"Public support ebbing". Because intelligent people know that all the
laws in the world will never stop criminals from obtaining guns any more than
laws against making bombs out of pressure cookers will ever stop terrorists from
From Ronald Reagan.Was he anti freedom? Or anti Second Amendment?
I have always respected Ronald Reagan and have felt that he was an
"intelligent" person."With the right to bear arms comes
a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun
purchases," Mr. Reagan said at a gathering at George Washington University
marking the 10th anniversary of the attempt on his life by John W. Hinckley Jr.
"And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to
allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who
wish to purchase handguns."
@ Joe Blow. Here is the way some of us see this issue. Let's go ahead and
pass more gun control laws and when that didn't prevent bad people from
getting guns,(they can steal them or buy them off the street or even make their
own) some will want more silly gun control laws and when those laws don't
work, then eventually comes confiscation! See how this works? Please don't
say it won't happen because it has in many other countries all over the
world and then the citizens have no protection and are relegated to being only
unarmed subjects and potential victims.
It only makes sense to oppose over restricrive legislation of any kind. The next
thing the liberals will want to do is to banish pressure cookers because some
nut jobs use them to make bombs. Punish the criminals instead. They
do not participate in background checks anyway. Preserve our second amendment,
it was establsihed for good reason by God fearing, freedom loving people for
the current proposal for background checks, with the retention of the checks
(even if evidence if the cehck is NOT retained by the feds), will eventually
lead to a national registry and then confiscation. Any lib or dem official who
says otherwise is being duplicitous.Some hateful lefties have called
me paranoid for making similar comments earlier, but they are either ignorant of
the request by the social security administration for Missouri's concealed
permit carrier database, ot they chose to ignore it. Why would the SS
administration need a list of concealed permit holders?
Oppose the "universal background check" scheme at all costs!First, criminals get 80% of their guns by theft, illegal means, or having a
straw purchaser with a clean record get them. None of that will be changed by
this law.Second, advocates claim background checks are to punish
crooks buying guns. But with only a few dozen prosecutions after tens of
thousands of felonious attempts to purchase someone is lying about the reason
for the laws, or Holder's Justice Department is failing miserably to do
their job.Although noble in title, the Toomey-Manchin bill is
devilish in the details and merely sets up the foundation for universal gun
registration. Sure, it is only "checks" today, with a ban on keeping the
names...but only as long as the dealer doing the checks is in business. Then it
automatically becomes a registration program, although a "delayed
registration program."Prosecute armed criminals. Add the
mentally ill to the prohibited list. Encourage arming and training of teachers.
Study the effect of psychotropic medicines. Ban violent video games.NO on any form of gun registration, or tools which can be used for that!
"The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually control
guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to
criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws.In England,
armed crimes skyrocketed as legal gun ownership almost vanished under
increasingly severe gun control laws in the late 20th century. (See the book
"Guns and Violence" by Joyce Lee Malcolm). But gun control has become
one of those fact-free crusades, based on assumptions, emotions and rhetoric.What almost no one talks about is that guns are used to defend lives as
well as to take lives. In fact, many of the horrific killings that we see in the
media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and put a
stop to the slaughter."Virtually nothing that is being proposed
in current gun control legislation is likely to reduce murder rates. There is
virtually no evidence to support such implied contentions.
American citizens should be outraged. We currently have an OFFICIAL Federal
deficit of nearly $17,000,000,000,000 now, and annual deficit spending of over
$1,000,000,000,000/year--and these people are spending their time trying to
restrict and dismantle the rights of law abiding citizens and potential victims
instead of doing something responsible to save the country. It would be
laughable if it weren't such a stark travesty.
Oh, I get it. PRETEND violence that turns up in video games must be banned, but
whatever can produce REAL violence must be protected "at all costs".How strange that my right-leaning friends always loudly argue in favor
of whatever THEY are doing, but younger, or different-looking or
different-thinking people deserve only MAXIMUM government to keep them in line.
For you liberals who think that there should be so many restrictions on the 2nd
Amendment, just apply all of these restrictions to the 1st Amendment and see how
long you would put up with it.
m.g. - I just don't see how it's possible to talk someone to death
(using the 1st amendment freedom). Much easier to do it with a gun, hence the
need to treat the 2nd with care. But there ARE some commonsense restrictions on
free speech and freedom of religion that we live with without a second thought.
If owning guns made us safer, we'd already be the safest people who ever
@Mountanman"Here is the way some of us see this issue."Some being the operative word since only about 10% agree with you in polling.
Congress is just bought off by the merchants of death that are the gun industry.
@ atl134 thanks for the laugh of the day! Read the article, "support is
ebbing" and not the "10%" that you claim.
m.g. scott: "For you liberals who think that there should be so many
restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, just apply all of these restrictions to the
1st Amendment and see how long you would put up with it."We
accept a lot of restrictions on free speech. Pornography and indecency in media
are restricted by various means, for instance. Try recasting the 1st amendment
in 2nd amendment terms and see how it looks: The right to keep and bear ideas
shall not be infringed. Is any restriction acceptable then, even on porn?We accept that there will be some pain as a consequence of the First
Amendment. Neo-Nazis are allowed to parade in Jewish Skokie, IL. Larry Flynt
puts a woman through a meat grinder on the cover of Hustler. Honey Boo Boo.
That is the price we pay for freedom. We accept the hurt because the cost of
losing the freedom to have and express ideas is greater. Will any 2nd Amendment
advocate come out and say that the 10k+ firearms deaths annually likewise is
simply the price we pay for firearms freedom? If so, when does the price become
too great? 50k, 100k, a million?
"Let's go ahead and pass more gun control laws and when that
didn't prevent bad people from getting guns,(they can steal them or buy
them off the street "Why do they need to steal them or buy them
off the street?All they have to do is go to a gun show or look in the want
ads.Think about if we had the same loophole for sales of alcohol to
minors. Can you imagine if supermarkets were mandated to check id's but
convenience stores were not? That is the current logic for
background checks.We either need to make them universal, or get rid
of them.Were you guys screaming at the NRA for advocating for
background check 15 years ago?
Unlike many here, I see Constitutional authority for gun regulation.
“[S]hall not be infringed” needs to be considered with the rest of
the document.The only place the word “regulate” appears
in any form in the Constitution is in the 2nd Amendment. Not only did the
framers think that the militia should be regulated, they thought it should be
“well” regulated. And not only did they think a well regulated
militia was a good idea, they held regulation to be absolutely
“necessary.” Further, Article 1, Section 2 gives Congress the
authority to organize, arm, train, and discipline the militia.I
wholly accept that “militia” confers an individual right to keep and
bear arms. However, it’s clear in the Constitutional language that the
framers intended for the militia (individual or collective) to be organized and
disciplined, that is, regulated, and it gave Congress the authority to
accomplish that.Every organization that uses force to achieve its
goal has rules for its members to increase mission effectiveness and decrease
losses from the misuse of weapons. These include training, proficiency
standards, and inventory controls. The militia is no different.
it is time we really start to reduce the violence. Let's start to limit
the magazine size of the nail guns, or limit the number of nails you can buy.
Also we can start to require the nail manufacturers to stamp each nail with a
serial number so that we can trace it back to who purchased it. We can also
have the pressure cooker manufactures put serial number on both the top and
bottom of the cooker. Lets see what else can we have serial numbers
put on because they could be put into a bomb.There will always be
things that can cause mass destruction. if not a gun then a pressure cooker,
pipe, rocket motor. Lets start regulating all things that way we
can stop all violence.
Joe Blow, So how are those laws stopping underage people from getting alcohol.
Kids can get alcohol a lot easier then guns. I have bought guns at guns and
been checked. I feel the majority of gun owners would not sell a gun to anyone
that does not have a Concealed Carry Permit or current Drivers license unless
they know them. Hence as stated above most criminals steal or buy guns
underground not at gun shows, online, or private sales.
@Mountanman"support is ebbing"In the Senate, not among
@MountanmanThat poll didn't ask specifically about the background
check provision which polls extremely high. Those are the numbers I refer to.
Re: Mark B and LagomorphThere are virtually NO restrictions on the
1st Amendment. Try listening to satellite radio speech. Try websites and see
how easy any kind of pornography is available. The only thing restricting 1st
Amendment allowed free expression, political or otherwise, is the venue. (or the
gunstore). "......the right.....shall not be infringed." Those are
the most powerful absolute words in the Constitution. And if there was an
amendment that said "The right of a woman to have an abortion shall not be
infringed." You would defend that just like the 2nd amendment is being
"Add the mentally ill to the prohibited list."What list?
You are advocating against any list or any check. Too funny.Then you want to "Ban violent video games."So, you are OK
with stepping on parts of the Constitution, as long as its not the 2nd
@Joe Blow "Think about if we had the same loophole for sales of alcohol to
minors. Can you imagine if supermarkets were mandated to check id's but
convenience stores were not? That is the current logic for background
checks." I don't think Id checks work very well on alcohol
sales to minors. In case you hav'nt heard the past couple of weeks in the
news there have been 3 cases of sexual assault involving minors and alcohol. I
found it pretty easy to purchase illegal alcohol when I was a teen. I'am
sure criminals will find it easy to pickup guns with strict background checks
for law abiding citizens. I wonder how soon the military will have to apply
President Obama's NDAA Law? There's a reason for every law, and why it
was signed on New Year's Eve.T
Good for congress, many congress people and our president too acts as if the
second ammendment doesn't exist.
Events of this week have reminded us that we have is a people problem, not a gun
problem, not a pressure cooker problem, but a people problem.Cars,
bats, knives, swords, guns, pressure cookers, ropes, 2 x 4's with a nail
embeded, a bottle of gasoline and a match can all be used to kill people. We
simply can not get rid of all the tools a person intent on killing can make use
of to murder.Were we to get rid of a certain kinds of guns, other
kinds of guns would be used. Were we to get rid of all guns, people intent on
killing would make use of other tools of which the supply is endless.Let us focus on the part of the problem that would actually do us good, not
just make us feel good for a moment.Like it or not the 2nd
ammendment is a part of the constitution. Guns are an equalizer. They allow
women, the weak and small, even children to protect their homes from invaders. A
child or a woman is much less likely to successfully repel a dangerous home
invader with any tool other than a gun.
We the people 1Obama and his media lapdogs 0
re: LagomorphUnless you're a member of the Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS), I don't particularly care about your interpretation
of the use of "regulate" in the 2nd amendment. Educate yourself...read
the SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller and you'll find your
interpretation squarely at odds with it and history.
My question to Mountanman and those Senators who voted against this proposal:"Exactly WHAT would you do to help solve the problem of gun violence
in this country?"What we have now DOES NOT WORK.So,
what do you propose, other than everyone owning a gun? With the 4-year old that
fatally shot another child within the past month, do you really think more guns
will make us safer?I'm seriously asking----what is your answer?
@ FT1/SSYou wouldn't have gotten it from me! When I worked for
7-11 years ago, a young man (age 20) tried to buy and I asked for ID. When it
showed he would turn 21 in 3 months, I refused and told him to come back when he
was of legal age. He got upset and threatened me with physical violence. I
looked at him and said sternly, "Get out of my store." He left.Just because you found some wimp to sell you alcohol doesn't mean
it should be ok to sell it to minors. Some people actually obey the law,
believe it or not. Some enforce it, too.How would you solve the gun
problem in America?
Let's end all the arguing about the second amendment by repealing it or
amend it. If the people want it changed then let's make the changes
through the method outlined in the consitution. If they can't get the
necessary 2/3 vote in congress and 3/4 of the states to approve the amendment,
then the matter is settled. The advocates of gun control say it's being
held hostage by a small minority of people, if that's true then they should
be able to get the support to repeal or amend the second amendment.
Re toosmartforyouI have an answer for you. When solving any problem,
the first steps are to recognize there is a problem, which we all do, and then
to identify the nature of the problem. This is the step gun control advocates
continually get wrong.See my previous post where I demonstrate this
is a people problem, not a gun problem.Knowing this is a people
problem, we now know what form our solutions will be. Given that many people
who murder are mentally ill, lets start by providing adequate mental health care
to all who need it. Next lets provide moral training in the schools. Lets
encourage young women to not try to have it all, but instead if they are going
to have children, encourage them to stay home during their children's
formative years and provide a sense of emotional stability and moral
training.There now that I have given you a jump start can you think
of other possible solutions?
Far and away a large majority of US citizens support background checks. In light
of this decision, it's pretty obvious the idea of our representative
democracy is something of an illusion these days.
@ toosmartforyou"Exactly WHAT would you do to help solve the
problem of gun violence in this country?"cjb just listed quite a
few solutions we could do to prevent gun violence. What our government is
proposing would NOT prevent the Newtown shooting or the Aurora shooting and they
know that. So the question is now: "why is our government proposing gun
control legislation that will not save lives?" Here's the answer; they
want full control of the people and they will exploit any mass shooting to
advance their agenda. The purpose of our second amendment is to not only protect
ourselves but to prevent government tyranny. These gun control laws will only
affect law abiding citizens leaving them sitting ducks for criminals to take
advantage of. So, why disarm the people?
@HutteritePolls from extreme leftest sources are not legitimate
polls of the people.More importantly those people are being asked
questions without any understanding of the ramifications.Or they use
"background checks" so generically it has no meaning.
Re:theTruthIn March, a Fox News poll asked the following
question:Do you favor or oppose:"Requiring criminal
background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and
private sales"85% of the respondents responded they favored, 13%
@HutteriteHe who frames the question wins the debate. If you ask, "Do
you favor background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the
mentally ill?" Most people will agree.More laws are not the
answer. We already have laws that require background checks for purchases from
gun stores. Purchases over the internet are required to go through a FFL dealer
- including a background check. Purchases at gun shows from dealers require a
background check. We already have laws that are adequate - those laws simply
need to be enforced. Making criminals out of law-abiding citizens is not the
answer.The POTUS needs to quit whining. For weeks he has demanded
that these proposals be put to a vote. Well, they were put to a vote and were
defeated. That is how a democratic republic works. Sometimes you win,
sometimes you lose. Now he is acting like a kid who has gum in his hair and
someone just took away his favorite toy.
:"Public support ebbing". Because intelligent people know that all the
laws in the world will never stop criminals from obtaining guns any more than
laws against making bombs out of pressure cookers will ever stop terrorists from
making bombs.:While were at it, lets scrap underage drinking laws
too... because we haven't stopped that either. Speed limits, people still
speed at will... lets abandon those too.Lets only have laws that no
one ever breaks.... and then we'll have unicorns, rainbows and puppy dogs
too.Good grief... love the logic
A win for freedom, and confirmation that despite innocuous sounding terms, the
details may be totally unacceptable.Nearly everyone would agree we
need to stamp out pornography, or to sliminate illegal drug sales. So,
let's ban all newspapers and television and movies and close down all the
pharmacies.That was essentially the left's prescription-
Universal background checks" was the cute name for setting up a gun
registration system to enable their ultimate goal of disarming all law abiding
citizens. (As Sen. Feinstein previously stated was her goal!)Thank
you Senators Hatch and Lee for opposing these well intentioned, but totally
ineffective and nefarious bills. Several of the amendments were
actually not bad- but rejected largely by the left- National Recognition of
permits; revision of procedures of vets unable to handle finances. And,
especially the Cruz-Grassley substitute which addressed mental health issues and
strengthened enforcement and school safety, but lacking the registration process
demanded by the left.
Why all the lefty, liberal, dem jabs? Do you really believe that only
Republicans own guns? Only Republicans have fought wars? Only Republicans care
about the 2nd Amendment? Only Republicans keep a well-oiled Glock? Think
Re lagomorphRegulated or regulation exists in more than just one
form. Ideally a person self regulates. This means the person commits to behave
in a safe manner. The person obeys just laws and the person does what is
right.Regulation can be internal, external, or a combination.
If guns kills people, shouldn't bombs kill people, as well? No. People kill
people. The only thing the government is doing by creating tighter restrictions
is putting the very people they are "protecting" in danger. Those who
are are going to use guns for horrible purposes probably aren't the most
just and accountable people anyway. They don't obey by the law. All
it's going to do is make us defenseless.
Gun background checks deny permits or purchases to people who have criminal
records, domestic violence records, and documented mental health issues. 60% of
guns purchased go through this process and thousands are denied guns each year
because of it. The purpose of expanded background checks is not to stop all
violence, or all crime. Nor is it believed that background checks will stop
"all" criminals from obtaining guns. It's simple
purpose is to do what we can to keep guns out of the hands of those most likely
to have malicious intent or exercise poor judgement...background checks have no
real effect on "law abiding" ciitzens.So I ask a simple
question..because 60% of purchased guns all ready go through a background check
why are those of you who are against "expanded" background checks in
favor of criminals and the mentally ill having unfetted/uninfringed access to
What should be taken away from this experience is that the NRA's power
continues but has been tarnished, especially with several states imposing
further gun restrictions and that Obama has administratively set into motion
scientific research on gun violence that the NRA has opposed and sets the
groundwork for future evidence-based gun control policy and legislation.
Today's NRA and Republican success reflects that a significant portion of
the Country still isn't ready for a cultural change in its interpretation
of a basic fundamental Constitutional right and that the federal, National
government ought not to impose its will on the minority on this matter. In some
ways, the federalist conception of freedom continues to be strong, allowing
experimentation and balance to our individual and state rights. Perhaps what
has occurred is a reflection of the best that America has to offer the world.
@Giuseppe: I’m not sure what your beef is. The primary ruling in Parker
was the individual right, which I readily accepted in my post.We
have a vast alphabet soup of regulatory bureaucracies based on the tenuous
strength of the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses, yet we find
obstinate resistance to any regulation in the only domain where regulation is
actually mentioned in the Constitution (and regulation is described as
“necessary”). My point was that there is Constitutional authority
for some firearms regulation. Even the libertarian co-counsel to the Parker
plaintiffs acknowledged the legitimacy of gun regulation, “So there are
some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the
legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines.”
(Robert Levy, quoted in Wikipedia)No constitutional right is
absolute. Shout “Fire” in a crowded theater and see what happens.
“Free” speech is only “mostly free.” I cannot see how
“shall not be infringed” is any more restrictive on Congress than
“shall make no law… prohibiting… or abridging…”
Right or wrong, it was disgusting, how Obama reacted.He looked like
a person wanting total control of government.
Are there any guns that are not assault weapons?
Loosely defined could mean,- all guns being banned.
' "Shame on you," shouted one, Patricia Maisch 'Respectfully, Patricia, shame on YOU for assuming that you have a right to
take away the constitutionally-protected 2nd Amendment rights of ALL American
citizens based on the actions of a handful of deranged lunatics.
Since the year 2000 over 500 have been killed or injured in mass shooting events
which is indeed a tragedy and most of these killers were mentally ill so do we
think that these people will abide by any gun restrictions or laws? We have a
greater more grave and tragic issue at hand and it's done by sane people
(so they believe)1.2 million children are aborted each year. This indeed is a
gun owners need to understand clearly - if they don't already - that the
radical left led by Barack Obama has as it's goal the total ban of all
firearms in America. This is not a one step process but a multi-step process
initiated by an opportunist president who follows the "never let a crisis go
to waste" mentality. Make no mistake this facade of public safety the
president is pushing is smoke and mirrors tailored for the low information
voter. Banning guns only makes law biding citizens less safe - less able to
protect themselves and family members but in a socialist society there are no
guns in the hands of the average citizen and there certainly isn't a second
amendment. Anyone who still entertains the foolish idea that this continued gun
ban - gun restriction effort by the left is 'just' about making a
safer America ought to wake up and smell the stench of socialism in the air. Bad
guys will still get their guns but the average joe law obeying citizen will be
left unprotected which is of no concern to those on the left. Communism and guns