@George:"... so the question becomes do you support the sale of guns
to convicted felons and the mentally incompetent?"According to
the Constitution, there are no restrictions for 'keeping and bearing'
arms.If those words somehow don't fit the current situation in
America, it is up to the US Congress to fix it. And how does the Congress do
that? Simple. The procedure is also in the US Constitution. It's called
Amendments to the Constitution. You can read all about it in Article V of the
Constitution. You do have a copy, don't you?Until the Congress
Amends the 2nd Amendment everyone is entitled to 'keep and bear arms.'
The US Constitution trumps all other authorities. The federal Executive Branch
is restricted because it is subject to the Constitution. The several states are
also restricted due to the Supremacy Clause... which is also found in the US
Constitution.If the US Constitution is ignored on this issue, it can
be ignored on all other issues and thus becomes worthless and useful only for
wallpaper. We're getting there fast.
@DN Subscriber:"Any 'background check' that results in a
permanent record of the buyer or seller is the golden ring that the anti gun
extremists have been grabbing at for decades. That will provide the foundation
needed for their ultimate confiscation goal."You got that
exactly right. It has been said: to eat an elephant you must cut it into little
bites. The way you confiscate all the guns in the country is to do it in little
steps. The first step: Ownership registration. The last step: Round up all the
@wrzso the only way you "lose" your right to gun ownership under
this law is if you are a convicted felon or been found to be mentally
incompetent so the question becomes do you support the sale of guns to convicted
felons and the mentally incompetent?
"Dem, GOP senators reach deal on expanding background checks to more
firearms purchases."Background check all you like. The bottom
line is... guns cannot be denied to Americans. Says so in the US
Constitution... To wit: '... the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed. What part of 'shall not be infringed'
don't they understand?If there is to be a curtailment of gun
ownership, it has to come from the Senate amending the 2nd Amendment. Will they
do it? Not likely. They're afraid doing so would cost them their cushy
@redshirt the BYU's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy
poll conducted on this subject is a good example of a valid poll conducted by an
independent organization that clearly lays out how they where funded, the
questions they asked, the possible limitations to their poll and the raw data
@redshirt maybe rather then trying to put tolstoy on the defensive by
claiming they lack integrity you should reread the first sentence of their last
post. Your gun company violates the first rule of credible research they are far
from n independent organization. they have a very vested interest in the results
of the poll they are conducting. Most new agencies do not conduct their own
polls but certainly you would want to examine the purpose of the poll who
actually funded it, conducted etc etc. again the poll you are quoting was
funded, developed and carried out by the gun company, very suspect. It would be
like me as someone that supports gay rights quoting research by the human rights
To "Tolstoy" then using your criteria for what makes for a valid poll or
research, NONE of the climate change studies are valid. All polls conducted by
any news agency is invalid.They published their actual questions and
data collected, if you had enough integrity you would have found it. Their
results are quite transparent. The need for indpendance is not necessary
because even independant polling services will have a bias put into it.Go and look at the source data available on their website, it is all there if
you are honest enough to look.The fact remains that what the poll
finding report are the SAME AS what police officers are saying throughout the
@redshirtLooking for valid polls and/or research is not that difficult
actually, you only need to validate if it was conducted by an independent
organization that has been transparent in where their funding comes from, and
publishes their actual questions and data collected. With that information in
hand you have the abity to establish its validity. What you have done is set out
to find someone that tells you what you want to hear regardless of the source it
To "Tolstoy" in other words, you have no evidence to go against that. I
however found that there are news stories out there that support the results of
the poll.See "Colorado Law Enforcement to Obama: Stop Using Our
Cops as Props" at Fox News.This is seen again in the news story
"Colorado sheriffs hold rally opposing more gun control laws before
Obama's speech in Denver" from the Denver ABC news affiliate.That is just out of Colorado. I have heard similar things said from local
sherrifs and police officers in Utah.Again, you are dismissing
15,000 police officers and their opinion because you don't like who did the
poll. If all polls were held to your standard, then there would not be any
valid polls out there.
Ban guns from those with paranoid delusions about crazy conspiracies to
confiscate guns. Mental instability and guns not compatible.
@lostIt is not BO's bill it is the two legislatures in the stories
bill as far as amending bills I suppose using your consperecy logic we should
appose any past or future laws since they may someday be amended. I would
suggest you may want to examine your last post and consider if you may have lost
perspective about the time you started feeling the need to type in all capital
Tolstoy,the law precludes establishment of a registry.Guess
what, BO has been such a consistent liar, we have NO faith in ANYTHING he says.
And who says the law cannot be amended to REQUIRE a registry.Nope,
it's the camel's nose in the tent.
@redshirtwhat a shocker, the research you keep quoting is from a branch of
a company that specializes in sales of weapons and accessories. Should I start
quoting research done by the porn industry that shows that porn has no negative
effect on children?
So those of you still claiming this will lead to a national registry do realize
this bill explicitly outlaws any such registry right? I support gun rights and
do not support most of the legislation out there (including reids version of
this bill) that would change gun laws but I really do not think this bill is
unreasonable (especially considering it actually expands some rights to buy
guns). its time to tart to pick your battles more wisely.
To "atl134" lets see what the experts in law enforcement have to say.
Police One recently did a survey. Here are the highlights from their survey
titled "PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from
officers' perspectives":95.7% say that limiting magazine
rounds to 10 or less will reduce crime.93% say that limiting sales
of "assault" weapons will have no impact or a negative impact85% say that the WH proposals will either make no difference or make police
jobs less safe28.8% say that the best thing to make communities safe
is more permissive CCP laws.80% say that if more people were armed
mass murders would result in few casualties.76.6% say that arming
teachers would make schools safer.81.5% say gun buyback programs are
ineffectiveDo you know more about the issues with guns and what
police officers face than the police? Why do you want to go against the
majority of experts in the field of law enforcement and make our streets less
Re: brahamabullDo I really need to bring up the abuses of power by
the Nixon Administration? FBI, CIA, ect? Yes it can happen. And this from a
Republican. Remember how many abuses of power the Anti-Bush crowd claimed what
with the Patriot Act and all? Your faith in honest government is refreshing,
but in this day and age, perhaps a little naive.
@TeaPublican"The UN will then have all gun owners on record and it
will just be a matter of time before they will confiscate our weapons. "======= And you wonder why people ignore those of you waving
flags and wearing tin-foiled-hats.let me guess, Obama's
birth certificate is fake, He is a secret Communist and part of the Muslim
Brotherhood, secret FEMA camps in Colorado, [gun registration a
secret UN list for confisgating your guns - check]Bigfoot, Nessie, Elivs
and Osama Bin Laden are all secretly alive and working at WalMart, contrails from airplanes are releasing mind altering chemical agents.The
moon landings were faked, and flouride in the water is Government mind
control.Why can't the John Birch Society just come right out as
say, John Birch Society?
I do know that gun enthusiasts get a bad rap, but it is a bad rap due to the
stupidity of a select few of them. example: after the Newtown shootings, a man
walks into a jcpenney with an assault rifle on his back. Anybody who supports
such rude and tactless behavior I would disassociate myself with. It is flat out
ignorant to do that. I understand wanting gun rights, but after people lost
their children at the hand of a madman with an assault rifle that is just
heartless. If somebody's child was killed at the hand of a drunk driver, do
you think it would be reasonable to go buy a whiskey necklace, or a jack daniels
shirt and parade it around for everybody to see, including somebody who lost
their child? Should anybody be so ignorant to the loss of life that they are
more worried about losing their alcohol rights then concerned with the family of
the deceased? It is sickening to me that a select few can act so ignorantly. If
it was your child, I am sure you would think differently. BTW I am an avid gun
user and owner.
@Tators"Please give a reliable source to your inflated statistics
(with an emphasis on the word reliable). From statistics that I've heard
about, you are simply pulling a number out of thin air to support a weak
argument."What does it matter? I actually underestimated support
by saying 80% because I knew you wouldn't believe any polls I cite anyway.
Support for background check expansion is: CNN/ORC International
poll: 86% supportCBS News/New York Times poll: 92% supportQuinnipiac
University poll: 91% support"You are extremely naive if you
believe politicians don't care about their political careers."Oh, I think they care. That's why I think it'll be hard for them to
oppose the majority of Americans the way you think they should. The only ones
who might have reason to worry are Republicans in gerrymandered districts that
are worrying about primary challenges since the general isn't a concern.@TeaPublican"The UN will then have all gun owners on record
and it will just be a matter of time before they will confiscate our weapons.
To "LDS Liberal" you are wrong if you think that this will keep guns out
of the hands of criminals. A recent poll of Police officers and Retired Police
officers found that the police do not believe that any of the current gun
legislation will do anything to get guns out of the hands of criminals or
mentally ill people.In fact, the police say that if the current gun
legislation measures were to be implemented that the violent crime would
increase.Is that what you and your ilk want, more people needlessly
getting killed or injured just so that you can claim to be doing something?
m.g. scottI have yet to see an example of the government conspiring
against a citizen directly. I pay taxes, own guns legally, and don't get
involved in crime. What could they possibly do to me? It is a serious question,
as I don't think they are secretly using gun purchase info to track down
owners and take guns. I just don't think that is feasable.
It's about time. At last, a madman's ability to buy a gun will be
measurably reduced. Brace yourself for the onslaught of conservatives who
frankly couldn't care less about those dead children in Newtown.
Look folks, let’s just talk truth here, if our legislators agree to any
type of background check it will be a disaster for all of America! The UN
will then have all gun owners on record and it will just be a matter of time
before they will confiscate our weapons. These RINOs that support background
checks better get their resume updated because we ARE going to PRIMARY them
right out office. Any republicans that don’t have the whatchamacallits
between their legs to stand with Sen Cruz, Sen. Paul and Sen. McConnell and
filibuster this so called compromise are an embarrassment to the Republican
Party and should be recalled and at the very least voted right out of office
come the next primary election. Our Republican controlled House will blast
apart this Toomey-Manchin Compromise as an unconstitutional attack on the RIGHTS
of Americans. Compromise! What’s that! Compromise? Don’t
talk about—compromise? You kidding me? Compromise? Not going to
happen folks. We TeaPublicans will PRIMARY any Republican right out of office
if they even mention the word “compromise”. And they know we
To alt134:Please give a reliable source to your inflated statistics
(with an emphasis on the word reliable). From statistics that I've heard
about, you are simply pulling a number out of thin air to support a weak
argument.You are extremely naive if you believe politicians
don't care about their political careers. When is the last time you heard
of one who didn't try to make a career out of it after getting elected? And you're just as naive if you don't realize the clout of the NRA.
Their support, or lack of support, has influenced the results of many elections.
Almost all politicians, even the bad ones, realize that. That's the reason
there are many moderate democrats holding back their support of this legislation
right now. What conservatives are most worried about concerning this
legislation (even though on the surface it seems to be common sense), is that
this action will be just the first step to further and much more radical gun
control. Many advocates are just trying to get the door open for just that
purpose. That truly scares a lot of us who value our personal freedoms.
Re: alt134I'll bet the majority of that 80% does not know the
details of the background checks. As they say, "The Devil is in the
Details." And, if you are making the case that public opinion should
prevail, then Obamacare should never have passed, as it was and always has been
unpopular with the majorityAnd Brahamabull. The government using
information against us. Nah, that could never happen.
LDS? Lib,sorry, it was your little buddy nancy pelosi and all her dem
friends who voted for the PATRIOT act, and then RENEWED it when they had control
of the house. your standard, lame, "it's bush's fault"
doesn't work here.and if you think gun laws will prevent
criminals from getting guns - HAHAHAHAHAHA, oh please stop! my sides ache!
@1conservative"Those folks get elected every 2 yrs. so they have a lot
more to lose than some of the lifetime Senators."Therefore you
think they should vote against something that 80+% of the public supports...
The only people who should be worried about extended background checks and
background checks at gun shows are people who shouldn't be buying guns
anyways. In my mind, if you really are a law abiding citizen, you support this
cause. You would want gun shows to require background checks to make sure they
are sold to somebody who can and should own a gun. This will not solve
everything, but I think it is a step in the right direction. I have nothing to
hide, thus I am all for it. I don't think the government is secretly going
to use the info to come and steal our guns. That is ludacris.
"DN subscriber" I agree with you 110% good comment!Yesterday it was revealed that the EPA supplied environmental eco-nuts with
the names and addresses of farmers and ranchers (you can google the whole
story). So, no, I DON'T trust the government with much of anything
regarding my personal history.IF (and its a big if)the Senate does
pass background checks, its likely to fail in the House. Those folks get
elected every 2 yrs. so they have a lot more to lose than some of the lifetime
Senators.Also, whatever democrat Senators vote for background checks will
have an uphill battle getting re-elected in 2014 which might possibly mean the
Repubs. take back a majority of the Senate.Criminals don't do
background checks, therefore the legislation is useless!
Re: Brave Sir RobinThink about this. As easy as it is for minors to
get alcohol from adult sources and or illegal means, should tell you why these
new gun regulations will do nothing to stop the wrong people from getting guns.
The only gun regulation that could work to stop gun violence in America is to
make guns illegal and take them away from all private owners. Good luck with
that one. It was tried with alcohol back in the '20s and all it did was
create a big business for criminal gangs. With all the guns in America now it
is too late to try to become Great Britain. Even the strongest limitations on
new guns would not do anything to circumvent the crime committed by the current
300 million guns now in private hands. This whole exercise by the President and
Congress is nothing more than political symbolism that will change nothing.
Let's get our Senate and House to vote on the gun control legislation.
Don't muddy the issue with other related or non-related matters, just a
straight up vote on the proposed legislation as is finally prepared.Too often, we have measures that either pass or are defeated because of
amendments that attach non-related issues. Let's have a straight up or
down vote on the proposed legislation regarding background checks as soon as it
DN SubscriberCottonwood Heights, UTAny "background check"
that results in a permanent record of the buyer or seller is the golden ring
that the anti gun extremists have been grabbing at for decades. That will
provide the foundation needed for their ultimate confiscation goal.============ Too late for that.Your little buddy GW Bush
trampled over that right a long LONG time ago with his so-called "Patriot
Act".This is just keeping guns out of the hands of children,
criminals, and the Mentally insane.Why do you keep supporting them?I can only figure that those who are already paranoid, are paranoid that
paranoia might be enough of a "mental illness" to keep them from gun
ownership.IMHO -- Anti-Government, treasonous threats, letters to
secede, insurrection and walking into a JCPenny's with an AR-15 might
should also make that list of "Criminal" or "mental illnesses".
@DN SubscriberI have a question for you. The feds don't bother
to prosecute teenagers who illegally attempt to buy alcohol. 80% of all
teenagers get their liquor from illegal means (mainly theft) or have family or
friends who are overage buy it for them. Does that mean we should stop
ID'ing law-abiding adults who want to buy alcohol?Think
carefully about your answer - it's the same argument you're making
Any "background check" that results in a permanent record of the buyer
or seller is the golden ring that the anti gun extremists have been grabbing at
for decades. That will provide the foundation needed for their ultimate
confiscation goal.If it is a process to merely verify that a buyer
is NOT on a list of prohibited persons, and no record is kept, that would be
acceptable. But, NOTHING that registers a single gun or gun owner.The devil is in the details, and until we see exact language, we cannot be
sure how bad (or innocuous) this will be.Note especially the
significant difference between "selling" or "transferring"
requiring a check.Remember, the whole thing is nearly worthless in
fighting crime since (a) the feds don't bother to prosecute criminals who
illegally attempt to buy guns; and (b) 80% of all criminals get their guns from
illegal means (mainly theft) or have family or friends who can pass a check buy
them for them, which will continue.
Yes!Finally - some "Common Sense".