviously haven't seen the videos of people who go out of their way to hit an animal on the side of the road. The animals may have been fake but the drivers who swerve to hit them didn't know that.
This article is an outright fabrication and the NRA is not on board with it. I am not either.... The State of Illinois has proven this law is both unethical, unrealistic and criminal. By virtue of their very own rules and laws they must perform their background checks within 30 days and they do not (they are running 90-180 days at best). They then make law abiding citizens into felons due to no fault of their own. The government couldn't run a business of any sort without screwing it up and this is just another one of those. More bureaucracy that won't work, doesn't do anything to keep guns out of criminals hands, it just simply doesn't make sense and wouldn't of saved any of the lives that you people seem to think you will avenge by making life miserable on law abiding gun owners. Take any other federal or state law you want to choose and see how screwed up they are and how mismanaged and cost over run they are and apply here... more over benefitted, tax welching federal workers..... great, just what we need.
molon labe
And what about the rights of this baby?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx8nUWZ63w
Pigotry doesn't like guns, but grunts contentedly while 3,500 babies are sucked into sinks every day.
.
And what about the rights of this baby?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx8nUWZ63w
This story is a lie. The NRA Will NOT Support Such A Senate Proposal For Background Cheeks. This article is professional malpractice.
When did Mayor Bloomberg become our daddy?
Crazy is crazy like most of you.
as for back ground they would not have help at sandy because his mother bought the guns.
and the 10 day waiting period was for cooling off just in case you where pissed off at someone.
They Should do some back ground checks on some off these bloggers I wonder what wood popup on piggy or redhead?
From one side of their mouth, the NRA says they want those with mental problems to be dealt with. From the other side of their mouths they say they don't want background checks.
Hmmm...maybe a background check would prevent someone with a history of mental illness from getting a gun...
Not with HIPAA, my friend...
its official, nothings gonna happen..... there will be bickering about the background check issue... bans are non starters... Congress wont get anything done
NRA lobbyist are calling the shots, and by extension, the arms industry? Business as usual. We're screwed. Nothing significant will come of this.
Colorado Senate OK's Gun Restrictions, Puts the Screws to the NRA !!!
Yes, like this:
http://www.examiner.com/article/city-of-chicago-paid-nra-legal-fees-1-4-million
Mayor Emanuel and his advisers fought the court ruling claiming the NRA were not a "prevailing party", however this is not how the 7th U.S. Appeals court judge saw it. In his ruling, Justice Frank Easterbrook ruled in favor of the NRA, pointing that the NRA who did not get a favorable judgement in the handgun original court case received a favorable decision in the Supreme court, and that trumped any technicality that the City was trying to use to avoid payment. This decision legally entitling the NRA to recover attorney costs from the municipalities of the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park.
For a final touch of poetic justice the one time Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama now mayor of the City of Chicago is one of the people that had to sign the checks made out to the NRA to pay for legal fees. Had his arrogance and that of his advisers not been so great, and the accepted the initial decision of the court and not taken it to appeals court, they would have had far less to pay. As it was, the amount came to 1.4 Million dollars.
Who cares what the NRA says - I certainly don't and neither do an increasing number of American citizens.
Actually.... JH-479998.. you do belong to a terrorist organization. Let's see... a radical minority who threaten to enforce their agenda with arms.... sounds like terrorists to me. An unelected organization who uses money and threats to influence the policies of a democratic nation... sounds like terrorism to me. Sadly, no one on Congress has the balls to stand up to them. You win. We get to live in the most gun and violence obsessed nation on earth. Congratulations. You and all your NRA brethren do us proud.
Since when do un-elected, private, for profit organizations control legislation? I though we elected Congress to make legislative decisions.
So true. Since when is congress required to negotiate with a lobbyist before passing legislation? This present group in congress is absolutely pathetic. Seems like they can't get anything done without approval from the people who contributed to their campaigns.
But the background checks of 13,000,000 illegal aliens?????
Deportable Aliens By Country: 2010
Argentina……………………..171
Bolivia…………………………..125
Brazil………………………….2,232
Chile………………………………106
Colombia…………………….1,160
Costa Rica ………………………275
Cuba…………………………….1,187
Dominican Republic……. 2,076
Ecuador……………………….2,363
El Salvador ………………..18,520
Guatemala…………………23,068
Honduras…………………..17,899
Mexico……………………..427,940
Nicaragua……………………1,347
Panama……………………………75
Paraguay…………………………19
Peru……………………………….812
Uruguay………………………….79
Venezuela………………………348
Total…………………………499,803
Total For All Countries in the World 516,992
Latin America 499,803: 96%
Mexico 427,940: 82%
Well that was stupid and off-topic. Sure looks like you hate anyone from Latin America.
This story is a lie, Check the NRA,, they will NOT<<<NOT agree to this. Pure lie by NBC news.
That’s a good one. obama has done more to boost gun sales than the NRA ever dreamed of. Is he a puppet too?
We don't negotiate with terrorists. It's time for all of those who love to talk about personal responsibility to become personally responsible for the actions of their business deals. Your raping and pillaging days are gone.
Background checks are needed for every ammo purchase too.
Without background checks on private sales, there is no point to having them.
And screw the NRA, the only relinquished on this one item cause it was obvious to anyone and everyone that background checks were highly supported publicly and the NRA didn't wanna look any more "out of touch" than they already do. The NRA has no credibility on this issue, they represent gun manufacturers and distributors alone, NO ONE ELSE. Who gives a @!$%# what they think...
"Your raping and pillaging days are gone."
Now there's an intelligent comment.
Hilarious.
Drowning Grover and others: Look, most gun owners are ok with background checks but the NRA's position on the record keeping is a very serious one. If you had to keep a record like that for the rest of your life that makes you permenantly liable for the weapon, regardless of where it goes.
The NRA plays a role like the ACLU, they look at specific rights carefully and try to best serve their supporters. The second amendment is pretty straight forward, but with times and technology changing there are reasons to be careful over what you agree to. If the principle of the second amendment is that Americans should be able to own arms and keep their government in check then you have to understand that if a government knew where everything is that they could round them up and essentially quell any opportunity for overthrow. Think of it this way- If England demanded that every weapon in the colonies was identified and located then they likely would have had an easier time disarming the colonies and hurting our chances of a revolution against them.
I give a ($*&#($ what they think, as do the millions whom have been signing up to the NRA, have been filing for gun permits, and have been buying firearms. We aren't just from one party, we are just average people realizing that maybe we'd rather have some rights to self defense if there are cuts in our police departments, see that economic downturns sometimes bring out the worst in some people, and that if called upon we'd just assume be able to intervene and help others and not watch them be harmed. Think about that.
Lastly, I think you all know that what you are doing with new legislation is further limiting the rights of law abiding citizens. Background check for ammo- really? Anger management classes to purchase ammo- come on. My position is simple- If you want(that is want) to own a firearm then you should get NRA safety training, get the permit/s you need, take courses on how to use and service your firearms and for the uses you think you might use a weapon(sport, self defense, etc.), practice and continue training often. That's reasonable ownership and that should be fine with anyone. You just don't want anyone to own anything that you don't like. Hey, I don't like motorcycles, so you shouldn't own one either (though you have a license and specialized training, as well as a non-Constitutional right to own one). I wouldn't do that to you, so don't do that to me. That goes for Bloomburg on my food too.
No, it means the paranoia propaganda the RWNJs are pushing has affected a large number of low information people in this country.
Not really compromise, Pigotry. "we will allow universal background checks... as long as no one has to record any of it."
In other words, there's no way to check people are obeying the law. "Did you check their background?"
"Uhh.... yah.... totally."
Well I honestly don't know how the "record keeping" would work, but then again I don't know how the background check would work, either. Let's say I have a 9mm handgun, but the trigger weight & pull make it too hard for me to fire the gun, and then let's say I have a friend who offers to buy it from me. So I'm supposed to do a background check on my friend? How do I do that? How much will it cost? You know there's going to be cost involved, nothing's free. The more difficult and/or expensive it is to do this background check, the less likely it is I will bother. Then there's the record - I'm supposed to keep this? In what format? What information? Just a simple note that says "I sold my 9mm to [friend] on [date], and then stick it in a drawer somewhere? Or does that record get kept by law enforcement, maybe ATF? I don't think the idea itself is so horrible, but it will be hard to support this bill without knowing how this is going to work.
thats funny because I recieved this frome the NRA. your lib media is lying to you.
Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won't oppose background check bill
An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.
The story posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks". This statement is completely untrue. The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.
The NRA supports meaningful efforts to address the problems of violent crime and mass violence in America, through swift and certain prosecution of violent criminals; securing our schools; and fixing our broken mental health system.
without at least very basic record keeping (for example, of the initial firearm purchase) there can be nothing done to combat gun violence in this country. I agree that record keeping should be kept to a minimum to protect privacy concerns (most of which are overblown), but as it stands, FFL dealers don't even have to report sales to the ATF more than once a year, and realistically they are audited far less than that (I've seen ATF agents report that it's every 12 years on average, but I don't care to hunt for the link right now).
Honestly, the government is already, for the most part, in possession of both your medical history and financial information which is far more problematic if disclosed anyway. Given our recent history, I'm far more concerned about the government (at the behest of the Fed and Wall St.) coming to take my money than I am about them coming to take my guns (I do not currently own a firearm, i'm speaking hypothetically).
I'm not sure this is the case. Just because the government is aware of who owns firearms and where doesn't necessarily mean it would be any easier to go door-to-door and "round them up" to quell an uprising. Pretty much all of human history shows that such actions have the effect of fanning the flames of upheaval, not quelling them.
Nah. We'd have just had the "Boston Musket Party" rather than the "Boston Tea Party." It may have even made the Revolution an easier win for the Colonialists, as only the upper class had a vested interest in doing away with levies and taxes (and got the average Joe to fight with them for this cause) whereas every one of the colonialists had a vested interest in protecting their muskets which were pretty much integral for all of daily life in those times.
I wouldn't support a background check for ammo with one exception, that is buying in bulk. I would be ok with (but wouldn't lobby for) a background check requirement to purchase like 1000 rounds or more in one purchase. But that's about it.
yeah, that's pretty stupid.
While I agree with all of this, it's somewhat confusing. In order to confirm that one partook in NRA safety training, got the appropriate permits (e.g., Concealed carry), and that one partook in courses to train on "how to use and service your firearm," there would have to be some sort of RECORD KEEPING. Otherwise they're merely suggestions as to what good, responsible firearm owners SHOULD do (honestly, everyone firearm owner SHOULD do these things already, but most do not).
This opens the same boondoggle that firearm registry does, and that firearm supporters seem to be so concerned about. Basically, if NRA safety training is a requirement (and not just a suggestion) than a "tyrannical government" could easily access the list of folks who took NRA safety training, and that would provide a pretty accurate list of who owns firearms. Hell, even just looking at "who applied for a background check" is probably a 99% complete list of legal firearm owners in the country.
If the fears of privacy weigh so heavy, why not get rid of all paperwork and requirements on gun purchases? If privacy concerns are the most important factor, then why not make buying firearms the equivalent of buying Tylenol at the pharmacy?
I absolutely agree with this. If you don't like guns, don't buy one. If you don't like motorcycles, don't ride them (although it still pisses me off when they fly by you on the centerline of the highway). If you don't like abortion, don't have one, etc., etc.
And I also agree that Bloomberg and Feinstein are idiots.
{Just for clarification, I'm not trying to argue anything in your post JoeNY. I thought it was a good one and gave it an upvote. I am just using it as a basis for conversation, not trying to attack you for anything you stated, so please don't read it as such. }
what a bunch of bs
I get so tired of hearing about the "knee jerk emotional response to children dying by an assault weapon in america" yet the NRA gun nut crowd has been using the "knee jerk emotional response" of "you can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers...
its so fustrating that normal americans aren't allowed to have an emotional response about children dying from an instrument of death BUT gun nuts are allowed to have an emotional response to the instrument of death in their hands?!?!
@ T Bourlon
I think that, yes, you should have to conduct a background check on your friend. I know this sounds harsh, but sometimes people learn that their friends or spouse are child molesters, murderers, and all kinds of crazy. And even so, it's just easier to require checks on everyone for every sale rather than exempting a small number of parties.
Regarding HOW the check is done, I have been advocating for having the sale go through an agent (who is a FFL dealer) and can perform the background check for the current $25 fee plus maybe an additional $10 fee for the hassle (the agent's fee could be written into any legislation, and it should be low).
That's why stricter gun trafficking laws also need to be enacted/enforced. If you privately sell a firearm to someone WITHOUT conducting the private sale background check (again, through an agent) then you can and should be criminally liable (as a gun trafficker) if said firearm turns up at a crime scene.
If your choices are "face 15 years in prison as a gun trafficker" should something go wrong in the future with that weapon, or going to the local Walmart and dropping $35 to perform the private background check (which you could pass on the cost to the buyer), I think you'd agree that going to the agent and processing the paperwork isn't that much of a "hassle".
I think the private seller should keep the paperwork privately. There would undoubtedly be a form to fill out during the sale (e.g., buyer name, seller name, weapon type, serial #, date, location, etc.) and the seller should retain this form after the transaction is complete for their records. They could put it in the file at home, and the government would NOT NEED a copy of this transaction record.
In the future, if the firearm turns up at a crime scene, and the gun serial # is traced back to you, law enforcement will show up at your door, you produce the form, and they move on to the check out the "buyer." This limits the "privacy concern" inherent in the government retaining these records (the original weapon purchase will still have to be recorded, you can't get around that) but still provides for the possibility of tracking private sales during criminal investigation.
To be sure, these are all valid questions and concerns, and any such legislation enacting such requirements should be reviewed carefully by all parties. Therein lies the problem, the Democrats won't read it and will just go along if it feels good, and the Republicans won't read it and will just vote "NO" against it regardless of what it does. We're being led by idiots...
The push for gun control will NOT, I repeat NOT, prevent you from exercising your second amendment rights. Those who are fear mongering saying things like "Obama is out to crush the 2nd amendment; background checks and a national gun registry will lead to a kristallnacht-like event", etc. are simply ignorant of the the actual legislation. The conspiracy theory lunacy has gone on far too long and the media outlets (Faux news, CNN, NY Post, etc.) need to find their ethical and moral center again and stop playing BS politics by misrepresenting the facts and twisting the truth.
If someone steals my car, and drives through a crowd. My car can be traced back to me. If I sell my car to a 12 year old, and let him drive through a crowd, I am going to pay a price for that action.
Now tell me again why we can not do that with guns?
Wow. How far this country has come from the ideals of freedom.
From James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance":
Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.
Obviously, we have forgotten; so many Americans are so quick to surrender their rights. Or rather, I should say so quick to surrender those rights they have elected not to exercise, and in so doing they believe they are surrendering the rights of others, and not their own. This is a grave error. It would be as if one were for shutting down the newspapers because one does not read them, or closing the churches because one does not attend services. Do you have rights you wish to retain, for yourself, your children, or your grandchildren? How do you propose to do so if you insist on giving up the rights of others? What happens when others decide to give up the rights you cherish? You are helping to establish a bad precedent (as if enough bad precedents haven't already been established against the right to arms and all of our other rights). History and our Founders warn us. Unfortunately, it seems too many of us are deaf to the warnings.
Deny the principle that the will of the majority can take away any of the fundamental rights of all the citizens (whether they wish to exercise those rights themselves or not). Resist the establishment of the tools that can be used to disarm the citizenry; man has yet to create a government capable of resisting the temptation to infringe upon its citizens' rights, the means to resist must reside with the people themselves, or it exists not at all.
Put the NRA and their members on the terrorist watch list and watch them shut the F up! That's how you handle that. They back the most lethal and uncontrolled killing machine know to the United States citizen. it is easy to obtain easy to hide and every citizen has been given the right to own one. It has been proved that people have no way to control the terror it has brought upon the citizens of this Country. The proof is the very debate in the halls of Congress. The fact the only law abiding citizen can have one but the ease with witch the criminal eliminate can get a hold of the law abiding citizens weapon or a weapon illegally show it is not a State problem but a national problem. There is no control over the manufacture of the weapons, ammunition, distribution, or security of a machine that was invented to kill. They are allowed to be carried openly in some places but not in others, all refer to their right of the Constitution but than scream that the States should have the rights to govern the ability for the security, when it is the Federal Government that upholds the Constitutional Rights. If so It is only the Federal Governmental that can give the rights on the security of the right to own and secure this instrument of death.
@ All anti-gunners...
Please tell me why you fear a black rifle vs. one with nice looking wood grain trim??
And while your at it, please tell me how by banning a black rifle will STOP another tragedy? Because all civilian firearms work like this.... One pull of the trigger and ONE bullet comes out.. I'm SO SICK of hearing "it's all about the children".... NOTHING you propose will stop another nut from killing his mother and stealing her firearms to kill.. NOTHING.
Let me get this straight -- the NRA will support background checks so long as the gun stores don't have to keep the records. So - they can choose to not do it and then lie about it? Trust me, I really did that background check on that killer? I don't think so. The whole point of background checks are to keep guns out of the hands of nutjobs, and to prosecute those who help the nutjobs. Can't do any of that without actual records.
Secondly - there needs to be a centralized database. This way - law enforcement can catch the nutjobs trying to buy hundreds of guns at multiple gun shops. Without this - the nutjobs win.
Of course - we all know that the Republicans are soft on crime. And the gun manufacturers want to sell to anyone with money - regardless of the consequences. Kind of like the tobacco industry. Gee...
Trillian: "gun nuts"? Is there also a term,"anti-gun nuts"? How about an affectation? How about we just both call each other "nuts" and get it over with,ok? You,obviously,are paying alot of attention to other people's nuts. I believe your one sick set of puppy nuts. Probably not just my nuts either.
So with this - if it passes - you can't sell your weapon without doing a background check on the person, be it family or friend or a stranger?
Another grab by the power hungry wanting control of everything you own!
You will not be able to hold a yard sale in the near future unless you get permission from Kodak to sell their used camera, permission from Ford to sell their used car - I say "their" because they still own control of it. Now the gov will actually own your weapon and you have to get their permission to sell it. Why not? They already own everything you think that you own - we are just caretakers of their property!
gun nuts -
when they start talking to their guns...
when they think the Maine proposed law (the one that EVERYONE has to have a weapon) was so brilliant and they "got it"...
fyi - the term changes to psychotic - when the guns start talking back
The NRA doesn't listen to their own membership calling for more background checks, so no surprise the NRA Lobby also believes they rule over all of Congress. Because in the minds of the GOP Tea Party on Capitol Hill, they do.
-------------------------------------
NRA ACTIVELY WORKED TO WEAKEN GUN LAW ENFORCEMENT
Excerpts:
The National Rifle Association says proposals such as universal background checks for gun buyers won't work and the nation must enforce the laws it has. But lobbying records and interviews show the organization has worked steadily to weaken existing gun laws and the federal agency charged with enforcing them.
A review of congressional legislative records, federal lobbying disclosure forms, as well as interviews with former ATF agents, shows how the NRA has repeatedly supported legislation to weaken several of the nation's gun laws and opposed any attempt to boost the ability of the Bureau of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to enforce current laws
One provision in the law Vizzard cited as particularly vexing to the ATF was that false record keeping for dealers was reduced to a misdemeanor, meaning if an ATF agent audited a gun dealer missing 1,200 guns, the dealer could not be charged with a federal offense.
"You just don't get many U.S. attorneys filing misdemeanors in federal court," he said.
Joseph Vince, a retired ATF agent, also mentioned the 1986 act, but added the agency was woefully underfunded because of NRA pressure in Congress.
"What they do, they will make it so that any gun-control measures that are passed are going to be failures," Vince said. "They set it up that way because if there's no resources granted, then how is it going to work? You look at ATF, they haven't had any more special agents than they did in 1976."
Meanwhile the number of firearms owned in the United States has only grown.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/
MSNBC IS A PACK OF LIARS!
Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won't oppose background check bill
An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.
The story posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks". This statement is completely untrue. The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.
The NRA supports meaningful efforts to address the problems of violent crime and mass violence in America, through swift and certain prosecution of violent criminals; securing our schools; and fixing our broken mental health system.
NBC lies!
Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won't oppose background check bill
An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.
The story posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks". This statement is completely untrue. The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.
The NRA supports meaningful efforts to address the problems of violent crime and mass violence in America, through swift and certain prosecution of violent criminals; securing our schools; and fixing our broken mental health system.
"Doctor" Coburn has clearly not taken care of enough gunshot wounds, otherwise he would not be spouting this "fecal material".
I have.
'Nuf said.
You people just make me laugh!
You ACTUALLY think a background check with curb violence??? Sure, you'll get the occasional wacko that won't be able to buy a gun... but he'll just use a baseball bat, his car, or just blow some sh*t up... it's not rocket science. You want to curb gun violence? Let Law Enforcement do their jobs... let the judicial system let them do theirs...
Bottom line : The US of A has a law that says the right to bare arms will not be infringed… WILL NOT BE INFRINGED… what’s so hard to understand?
Go ahead, put those that use firearms in a felonious crime away… make it hard for criminals to get away with murder… make sure the pure act of that crime is to be scared of, as far as the consequences. As it is now, you can get more jail time for kicking your dog than shooting your drug dealer.
For everyone calling the NRA a bully and such, what would you call a UNION? I bet you champion unions and the tactics that they use. Strike a company into bankruptcy and closing its doors (and themselves out of a job) makes sense but an organization whose purpose, along with firearm safety, is to defend a constitutionally provided right is ignorant? Just because something scares you and you want to make it all go away? Which side is being ignorant here? A tragedy like SH shows again that there are bad people out there who do bad things, are an infinitesimal percentage of gun owners, but the solution is to take away guns from everyone but the criminals? Rhetoric all through this string saying that society has failed these people, that they were forced into these barbaric acts because of how we as a society have failed them. Final score: accountability - 0 criminals no longer even having to make excuses for themselves - 1,000,000. The fight with criminal elements will never be finished by law abiding citizens. What we are heading for is a mercy killing by the bad guys with a much appreciated assist from our trusted elected officials because we will no longer be able to defend ourselves. The response to this from the typical gun hating liberal? Shut up and take it because if we would have done a better job of coddling these criminals, they wouldn't be doing it. You can't blame the criminal, they have no choice. Because they don't have one, you don't either. We will remember you when you are gone. We will use your sacrifice to help get the rest of the general public in line with our way of thinking. Remind you much of Animal Farm? 1984? Evidently a lot of people out there read Orwell and found their blueprint for the world. You will have to excuse me if I do not want to be the next Boxer on the way to the glue factory and I support the NRA in protecting me from that fate.
Fine, background checks all around.
On another note, did anybody see that Mark Kelly, gun control extraordinaire, actually committed at least two felonies including "straw purchasing" when he recently purchased an AR-15 as a stunt:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/oops-gabby-giffords-husband-mark-kelly-may-have-committed-felony-with-his-ar-15-purchase/
I wonder if DOJ will charge him.
did a search and saw no felonies
Will I need ANOTHER background check? How many of you liberals have had a FULL background check in the last 5 years?
I have one every two years, for my job.
Here's his reason on the purchase:
#/video/bestoftv/2013/03/11/exp-tsr-mark-kelly-ar-15.cnn
Interesting, yet you dont need a background check to vote, nor do you need to produce an ID as an illegal to get a drivers license AND college loans while veterans get NO tuition assistance. I love how the last 4 years of the administration you love so much Job1 is retarded in its orientation and how all the news networks save one wont even comment on how the families of the Benghazi dead cannot even talk to the people who are still alive and being protected by the Obama administration. Great people you voted in office in 2012.
blackcatwhitecat,
Kelley stated he bought the gun to hand it over to police after the purchase. On buying a firearm, you have to check a box that the purpose of the sale was for your own use, Kelley did so. He then claimed he had no intention of keeping it. This is in violation of the agreement he signed. That is where the possible felony arises.
That's quite a stretch, Jesse
I think Kelley just got busted buying something he has lobbied against. He bought it to "prove" how easy it was? The process to buy a gun is very clear, there is no need to prove anything. No one disagrees that the time for the NCIC check is not weapon specific. Nothing about his explanation makes any sense whatsoever.
Jesse-Az
so you are telling me that I cannot buy a gun and then turn it over to the police? He was not buying it for someone else or intending to sell it. He didn't even take possession of it.
And I'll bet that he didn't even edit any video like the idiot O'Keefe that all you fanatics believed and drooled over. He did it to show the idiocy of the current laws and regulations. He proved all of you wrong and now you're pissed at him for doing so. Oh the hypocrites abound here today.
I have one every two years, for my job.
------------------------------------------------------------
I'd love to know what job you do, considering you're on MSN all day every day promoting the lefty liberal agenda...So are you a paid MSN thread stirrer, or a government "worker"?
The NRA is not part of any government entity. They are no different than lobbyist. The can't make deals with anyone, especially congress. So I don't understand why this is touted so hugely in todays gun grab headline.
Tell you what JOB1 how about you get one every year and you have to rely on the federal government doing it and with a dissincentive to do it, then add the caviot that if they fail to do it on time you lose your job. That would about equate to the government (in place today) doing background checks for gun buyers. It isn't what they want to they are incentived to not do it thereby making your gun owning and purchasing a felony... and all you did was follow the law. This would be a bad law and another left wing government sham, big government job, overpaid overbenefited position, waste of our tax dollars. How about all federal employees pay their taxes or face immediate dismissal from their jobs and any rights to their fat pensions including politicians. Fail to pay on time you lose both, job and pension. They could probably start with this fat cat Schumer, what a self rightious slug.
Universal Background Check is the lead-in to removing all guns, so says Democrat Representative Jan Schakowsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVz2lHODQvs&feature=player_embedded
alim-2810059
"Universal Background Check is the lead-in to removing all guns, so says Democrat Representative Jan Schakowsky"
she thinks so, so do Sens Feinstein,Schumer,Leahy,Mccarthy,mayor for life Bloomberg,anti-gun writers like Dennis Henigan,even Josh Sugarman,
who's managed to crawl out from whatever rock he has been living under since about '04 when the "assault weapons ban" was allowed to expire-he was the guy who coined the use of the term "assault weapon" and it's modern meaning-this after he realized that support for a handgun ban just was not there-so he started his "assault weapons" BS-
he said the public is easily confused between semi and full auto-so if it looks like a machine gun,it must be a machine gun-he also said we can ban any gun that looks scary-just because the public doesn't know the difference-Feinstein agreed with him-
This has been the plan of the far left all along-Feinstein has had an "assault weapons" ban-in some form,in her desk since '04-just waiting for the right tragedy to exploit-she found it in the Sandy Hook shootings-
Just listen to the libtards screaming about the poor sandy Hook babies,and how they deserve a vote-no mention of the FACT that Conn. had an AWB in effect,or that Lanza was a nutcase,who stole his murdered mothers guns to commit the crime-
no mention of the mentally ill shooter-who is the one who should be punished-
NOT the 99+% of legal gun owners who will be the ones to suffer-
just so those on the far left can advance their agenda to control even more of our lives,and take our rights away one at a time.
PIG BIT$H ONCE AGAIN YOU BELIEVE LIES!!
Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won't oppose background check bill
An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.
The story posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks". This statement is completely untrue. The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.
The NRA supports meaningful efforts to address the problems of violent crime and mass violence in America, through swift and certain prosecution of violent criminals; securing our schools; and fixing our broken mental health system.
PIG BIT$H Dougj?
Really?
Nothing more pathetic than a pussy hiding behind his keyboard,directing invective at a woman.
Well except for one who's too much of a pussy to even follow through all the way with their bile.
You're a punk.
And a stupid one at that...try actually READING the article...fourth paragraph in it quotes the same NRA spokesman that you do,Mr. Cox,and gives his rebuttal to what the sources told the author of the article.
That's called journalistic balance. Something you Right Wing Clusterfux pukes wouldn't know about if it bit you on the ass.
Registration is the first step to confiscation. If they are allowed to keep records on background checks what do you think they will use those records for? They certainly won't use them to find the people that tried to buy a firearm and were legally not allowed. They don't do that now with the background checks through NCIC.
I have a background check every time I apply for credit. No one was ever killed by a loan for a car.
I have a background check done for my job as well (just like Job1).
Also, having to go through multiple background checks for multiple gun purchases is the price you pay for having background check info destroyed within 24 hours of the check (at the behest of NRA lobbying) to ensure that
no mistakes can be correctedyour privacy is protected.Kenny: You and the piglet should get married and have more libtard butt babies.
I think it is remarkable how some of you folks here are
enjoying your 1st Amendment right to free speech and using it to
support the infringement of my 2nd amendment right to keep and bear
arms. You totally miss the constitutional implications of what you are
supporting. Wonder what your reaction will be when the government decides you
don’t need to have your right to free speech in certain situations. What happened at Sandy Hook was indeed a tragedy;
however I will not forfeit my constitutional rights in order to make you feel
better. I am a member of the NRA and proud to say so. I also legally carry a concealed weapon and
have done so for most of my adult life. So enjoy your freedom of speech and I
will enjoy my freedom to keep and bear arms. Good Day.
Can any of you liberals answer these questions with intelligent answers?
1. Would forcing a universial background check stop criminals from getting firearms?
2. You all are crying out for the Sandy Hook babies but would a universial background check have stopped the mentally ill man from doing this act of terror?
3. You want to stop people like the Sandy Hook shooter but what would be more effective for the future, a universial background check or concentrating on helping and healing the mentally ill?
4. The liberals say no one wants to take away weapons that it is just a BS. What do you liberals have to say about Democrat Rep Jan Schakowsky caught on video stating just that, or Sen Feinstein, Schumer, Leahy, McCarth and Bloomberg, even obama before he was in politics and in the begining of his political career mentioned at times of being very anti-gun and that people shouldn't have to have the need to own weapons?
5. Do you honestly think that a universial background check will not lead to confiscation in the future? Have you not seen the nations of the past when governments did this, the next step was taking the weapons away from the people so they could not stand against a tyrannt?
7. Do you honestly believe that stricter gun regulations, gun bans, universial background checks will have a positive affect on crime? Have you seen England, Australia and other nations with extreme gun laws? They have higher crime rates then the USA per captia of population?
Now can any of you liberals honestly answer these questions with answers that have meaning and intelligence behind the answers?
Kenny,
Doug J is exactly right Pig is a paid blogger and she makes her money off of others misery.
You are the punk on this blog and I will be a NRA member for life. Guns? What Guns? I don't own any.
At least that is what every NRA member will tell Obama and his henchmen if they come around asking if we own any guns.
@ DJJJ111; I will have to disagree with you on telling Obama and his henchmen if they ever come around asking or wanting to take my guns that "I don't have any". I will be telling them "You can have my guns, one round at a time and after that when you pry them from my cold dead hands!"
Oh man, the extreme left and the extreme right is stupid beyond belief. You didn't win the election, the idiots in the GOP lost it. The Dems can't even count on their own party to vote with them. Lets see the democratic senators from Montana, Colorado, Arkansas, and Washington are going to jump right on the gun control band wagon. You people from both sides need to get out a bit and learn your own country first. Listen to you, "wing nuts, gun nuts" making reference to penis size etc, "lib tards, etc etc. You tell me what is the difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. It appears both parties have their respective Tea Parties.. I have never seen an administration work so hard to ensure that they will lose the senate majority. Oh yes but the Mayor of New York will save them, that is more like the kiss of death in the aforementioned states. Politics is the art of the possible not the perfect, little increased back ground checks, harder to make straw purchases that is about it, then move on. The size of clips is not the biggest problem facing this nation, get over it and move on
So the left is lying again to make everyone believe there is hope for Schumer and Feinstiens plans.
Statement from Chris W Cox NRA ILA Executive Director regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA wont oppose background check bill
An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers. The story posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks". This statement is completely untrue.
Don't let the facts get in your way now. Just take MSNBC's word for it. After all you can't think far enough ahead to check things out for yourself.
I have no problem with a non-disclose background check. Now how about a voter registration check and card?
Why should we have to have a background check to buy a firearm but no background check is required on this president we now have in office?
The data on convictions for voting by non-citizens are also consistent with amici’s experience. In fiscal years 2002 through 2005, the federal government prosecuted only 28 cases of alleged voting by ineligible voters, leading to just 18 convictions nationwide. Similarly, a comprehensive effort to compile election-fraud cases from all 50 states uncovered only 19 convictions for non-citizen voting between 2000 and the present.
You thing the expense will be justified? Tune in tomorrow morning for a longer post and links.
exactly Funny, it will set a precedent that the left will have a tough time arguing...but but but...if i have to carry a card to purchase a gun (effectively own one) then you need to carry a card showing that you have legal rights to vote in America..I'll be able to do both..liberals might have a problem with doing both.
We need more GingerbredMammas with their 'constructive idea's' . Good thing liberals dont cowtow MSNBC pundits or WH talking points.. thank JAYSUS
She admitted voting twice in the presidential election last November, and now, Obama supporter Melowese Richardson has been indicted for allegedly voting at least six times. She also is charged with illegal voting in 2008 and 2011.
The 58-year-old veteran Cincinnati poll worker, indicted Monday, faces eight counts of voter fraud. Two others, one of whom is a nun, have been charged separately.
Richardson had admitted on camera to a local TV station, "Yes, I voted twice," claiming she was concerned that her vote would not count. She also said there "was no intent on my part to commit any voter fraud."
"I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States," she proclaimed in the interview.
Officials charged that she voted in her own name by absentee ballot and also in person at the polls, but Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Joseph Deters said she also is charged with voting in the name of five other people in various elections.
"This is not North Korea," Deters said in a statement announcing the indictments. "Elections are a serious business and the foundation of our democracy. In the scheme of things, individual votes may not seem important, but this could not be further from the truth. Every vote is important and every voter and candidate needs to have faith in our system. The charges today should let people know that we take this seriously."
Richardson made national headlines when the Hamilton County Board of Elections announced that it was investigating whether she voted up to half a dozen times, including on behalf of her granddaughter, India Richardson.
India told Fox News that her grandmother did indeed vote in her name, telling us that "it wasn't a big deal."
But voting twice or in another person's name is illegal.
Prosecutors say the five other people for whom Richardson cast ballots are all relatives.
Sister Marguerite Kloos also faces one count of illegal voting, for allegedly submitting an absentee ballot in the name of a fellow nun, Sister Rose Marie Hewitt, who had died before absentee ballots were sent out. She is accused of opening Sister Hewitt's ballot, forging her signature and mailing it to the Board of Elections as a vote.
The 54-year-old Kloos has resigned as the dean of the Division of Arts and Humanities at the College of Mount St. Joseph in Cincinnati, where she still serves as an associate professor of religious and pastoral studies.
Kloos was not indicted but faces what is known as an information, because her lawyer contacted prosecutors and she agreed to cooperate and plead guilty.
"As a valued member of the Mount community, our thoughts are with her during this difficult time," the college said in a written statement. "We respect her privacy and will not comment further on this matter at this time."
Russell Glassop, 75, also is charged with illegal voting. He is accused of voting on behalf of his wife, who died before election day.
But it was Richardson's case, and the possibility of repeated votes, that shocked many. She faces up to 12 years in prison if convicted. Efforts to contact her and her lawyer have been unsuccessful.
The Hamilton County Board of Elections recently held hearings on cases of possible double voting and voter fraud, part of a statewide review ordered by Secretary of State John Husted. He called on all 88 counties to review complaints of fraud, as well as voter disenfranchisement.
"Every voter must play by the rules, and if they don't they will be held accountable," Husted, a Republican, said in a written statement. "For voters to have confidence in our elections, we must prosecute every case of voter fraud in Ohio."
Last month, Husted told Fox News that Richardson's case was especially troubling, because "it appears she not only attempted to vote more than once, but was actually successful at it and having those additional votes counted."
"Most attempts are caught by the system. But there are cases that do slip through, as this one does, and we need to make sure that we really send a strong message, that if you do this, you are going to be held accountable," Husted said. "It might mean fines, it might mean jail time."
Hamilton County prosecutors are investigating three additional cases of possible voter fraud.
GTR5 - if you think there was no background check done on President Obama, I have a really pretty bridge in California to sell you! NO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN OUR HISTORY has had more digging done on him - and yet nothing was found! Try again - you probably still want to see his birth certificate, right????? LOL! Does it NEVER end with you kooks?
OOoooohhh - don't forget to look under your bed for the boogie man!
NoMoreTax - your source please. Plus, if you don't think there were multiple votes for Romney - by the same person - you're only fooling yourself!
Owning and using a gun should require Regulation back ground check, training, register and license. Had these steps been in place 25 to 50 years ago, we most likely would not 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.
Simple!
Jobless1, tell me whats a gun nut? maybe you should be required to pass an intelligence check, register your mouth and licenced to speak...it's nutz like you that make me shudder... Thank the Almighty crazies like you are kept in check with the Constitution...BTW I hear Kiev is lovely this time of year..Get your Rupees ready.
Sieg Heil Comrade Commissar
seeking
you mean there has never been more "looking the other way" than with this pitiful excuse we have for a president
Since voter's registration card contain everything required to purchase a firearm, we can just start using the same card to verify the identity of gun buyers.
Seeking,
Just because you say something doesn't make it so. Do you have a source for this ridiculous statement? The media didn't dig nearly as hard on President Obama as they did on Governor Palin, the only reason they haven't found anything on President Obama is because he's gone to great lengths to make sure all of his records are sealed. We still don't know a lot of detail about his past other than he smoked a lot of pot and snorted a lot of coke.
Someone like Caesar Disgust Us
KCBones - which records are sealed? Be specific and don't be stupid about college transcripts. Everyone's college transcripts are sealed - including mine. No one can release those without a person's permission and no President has ever given permission. Someone leaked Bush's but he never gave them permission to do so.
And, no other President's have been asked for theirs. So, again, WHAT records has Obama had sealed? And, of course you had a problem with Romney NOT releasing 10 years of tax returns - as all Presidential candidate have done, right? You must have been incensed!!! Yeah - right!!!
thats what i expected as an answer... So you dont know what a gun nut is yet you feel compelled to spread your bvll@!$%# labels...WHere's Thomas Grand and David Poseur at...they hate labels...
well Jobless1, you get back to me when you can define gun nuts. In the meantime take your pocket Constitution and continue to Wipe your ass with it
Seeking do you have this source? I guess these constructive liberal 'ideas' i keep hearing about makes it sufficient for argument sake
KC - still waiting for specifics on what the President has had sealed.
How many people are killed each year by ballots? I'm guessing not many. Paper cuts are rarely lethal. False equivalency exposed, funnygirl2.
you just discredited yourself from any future conversation.
You birthers are a strange breed of paranoid delusionals.
The NRA owns too many legislators who are committed to their campaign donors not their constituents.
Bloomberg buys elections ,but thats OK.
OH goody goody he spent $2 million in Chicago and won an election.
But thats OK.
Bloomberg needs to stick to things within his competence...like regulating popcorn and soft drink consumption. Those big scary guns...he needs to leave that to those who know something about them. The poor little putz probably got traumatized by some neighbor kid with a cap pistol and never got over it.
How many children does the blood soaked NRA have to have on its score card to induce nausea in America?
How much longer do Americans have to indulge the adolescent morons who must play with their guns to get their testosterone levels up?
The NRA is the rest home for senile old fools who live in fear. Welcome to the craziest place on earth. Guns guns guns. How else can you feel like a man without your guns? Pathetic isn't it?
How many women and children will need to raped and beaten before the gungrabberz are pacified?
How long do Americans have to sit silently while the "intellectually and morally superior" progressives whittle the Constitution away?
The Brady Bunch is the rest home for senile old fools who think that just because it didn't work before, we shouldn't do it again. Welcome to the most woosy place on earth where hoplophobes hide under their beds and pee themselves because law-abiding gun owners live across the land.
Gee, it was fun turning my brain off in order to spew crap like that. You must be constantly having fun.
Bill Austin
I have a 38 for my wife to protect herself with when I'm not home. I go to work knowing she can protect herself and I feel pretty good. You have a problem with that? I bet you have never been in a real fight in your life. Tell me how are you going to defend against an armed assult?
I can see it now all the Criminals are going to queue up for a background check and when they fail it turn in their Firearms, then the sun will shine the birds will sing and all will be right in the World.
Wake up you morons.
Gungrabberz supporting gangbangers and home-intruders.
the majority of criminals obtain their firearms through straw purchases. This is why expanding background checks but not requiring them on private sales does nothing.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
If you require checks on private sales (either through an agent, and/or via some form of "background check identification card" as suggested by the user Rhino40) then you can prosecute the original purchaser of a firearm (as a gun trafficker, with 10-20 year jail sentences) if a gun THEY purchases shows up at a crime scene and they don't have the required paperwork showing they legally sold/transferred that firearm to another individual and conducted a background check.
This won't eliminate the flow of firearms to criminals (there will still be "hot" guns, and some traffickers willing to take the risk of future prosecution), but it'll make a huge dent in the supply of firearms that get into criminal hands. This is likely the most effective measure we currently have in combating gun and gang violence in this country.
News flash... criminals do not submit to "background checks." Anyone who is willing to commit assault and murder is not going to be worried about breaking more gun laws.
I'm still trying to get someone to tell me how disarming me makes them safer...
And PLEASE... the NRA does NOT speak for me. They can go to hell with their "compromise."
see post #5.2 above...
I can't disagree with you here, unless of course you think the NRA is "weak" for agreeing to not fight background checks (which is madness). The NRA is a practically a cult these days...
How is one going to enforce this ? If I give a gun away does one need a back ground check ? Of the many guns in my house know how many bought at the store ? Two. So if I sell to a freind or family just who will know if or what gun transfered ? Just another dumb law that will not work. I Will Not Be Infringed !!!!!!!!!
But, but, but we must do something so that we feel empowered.
Archie, you already are part of the fringe. There's more of us by far than there are you gun loving nuts, who need many... in order to feel like a man. See... here's how it will work (so pay attention): If you sell or give a gun away without proper registration procedure, (inclusive would be a background check done by regulatory personnel during a waiting period and ultimately notification as to whether or not the recipient clears), and that person commits a crime with that gun and you are found out to have been the supplier... you too, can serve a lengthy time in jail. Cool huh bro?! Now you can go back to beating your chest and running through the jungle!
On April 27, 1995, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) spoke at the US Senate hearing on terrorism shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing.
During the hearing, she referenced her concealed carry permit and how she carried a gun with her in the 1970's, citing the urge to arm yourself for protection- in her case from threats.
She states:
"I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me."
The NRA Leadership sold their souls to the many Gun Builders/Makers, and the Gun Builders were happy to have paid for their souls. The NRA Leadership has no sense of reality, and no common sense at all. The NRA 'motto' should now read. "Greed For Guns!"
and the 'PROGRESSIVE " motto should read
'RIGHT INTO THE SH_TTER"
Sorry, but the rwnj's trademarked that for themselves years ago.
How does the private seller prove that he/she has done the background check?
Da Noid the gun grabbers will force you to take your firearm to a licensed dealer, pay him a fee for conducting the check and the actual transfer. This is more gubimint proctology.
Who or what is a "gun grabber"?
Da Noid, The article said they would not go for the private seller to do background checks, I believe.
NC...that's the proposed compromise...not the position of the diehard gun grabbers like Feinstein and Schumer.
Is this really such a bad thing?
Who says the "gubimint" (what are you, 12?) has to keep the records and that the private seller can't keep them instead? They could just, you know, produce said transaction records for the police in the event a criminal investigation is involved with the firearm.
at which point the entire piece of legislation becomes meaningless. Not including checks on private sales defeats the entire point as most criminals obtain their firearms through straw purchases (e.g., gun traffickers) anyway.
yeah, but even as a liberal I feel like Feinstein and Schumer are idiots on this issue. They're just poisoning the well and making it IMPOSSIBLE to achieve anything of merit that might actually have a shot of reducing gun violence.
So let me get this straight, the NRA takes a big step in compromising and it's still not enough to satisfy all the panty twisted libbies? Who would have guessed that outcome? Things are starting to get real. Anti gunners are being exposed for what they really want, a national gun registry--the same thing that has happened in all countries that later enacted bans and confiscations. Honesty is not something that the anti gun groups are particularly fond of.
It's a bit difficult to track a gun trafficker or a weapon used in a crime when the paperwork has been destroyed now isn't it?
GodblessAmerica,
Why should any politician even consider the NRA in any decision? What has that group ever done for anyone? Have they fed hungry children, offered scholarships for poor students, provided safety programs for underprivileged neighborhoods? What good are they? Really?
As for honesty, do you really believe that any any political group tells the truth? The NRA twists information just like the others. The NRA cares more about the gun and gun accessory manufacturers than it does about regular citizens. You have to know that!
Doubting Toni the NRA is funded by individual members. The NRA represents its members concerns. Don't like it. Too bad.
FYI, the paperwork is not destroyed, but it will not be entered into an electronic database either. The federally liscensed dealer keeps the paperwork as long as they are in business, and then the paper records are sent in to the BATF when the business closes. The paper records can and are often searched at the FFL establishment if the feds expect the dealer of illegal activity. And all you liberals thought it was a complete free for all...
It's a compromise, I can live with as a gun owner...
MWP, we're talking about private sellers. Read the f_cking article.
Look, nitwitforever, what matters is sellers who don't keep records, won't keep records and will never keep records and will gladly tell you to roll your f_cking paperwork up real tight and stick it where the f_cking sun doesn't shine. So instead of wetting your pants over destroyed paperwork, get a f_cking clue....there ain't gonna be no GD f_cking paperwork to begin with. Ya got it yet???
Let's all give Rick a cracker for his pervasive use of the work f_cking. I have a feeling Rick likes CRACKERS. Anyway, if the law is passed and requires record keeping for private sales then you will either abide by the law or be a criminal. Your choice Rick. You do like CRACKERS don't you?
Hey IdiotForever, not only did I read the article, I understood the meaning that you apparently missed. If private sellers don't have to keep the records who do you think will do the background checks and keep the paper work? The Federally Licensed Dealers will!! And they will keep the same records they keep currently. This is exactly the way it is now, with the exception that ALL gun transfers would have to be completed at the FFL. That's the deal that's on the table.
I'm still trying to get someone to tell me how disarming me makes them safer...
How do I disquesus having you armed, as one of the "Good Guys"? Let me guess, because you say so, right?
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boyswho found a handgun pulled the trigger.
Next stupid question?
47% of all idiots believe statistics
myth#6
Salsa has a brain
Most of the conservatives on these threads didn't believe the statistics about Obama winning the election. How did that work out for you?
How did those guns in the household work out for Pistorius's girlfriend?
oh i believe the stats salsa
when you want to give a free ride to 11,000,000 illegals
you buy their vote and the vote of all their kin who are here now legally.
it's easy
She failed to keep her weapon with her....
Right Steve, she would have also needed to see through a door to know she was about to be fired on by her dumb ass boyfriend while she was wiping her ass with one hand and pointing HER gone with the other? Conservatives are as dumb as a bag of rocks.
High, you must have some dumb f_ck conservative buddies if they couldn't prove that 11,000 undocumented workers voted in the last election? Where's the beef? Put up or shut up........loser.
Fact: Guns are used more often in defense than they are used to kill or wound...
businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
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.
David Hemenway actually discusses OVERSTATEMENT of gun use for defense. Get your facts straight:
David Hemenway, the author of this debunking, traces the overstatement of defensive gun uses to an inherent statistical problem: with very rare events (like defensive gun use), seemingly small sampling errors can lead to very large overstatements of incidence.
Say that survey findings are a 1% overestimate of the true incidence. If the true incidence were 40%, estimating it at 41% might not be a problem. But if the true incidence were .2%, measuring it as 1.2% would be six times higher than the true rate, and if the true incidence were .1%, measuring it at 1.1% would be a teen fold overestimate.
How might this work in practice? Hemenway offers a funny example.
In May 1994, ABC News and The Washington Post conducted a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults. One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" Ten percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?" and 6% answered "Yes."
Extrapolating to the U.S. population as a whole, we might conclude that 20 million Americans have seen an alien spacecraft, and 1.2 million have been in actual contact with beings from other planets.
I wouldn't want to suggest that defensive gun use against real dangers (i.e, not carrying a shotgun to investigate raccoons rooting through the trash) is quite so rare as contact with extra-terrestrials. But it's rare enough that conscientious people should think very hard about exposing themselves, their children, and their loved ones to the large and amply documented dangers of a weapon in the house.
OK, Salsa -
You are obviously the one to answer the question to which I never get an answer:
How is it that gun violence, and gun homicides have fallen even as the number of guns in circulation and the number of gun owners has increased?
I am obviously not the person to answer such a broad question that doesn't reference a geographic area or a time period. You really need to be more specific.
Salsa, you like statistics (although the "stats" you cling to regarding danger of firearm in the home are actually based on survey results, which you've already revealed how reliable those are)
The question is: which will save more lives:
a. ban magazines with more than 10 rounds
b. ban automobiles that can travel above 35mph
c. ban firearms altogether
If you're answer is "b", then you are correct. But then it's not really about saving lives is it?
USA child deaths in 2009 up to age 14 (source CDC):
From motor vehicle accidents - 1548
From Non-Firearm Homicide - 779
From Drowning - 704
From the Flu and Pneumonia - 625 (260 flu, 365 Pneumonia)
From Firearm homicide - 264
From Toxic Substances - 109
From Falling - 93
I see IdiotForever is at it again, my facts are straight, I quoted a left leaning media outlet, quoting a left leaning gun control advocate, who's numbers still indicate 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. You don't even believe facts from "your side" of the argument, if they don't fit with your biased views.
Apparently you missed it the first time, so it bears repeating, here's the article:
businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
and here's the point quoted directly from the article:
"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."
So Bloomberg's own media outlet, quoting a liberal Harvard professor has estimates approaching 100,000.
Again from the Bloomberg article:
"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."
There are other estimates out there that range as high as 2.5 million times annually, a number that even I find likely to be a wild exaggeration. That's the number Hemenway is trying to debunk in his report- So you get your facts straight!
On the lowest estimates it's still TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES ANNUALLY!!
NEWS FLASH - Legislation is pending to regulate the so-called "press"... the Constitution was written so long ago & could not have envisioned the fast-paced world in which we live today. So in an effort to keep fact vs hearsay to a minimum, the Congress has taken upon itself to draft much-needed legislation to regulate the flow of news.
These "common-sense" limitations will not affect the 1st Amendment in any way because our fore-fathers never meant news to be taken as INSTANT.
First will be the 3-day waiting period to make the time to verify sources for all news articles. Next will be the registration of anyone reporting news of any type whether it be using newspaper, magazine, internet or blog. Registration will require a full background check (no one would want just anyone reporting news, would they?) and a license stating the method of news to be used by the individual.
Last would be the elimination of all "social-networking" sites. These sites go un-checked and could involve millions of people being fed erroneous, inflammatory or even badly worked news.
These common-sense measures can only help to inform & educate the masses.
Born of a US citizen whether in Kenya or not Obama holds valid US Citizenship.
What I would like to see is his application to Occidental and whether he applied as a Foreign exchange student.
Stop...take a deep breath...and think for a second...if nobody's seen that how do they know that's what it says?
Well I guess I am a kook, but I would like to see a valid Birth certificate. Everything he has said, his schooling, decrees, etc have all proved to be lies and can not be verified, so where is a valid BC.?
da noid, #14.1,
'whether' was used as 'if' (ie.)
"and IF he applied as a foreign exchange student"
it is his DESIRE to have an answer to the question. "...I would like to see..."
understandable as BHO has not been that open AND consistent about his past.
..
Example: travel to Pakistan, during a time that AMERICAN passports could NOT be used there.
AND INDONESIA DID NOT ISSUE PASSPORTS TO FOREIGN NATIONALS AT THAT TIME.
more interesting than what a movie star had for breakfast is it not.
but BHO's passport records are sealed ... right... interesting that.
This might be hot off the presses,but it looks a lot like where everything was in the last episode.
If people in government are serious about gun violence. They should prosecute and hold people in government financially responsible if a gun law is violated. Start enforcing existing laws before shoving more BS down the throats of the American people.
It's a bit difficult to enforce gun laws when the NRA wants to destroy records. Comprendez?
We have a government bureau - BATF - which has decided that the fines and penalties for illegal attempts to secure a firearm is not worth prosecuting. That would be $250,000.00 and 10 years.
A couple of hundred prosecutions? Tens of thousands of attempts?
And yet we need more laws and restrictions on the law-abiding. Uh-huh.
And yet conservatives have been blocking attempts to allow the appointment of a permanent director of BATF. Uh huh.
Salsa, you're a dollar short on knowledge and comprehension, but only just. Dig a little more in your stats and you'll actually start to learn something.
The question is: which will save more children's lives:
a. ban swimming pools
b. ban automobiles that can travel above 35mph
c. ban firearms altogether
If you're answer is "b", then you are correct. If you're answer is "a", you're not quite correct, but not as wrong as if you picked "c". But then it's not really about saving lives, or is it?
USA child deaths in 2009 up to age 14 (source CDC):
From motor vehicle accidents - 1548
From Non-Firearm Homicide - 779
From Drowning - 704
From the Flu and Pneumonia - 625 (260 flu, 365 Pneumonia)
From Firearm homicide - 264
How is it that the NRA gets to bargain with Congress?
By representing the congresmen's constituency...and doing everything possible to help unelect representatives who forget about the people back home.
Same way unions, big pharma, doctors, etc. etc. etc. etc. get to bargain with congress.
How is that a billionaire, gun hating mayor from New York gets to pump over $2,000,000.00 into a campaign for a Rep in Chicago? Low IQ libs keep screaming about the perceived power of the NRA when in reality, their monetary influence pales in comparison to the net worth of Bloomberg. The NRA has about 25-35 million dollars to play with while ole' Bloomer is estimated to be worth well over 30 Billion! He has pledged his wealth to support his own radical, anti gun hate group. Apparently, most of the clueless anti gun posters here get there info straight from his website. The NRA is powerful not because of it's war chest, it's powerful because it represents well over 4 million members as well as 10's of millions of gun owners who are not members. There are many gun owners who while not an official member, highly value the efforts of the NRA and vote accordingly. The left loves to try and demonize the NRA as a shill for the gun manufacturers when in truth, most gun enthusiasts don't need the NRA to try and sell them on acquiring more firearms. No other group has done more to ensure the safe ownership of firearms than the NRA, a fact purposefully omitted by the radical anti gun groups.
I have already given up... nothing is gonna change anything so I just learn to duck really fast at the sound of anything strange.... innocent people and children will still die by bullets and guns and that is the price of so-called freedom in this country.
And you also know that the #1 weapon used to kill people is the Baseball bat. In fact just last night on the news there was another report of one woman trying to kill another with a baseball bat. Murder is murder, violence is violence, no matter the tool/weapon used.. At least get your facts straight and realize people will get murdered without firearms and in most case's that is what happens.
Tell you what Bill. I'll have a loaded Glock in one hand and a baseball bat in the other. YOU choose which weapon you prefer me to attack you with? Conservatives are as dumb as a bag of rocks.
Ah, Salsa, like all PARTY DRONES, is incessantly borrrrrring.
Ah, mpa coming late to the party and unsuccessfully trying to say something cute.
If they really wanted to do something, they would make mandatory a background check for when someone steals your Mother's gun.
Maybe even a signed affidavit from the thief that he won't use his new stolen gun while committing a crime.
You could also have gun owners sign a promise that they will always be "Good Guys With Guns" and that they'll never become "Bad Guys With Guns".
@Da
Where do I sign?
Crime is in the heart, not in the hand.
Just remember, you are one "Bad Day" from breaking that promise.
Your last line reminds me of the scene from the film Witness where Samuel finds John Book's gun...
Eli Lapp: This gun of the hand is for the taking of human life. We believe it is wrong to take a life. That is only for God. Many times wars have come and people have said to us: you must fight, you must kill, it is the only way to preserve the good. But Samuel, there's never only one way. Remember that. Would you kill another man?
Samuel Lapp: I would only kill the bad man.
Eli Lapp: Only the bad man. I see. And you know these bad men by sight? You are able to look into their hearts and see this badness?
Samuel Lapp: I can see what they do. I have seen it.
Eli Lapp: And having seen you become one of them? Don't you understand? What you take into your hands, you take into your heart.
Do you have a hammer in your tool box or a knife in your kitchen?
You're only one bad day from killing someone.
It's called progressive logic.
Yes it is you two.
Or maybe we can say it's just plain logic/common sense PERIOD,something the two of you obviously lack.
First words of the scene that Da Noid quoted..."The gun of the hand is for the taking of human life."
That is the purpose of a gun. Taking life. Just as it's the purpose of any other weapon.
I can do many things with a hammer...build a deck,replace my roof (new wood and all),build an addition onto my house. These are just a few.
I use several different kitchen knives every day. For the preparing of food and occasionally to open a letter and/or package.
I've never found anything constructive to do with a gun around the house. Because it has ONE SOLE PURPOSE,to fire hot lead into something,oft times a living being (animal or human).
You're only one day from being total idiots and that day has come and gone.
From a veteran and proud gun owner.
Yes, but I'm less likely to be one bad day away from killing 26 people in rapid succession.
kennyw,
Thank you...you touched on something that, speaking for myself, is why I do not own a gun.
If you have a gun, regardless of the purpose behind owning that gun, whether it is for protection or for hunting or, yes, even if you own it to prepare for your dystopian fantasy of battling imaginary Hitler, you have to be able to look yourself squarely in the mirror and say to yourself that you are ready to kill.
I can not honestly make that statement...and therefore I do not own a gun.
If the NRA...or anyone reading this...thinks less of me then that's just too bad because I don't really give two @!$%#s about your opinion of me.
...and, no, I don't want all your guns taken away from you and if it comes to that then I will stand opposed.
"For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know."
I'm with you Da Noid, I have no interest in owning a gun for the reasons you state so well. I don't want anyone's guns, I just want those who have them or are planning to purchase any, to register and to have a background check proving they are responsible enough to be owners of a lethal weapon
The NRA does not want you to do this!
Do a search on the internet for "3 year old shoots" and see what you find. Then work your way up to 12 year olds.
You will be convinced that guns do kill.
Using the logic of liberals, I believe every woman is a prostitute, they just haven't been caught yet...
Never going to happen. Guns are prolific in our society and there will be no law passed, short of outright confiscation, that is going to make one iota's worth of difference. You have to convince me first how you are going to get criminals to submit to this, and then, I might listen. For the rabid anti gun crowd, get over it, you're not going to win this one no matter what spin you put on it.
mwp., # 19.12,
If you are married, erase your hard drive NOW!!!
But, good one, I did laugh. Excuse me, have to destroy my HDD.
Just for the gun nuts. Perhaps we can find these nut a place to live. News flash job1
we have a place to live it is the united states and if you dont like the populace being armed and exercising their rights, LEAVE.
job1 is one of those who have decided that the Constitution is outdated, meaningless and that he/she knows what is best for all of us - and is determined that we shall have it. (Bloomberg - is that you?)
Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.
2nd Amendment:
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.
5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
--------------------
It's obvious from the fifth amendment that the writers of the Constitution defined a Militia as more than a single individual. Individuals do not have a right to firearms.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people
is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention
to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
No more compromises, the NRA will sell us out one little piece at a time until all your rights are gone.
I stand and applaud you...congratulations...you have now become so bloody paranoid that you think even the NRA is selling you out!
BWAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
No more compromises, the NRA will sell us out one little piece at a time until all your rights are gone.
Yus the FBI conducted a study and found that firearms were used in self defense 2 million x per year. A Georgia University professor didn't like the FBI's methodology and did his own study. He found that firearms are used in self defense 1 1/2 million x per year.
David Hemenway, the author of this debunking, traces the overstatement of defensive gun uses to an inherent statistical problem: with very rare events (like defensive gun use), seemingly small sampling errors can lead to very large overstatements of incidence.
Say that survey findings are a 1% overestimate of the true incidence. If the true incidence were 40%, estimating it at 41% might not be a problem. But if the true incidence were .2%, measuring it as 1.2% would be six times higher than the true rate, and if the true incidence were .1%, measuring it at 1.1% would be a teen fold overestimate.
How might this work in practice? Hemenway offers a funny example.
In May 1994, ABC News and The Washington Post conducted a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults. One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" Ten percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?" and 6% answered "Yes."
Extrapolating to the U.S. population as a whole, we might conclude that 20 million Americans have seen an alien spacecraft, and 1.2 million have been in actual contact with beings from other planets.
I wouldn't want to suggest that defensive gun use against real dangers (i.e, not carrying a shotgun to investigate raccoons rooting through the trash) is quite so rare as contact with extra-terrestrials. But it's rare enough that conscientious people should think very hard about exposing themselves, their children, and their loved ones to the large and amply documented dangers of a weapon in the house.
The left only believe studies conducted by Rosie O'donnel.
Who has a CCW permit herself - because she is special and her children deserve protection.
The FBI did a study, that is true. They discovered that guns saved 5000 lives a year. They also discovered that guns took 15,000 lives a year. They concluded that without guns, 10,000 people's lives would be saved a year.
Late last year, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service issued a report on gun control legislation that included competing estimates of how often Americans use firearms in self-defense. The Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization survey found that on average, about 62,000 Americans use a firearm to protect themselves each year and another 20,000 use a gun to protect their property. The report also cites a University of Florida survey which estimates that 2.5 million people a year use guns to protect themselves.
I see IdiotForever is at it again, my facts are straight, I quoted a left leaning
media outlet, quoting a left leaning gun control advocate, who's numbers still
indicate 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. You don't even believe facts from
"your side" of the argument.
Apparently you missed it the first time, so it bears repeating, here's the article:
businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
and here's the point quoted directly from the article:
"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a
year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."
So Bloomberg's own media outlet, quoting a liberal Harvard professor has estimates
approaching 100,000.
Again from the Bloomberg article:
"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."
There are other estimates out there that range as high as 2.5 million times annually,
a number that even I find likely to be a wild exaggeration. That's the number
Hemenway is trying to debunk in his report- So you get your facts straight!
On the lowest estimates it's still TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES ANNUALLY GUNS ARE USED DEFENSIVELY!!
that's bull@!$%#. It was not an FBI study, it was done by Gary Kleck of Florida State University, and it was based on an extrapolated self-reported survey (which anyone who knows anything about science and statistics will tell you is hardly reliable and will inflate the findings).
Those numbers (e.g., 2 million times per year) are complete and total bull@!$%#.
Ok DrowningGrover how about these numbers.
Let's quote a left leaning media outlet, that's quoting a left leaning gun control advocate,
who's numbers still indicate 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Will you believe facts from "your side" of the argument. Here's the article:
businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
Quoted directly from the article:
"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a
year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."
So Bloomberg's own media outlet, quoting a liberal Harvard professor has estimates
approaching 100,000.
Again from the Bloomberg article:
"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."
There are other estimates out there that range as high as 2.5 million times annually,
a number that even I find likely to be a wild exaggeration. That's the number
Hemenway is trying to debunk in his report.
The truth is, guns are more often used to defend than to wound or kill...
Since guns are not going away anytime soon, this is a completely moot point. Get over it and move on to more important things, like jobs, the economy, the debt, etc. Stop using guns as a distraction.
The two senators in NC vote for any rights that step on the 2nd and watch over 1 million hunters in NC vote you out.
And watch 3 million non-hunters re-elect them!
ex., #24.1,
Thanks for the Kindergarten response.
Morgan is correct, Gun owners tend to be single issue & unforgiving voters. Except for a very small minority in states like NC, gun control is a non-issue.
Proof, how many members of Congress want to tick off the NRA & shooting voters.
Really nothing wrong with a back ground check. California, for instance and some others, already do so. Then there is a 10 day waiting period prior to picking up the firearm. The problem is when the government stores the names, type of weapon that someone bought. Then they can come around when they decide and confiscate them, that is the wrong part, and should not be allowed into law. How do you think A.Hitler knew where the guns were when he started confiscation ? And yes, I am a NRA member.
Conservatives complain that laws don't work but turn a blind eye when the NRA guts laws. This is a prime example. It's more difficult to track gun traffickers or weapons used in crimes when there is no record keeping. Comprendez?
Bill K, please stop with the delusional paranoid thinking. NO ONE IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS. We can't enforce other gun laws effectively if we can't track gun sales.
Oh and guess again about Hitler.
University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. - The big Nazi, himself
Sorry, Gun Nuts: Hitler Actually Relaxed Most Gun Laws:
Here's the deal, oh, sweet, stupid gun nuts: Have a history lesson. Gun control laws had nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis or the Holocaust. In fact, they were initially part of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I, punishing Germany by eliminating private ownership of guns. In the Weimar Republic, new laws liberalized gun ownership, allowing hunting rifles and more. The other gun control laws in Germany post-WWI were specifically put in to prevent armed takeover of the government by groups like the Nazi Party, which did not, in fact, stage a coup, but used electoralpower to solidify its hold on the government (along with the Gestapo and the repression of demonized Communist groups). In fact, Hitler and the Third Reich opened up gun ownership even more, even if they did ban all Jews from owning guns. Yeah, the 1938 law said "a hunting license entitles the holder to carry firearms and handguns." That was new. It also lowered the age of gun ownership from 20 to 18 and changed one-year permits to three-year.
Nice try salsa..... Check your facts on Nazi gun control:
Classified guns for "sporting purposes". Much like Obama's classification of "assault" weapons
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check. Just like Obama’s universal background check. Which is how they knew which Jew’s owned guns to begin with.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law. Just like Obama’s gun control desires to strip the 2nd amendment from honest citizens.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons. Sound familiar?
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats. Nancy Pelosi could have written this herself.
Wow, the German’s under Nazi rule sure had it made, didn’t they? Thanks for clearing that up.
Gee, they BANNED Jews from owning guns, and then began to exterminate them.
Thank you for this 'history lesson'.
'
.
PS:
Molon Labe
No nothing wrong with universal background checks..... We all know the criminals will be the first in line to comply
Such fun watching the village idiots try to compare Obama to Hitler. Kind of makes them sound detached and delusional. Hillary 2016!!!!!
Typical lib.... Run out of answers, out comes the name calling. Nobody compared the two men, but the gun control ideas are eerily similar.
Don't break the law, and no one will come for your guns.
The entire armies of France, Poland and England couldn't stop Hitler, and some idiots think a Jew with a gun would have.
Here's a fact for you gun nuts... 5.8 million Jews were killed by Germans OUTSIDE of Germany, in countries that did allow gun ownership. Explain that one.
If history serves me correctly it was the Jews that had to first register wasn't it..see what happened 6,000,000 later......Not so long as WE have the 2nd...I choose to own guns..that is my Right, not a privilege..you have a Right to not own one...You keep your choice to yourself and I'll keep mine..Tell you what, I'll even advertise your choice and give you a sign for your front yard..."No Guns in My House"..I just hope for your sake you live in slum with an ugly wife and daughters, then you MIGHT be safe...Otherwise be proud of your choice..tell the world..BUT--of you live in a nice neighborhood and just look like you have money with a beautiful wife and daughters you might want to reconsider which side of the fence you are on...By the way..the record gun sales and ammo being sold out nationwide with months long backorders might give you an idea which side the other fence sitters jumped to. Wake up and smell the roses, or in this case the gunpowder from people taking responsibility for their own safety and practicing their marksmanship. Change your mind and the NRA will gladly teach you how to safely handle your new gun...JUST LIKE THEY DO YOUR POLICE AND THE ARMED FORCES..
@ exyahoouser..where do I begin to educate you?? The outside countries you speak of were under German control. Don't break the law and no one will come for your guns...Mayor Nagel during Katrina issued an order to confiscate all guns from all people and had people arrested and took their guns.....the courts handed his head back to him in a basket for that one..This time the courts won't be involved as the rule of law which has been so blatantly disregarded by Obama and his minions will be in the hands of law abiding citizens fed up with the Feds and their nanny state attempts to control the citizens of the US. Obama is preparing for this..why do you think the DHS ordered 1.5 BILLION rounds of 40.CALIBER HOLLOW POINT AMMO...You don't practice with HP ammo as it is too expensive, only to insure a quick kill...See, the DHS is a federal agency under his control and is exempt from the restricitons of Posse Comitatus..My,my, Obama's own private army or shall we say Brown shirts. Welcome to his national socialist party...Nahtzee if you don't remember your history..well ..it's obvious that you never studied history to begin with...did you..
1stlttightwad get psychiatric help as soon as possible you have a chance to overcome your obvious paranoia
Actually Salsa and others there are currently gun transaction records kept on paper at the gun dealers location- they are just simply not centralized and electronic, and never will be under current law. It is specifcally forbidden under current law.