Quantcast
U.S. & World

Dem, GOP senators reach deal on expanding background checks to more firearms purchases

Comments

Return To Article
  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 11, 2013 11:05 p.m.

    @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.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 11, 2013 9:45 p.m.

    @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 guns.

  • George New York, NY
    April 11, 2013 9:27 p.m.

    @wrz
    so 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?

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    April 11, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    "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 jobs.

  • George New York, NY
    April 11, 2013 8:10 p.m.

    @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 they collected.

  • George New York, NY
    April 11, 2013 7:45 p.m.

    @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 campaign.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 11, 2013 3:39 p.m.

    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 country.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 11, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    @redshirt
    Looking 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 comes from.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 11, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    Ban guns from those with paranoid delusions about crazy conspiracies to confiscate guns. Mental instability and guns not compatible.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 10, 2013 4:39 p.m.

    @lost
    It 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 letters.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    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.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 10, 2013 2:56 p.m.

    @redshirt
    what 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?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 10, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 10, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    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 impact

    85% say that the WH proposals will either make no difference or make police jobs less safe

    28.8% 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 ineffective

    Do 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 safe?

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    April 10, 2013 2:17 p.m.

    Re: brahamabull

    Do 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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 10, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    @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?

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    April 10, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    @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% support
    CBS News/New York Times poll: 92% support
    Quinnipiac 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. "

    That's irrational.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 10, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    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?

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    April 10, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    m.g. scott

    I 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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 10, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    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.

  • TeaPublican Houston, TX
    April 10, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    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 will!

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    April 10, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    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.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    April 10, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    Re: alt134

    I'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 majority

    And Brahamabull. The government using information against us. Nah, that could never happen.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    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!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    @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...

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    April 10, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    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.

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    "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!

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    Re: Brave Sir Robin

    Think 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.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    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 is possible.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 10, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    DN Subscriber
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    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.

    ============

    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".

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    April 10, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    @DN Subscriber

    I 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 about guns.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 10, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 10, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    Yes!

    Finally - some "Common Sense".