It is shameful that Obama uses these people as props for his anti-gun agenda.
You want a good example of how well these "background checks" would
work.The Boston Marathon bombers had been investigated by the FBI
previously. Did it do any good? And these are the same people who
would tell you background checks are full proof.
To "mark" again read the Constitution and tell me how a treaty becomes
US law. I will give you a hint, it isn't something that 1 person can do
all by themselves. You said "if the US signed a treaty..." and the
person who signs the treaty is the President. He can sign all of the treaties
and agreements he wants, but that does not make them law.I think
that the Oklahoma city bomber would disagree with you about the ability to
produce powerful explosives. You can build a bomb out of supplies that people
commonly buy for birthday parties.What you, and so many others fail
to recognize is that so much of what we commonly have in our homes can be
weaponized easily, it only takes a few minutes to search for the information on
"I would not recognize the legality of that because it is not US law simply
because the President signed a treaty"But, dude, you are the one
that said you don't think chemical or biological weapons should be owned by
private citizens because of international treaties. You conservatives are so
confusing. And I didn't say just if the president signed it. If an
international treaty was ratified, as the constitution sets out (with the whole
two thirds of the Senate thing) that made it illegal for citizens to own guns,
you would recognize its legitimacy? As far as people making bombs
and explosives. It is illegal to do that right now. (And any explosives you make
in your sink will hardly equal military grade high explosives) but what you are
saying is that anyone could go down to the local weapons store and buy powerful
bombs and carry them anywhere. And until they set it off no laws are broken. So
a cop pulls you over, your backseat is full of bombs and high explosives, and
not a thing he can do. Go on your way.No, that's cool, just
want to know where you stand.
To "mark" if the US signed a treaty, I would not recognize the legality
of that because it is not US law simply because the President signed a treaty.
Go and read the Constitution to see what it takes to ratify a treaty.You realize that you can make powerful explosives from common household items.
Plus, as the latest crazies have shown, all it takes is an internet connection
and the right search to find out how to make bombs.Look at the mass
shootings where there have been armed civilians present vs. gun free zones.
Many potential mass murders have beens topped by armed civilians. The big
question is why do you want people disarmed since they are proven to protect so
Hey, good for you, RedShirt, at least you have the guts to stand up for what
your stance really means. Unlike, for instance, someone like J Thompson who is
scared to answer the question. I am, though, a bit curious on your
stance on international treaties. So you are saying that if the US signed a
treaty banning all guns for citizens you would recognize the legality of that?
As far as your stance that citizens should be able to own any
weapons systems, other then biological and nerve agents, that's an
interesting position. And like I said, congrats on actually embracing what
arguing for literaly no infringement would really mean. It should
make bombings much more deadly when people can actually buy high explosives, or
maybe people will just lob a few mortar shells into a crowd. And the next mass
shooting, forget the semi auto AR15, just go straight to the M16, or maybe the
AK47. Which do you think is better at killing the most people? And the shooter
can throw a few hand grenades, or maybe even set up a couple of claymores. That
should cause a heavy causality rate.
Re: ". . . speech is regulated, and controlled with permits and
limitations."In Orem, maybe, but nowhere else in America.Prohibition of "prior restraint" on an individual's right
to speak freely is the rule in every US court I'm aware of.The
rule is, you get to say what you want, but you're held responsible for the
consequences.Prohibition of prior restraint is a common-sense rule
that has been upheld and works well for other Bill-of-Rights cases.It will, no doubt, be adopted in Second Amendment jurisprudence.
J Thompson"Well regulated militia" means something to
thinking people, too....and I really don't believe for a moment
that people (probably not you) fought in any war so that any yahoo, who can
afford a weapon can use it to kill Americans here at home....and
speech is regulated, and controlled with permits and limitations.
the gun used at Sandyhook was obtained ILLEGALLY. Many of the guns used in hold
ups and gang shootings and rapes and home invasion are also obtained ILLEGALLY.
Is it any wonder why Chicago with its out right gun ban has more gun related
murders than any city in the US. Why is that? With a liberals thinking Chicago
should have zero gun related deaths...right??? No guns and no shootings.
WRONG!!!! Bad guys don't go through back ground checks to get their guns
and they never will. There are millions of guns out there available for illegal
purchase and always will be. So now we introduce the law biding citizen who by
the way is having his/her guns taken away by the liberal left. Now what? Well it
is called 'easy pickens' for the bad guys with no good guys left with
guns to protect themselves. That is why Chicago is what it is. The
point here - which is so darn hard for liberals to grasp I guess - is people
have the right to protect themselves and the only way to stop a bad guy with a
gun is a good guy with a gun. Pretty simple.
To "mark" you shouldn't be able to buy sarin or VX because those
agents have been outlawed by international treaty. According to the
constitution, if we ratify a treaty then it becomes US law. The only way to get
those is through highly illegal methods.As for everything else, yes,
you should be able to buy those things, assuming that you can afford them. You
should also be prepared for the consequences of using them.
@ Mark,Your question does not deserve an answer. You mock precious
principles. You mock the memory of hundreds of thousands who paid the ultimate
price so that you still have the freedom to ask your inane questions. You, who
have the right to speak freely, use that right to mock those whose blood was
spilled to keep you free. "Shall not be infringed" means
something to thinking people. They know the danger of mob rule. They know the
danger of a government gone astray. They tolerate infantile questions from
those who disrespect freedom and who disrespect the memory of their loved ones
whose graves can be found in foreign lands - lands where people are grateful for
the freedoms that we used wisely to re-establish the freedoms they gave away to
popular politicians.Go ahead, compromise your own freedom, but
don't be surprised when citizens who are mature in their understanding of
the limits of government consider your question to be an insult to those who
respect and honor freedom.
That is just so funny, no one will answer the question on whether they believe
that people should be able to own RPGs, or hand grenades, or land mines, or
missiles, or claymores, or bombs, or VX, or sarin, or anthrax, or nukes, or
depleted uranium rounds, or AK47s, or M16s. Not one person claiming
the Constitution allows no infringement whatsoever of our right to bear arms
will answer this question. It is a simple yes or no question. Should you or your
neighbor be able to buy sarin or VX? Yes or no?
Some of my earliest memories are about my dad, my uncles and my grandparents as
they studied and discussed the Constitution around the dinner table. WWII had
just ended a few years before. Those adults knew, firsthand, what happens when a
"blowhard" captured the hearts of his countrymen. They saw, for
themselves, the destruction that falls upon the world when people put emotion
above law.Even in our town, there were a few people who broke the
rules. One time a student exited the school bus through the emergency door.
That student was the son of the most prominent man in town. When dad, who was
the bus driver, handed that boy a citation and told him that he couldn't
ride the bus until he and his dad talked with the principal, the boy just
sneered. That boy's father honored the rules. He and his son visited the
principal. No exceptions were made.Today we have many people who
use emotional arguments to tell why they disregard the Constitution.
They've forgotten why we have laws and that freedom requires self-control -
not government control.The Constitution can be amended but it must
Wow, lots of comments on based on a poorly researched opinion. Again, we see
that the problem isn't that we don't have enough laws, but that we are
not enforcing what laws we have.From the Gun Control Act of 1968,
" It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any
firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to
believe that such person...is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any
court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year..." It basically states that Strawman purchases are illegal.How about we enforce the laws, rather than making more of them?
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahFor the last time -- [on this
thread ata least, 3rd post, I'm out]My right to keep and bear
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in my garage -- Yes or No?
L White."Mr. LDS Liberal takes great delight in promoting
abortion and in trying to restrict our free speech by telling us that unless we
also reject our oath to Christ to stand as a witness for Him at all times and
witness of His love of his "little ones" that we are against the
Constitution.Mr. LDS Liberal, you are full of baloney."Totally agree. It makes me sick to no end how someone can promote tyranny
through the guise of the LDS church. Ted Bundy was LDS also. That didn't
make what he did right. By the way, he didn't even use a Gun.
@red state pride"majority leader of the Senate who is a Democrat also
voted no."Reid supported it. His no vote was a procedural quirk
where the majority leader has to vote no if he wants to bring a failed
bill/amendment to a bill back up again for another vote down the road@Mike Richards"OUR government is prohibited from infringing our
right to keep and bear arms."The majority opinion the court gave
when striking down the Chicago and DC gun bans included pointing out that the
2nd Amendment doesn't mean there can't be regulation on guns.
LDS Liberal,Which government do you support? OUR government is
prohibited from infringing our right to keep and bear arms. There is no
enumerated list of arms that are exempt from that prohibition. Which government
do you hold allegiance to? Your words certainly don't support the
Constitution which gives authority to the government to act. No authority has
ever been given to the government at any time by the people through a
Constitutional amendment to change the words "shall not be infringed";
therefore, whatever doctrine that you support that allows the government to
"infringe" is in direct violation of the Supreme Law of the Land - your
sentiments notwithstanding. Our government does not have authority to legislate
based on your sentiments. It legislates under the limitations that we, the
citizens of the United States, have placed upon it. It cannot change the
Supreme Law of the Land unless 75% of the States ratify that change. That
process has not taken place. The law of the land stands as written "shall
not be infringed".
L White,It's a simple yes or no question.Do you
believe that any and every citizen should have the opportunity to purchase any
weapon ever created? Machine guns, bazookas, grenades, drones, chemical and
biological weapons, nukes? Remember, any limitation of these weapons seems to be
an "infringement" upon the 2nd amendment. It's a simple
yes or no question.Do you believe that any and every citizen should
have the opportunity to purchase these weapons? Yes. Or No. Stop
beating around the bush.
@L WhiteSpringville, UT---------I'm with The
Real Maverick on this one..."..do you believe that any and every
citizen should be able to purchase maching guns, drones, nerve gas, and
virtually any and every weapon ever invented without permit, background check,
or training?It's a simple yes or no question."I
used chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the Military.I'm
trained and fully certified.Can I have such weapons in my garage?Yes or No?
Mr. Pragmatist,Which department of government to you register with
to receive permission to speak? Is it the department of alcohol, tobacco,
firearms and speech? Who signs your permission slip before you are allowed to
speak? Who performs the background check before you can speak? Oh, so you are
allowed to speak without government intervention! You are allowed call Nixon a
crook without facing jail time! You are allowed to call Bush a baby killer
without being sent to prison! You do have the right to speak, but your neighbor
can sue you if you libel him, just as he can sue you if you shoot him. Mr.Maverick,King Obama does not dispense rights. We, the
people, did not assign him the task of parceling out permission to keep and bear
arms. You trust a government that arms Mexican gangs so that they
could kill a border patrol agent. You trust a government that lied
about Benghazi because the truth would have hurt Obama. You trust a
government that labeled the Fort Hood Terrorist Attack a "work place
incident".Yet, you do not trust your neighbors.
Re: "The first amendment says no law can be passed that abridges the right
of free speech, yet we have laws against libel, laws that indanger the public,
and laws that incite hate."Good illustration of how liberal
Second Amendment proposals infringe!First off, there are no American
laws against speech that incites hate. If there were, many liberals -- most
Democrat politicians and nearly all the "progressive" Hollywood crowd --
would be in jail. You must be thinking of euro-socialist countries who punish
anyone speaking against their governments.Second, the laws you cite
regarding libel and endangering the public, punish abuses of First Amendment
rights, AFTER they cause damage or hurt someone. No law requires a license to
speak, before speaking is permitted; registration of printing presses or
computers; reducing the capacity of big mouths; or prohibitions on people
speaking that are of a different color, or otherwise look different than
others.Deranged liberal Second Amendment proposals do.
L White..what? Abridge means to curtail, diminish, or reduce in scope. The
first amendment says no law can be passed that abridges the right of free
speech, yet we have laws against libel, laws that indanger the public, and laws
that incite hate. Just as the courts have said to limit the sale of guns to law
abiding citizens..excluding other citizens does not infringe on the
"right" to bear arms.
"Which part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? I
asked my ten-year-old grandson what it meant and he said, "you can't do
it - ever". What does he know that you do not know?"Good.
Since your 10 year old explained it then it shouldn't be difficult for you
to. So lets try this again. I ask the same question which you refused to answer:
do you believe that any and every citizen should be able to purchase maching
guns, drones, nerve gas, and virtually any and every weapon ever invented
without permit, background check, or training?It's a simple yes
or no question. C'mon repubs, it's simple. Stop beating around the
bush and answer the question.
Mr. Maverick,Which part of "shall not be infringed" do you
not understand? I asked my ten-year-old grandson what it meant and he said,
"you can't do it - ever". What does he know that you do not
know?After you learn what it means, would you please explain it to
Mr. Mark? He's having the same trouble as you're having.Mr. Pragmatist,You seem to have trouble with "pre" and
"post". You seem to be saying that slandering someone should have no
consequences. I guess you could use that same logic to try to convince us that
you have the right to rob a bank - if bank robbing is how you make your money
because nobody should have the right to keep you from making a living. Your
right to speak was not abridged if you used that right to commit slander but the
punishment for slander would apply because you used your right to speak
foolishly. The punishment came after you committed a crime, not before.
"Pre" vs "Post". It makes a very big difference. You want to
punish the innocent before they commit a crime.
So answer the question, Mountanman, do you think that American citizens should
have access to nerve gas, high explosives such as c4, machine guns, missiles,
bombs, etc, all without a background check. That is the argument
being made by some people here, people saying that their right to bear arms
shall not be infringed at all.
"Sooooo according to you, we should all have access to machine guns, drones,
and nerve gas? No background checks and no permits"?There are nations
who already have and use machine guns, tanks and nerve gas but its always
dictators using them on their own citizens, i.e. Syria, Iraq, N. Korea and the
former USSR. What do you suggest the victims use to protect themselves?
Spitballs? Incidentally, have you ever heard of Waco or Ruby Ridge?
And yet you all are ok with restrictions on the phrase abridge..when the
constitution clearly says that no laws shall abridge the right of free speech.
You can't infringe on a constitutional right but go right ahead and abridge
a constitutional right, with libel laws, hate speech laws, public indangerment
laws etc.SCOTUS is packed with geniuses when considering
abridging..but they are communist (the pharse used by one poster) when
@ L White"The Constitution does not allow government on any
level to infringe on our right to keep and to bear arms."Sooooo
according to you, we should all have access to machine guns, drones, and nerve
gas? No background checks and no permits? Interesting.
Mr. LDS Liberal takes great delight in promoting abortion and in trying to
restrict our free speech by telling us that unless we also reject our oath to
Christ to stand as a witness for Him at all times and witness of His love of his
"little ones" that we are against the Constitution.Mr. LDS
Liberal, you are full of baloney. You can support abortion. You can
mock those of us who respect innocent life. You can continue to tell everyone
that those who disagree with you are against the Constitution. None of that
changes one thing. The Constitution does not allow government on
any level to infringe on our right to keep and to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment
is not linked to abortion in any way. Roe v Wade does not force anyone to have
an abortion but you want to force us to pre-qualify for gun ownership. In other
words, you have no qualms against using force to make us do what you want us to
do and then accuse us of forbidding your right to participate in abortions. We
do nothing of the kind.
On June 29, 2010, The Washington Post reported that "Four members of the
majority said the amendment was "incorporated" through the 14th
Amendment's guarantee that the states may not "deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."Thomas
agreed with the outcome of the case but said the right was more correctly
located elsewhere in the 14th Amendment, in a clause that forbids laws that
abridge "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States."So much for putting Joe Blow's post in the
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTThose ignorant of the Constitution keep
trying to link "well regulated" with the right to keep and bear arms.
They refuse to accept the ruling of the Supreme Court. =======Well J Thompson, we link "well regulated militia" to the 2nd
amendment because it's actually IN the 2nd amemndment!And
speaking of refusing and accepting the ruling of the Sumpreme Court -- All
I can say to you is "Roe v. Wade".Try practicing what you
Great Letter - Agreed!Thanks.====BTW - @Mike
RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahThe Supreme Law of the Land says that
government cannot infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.---Richards - Do you support my right to keep and bear chemical, biological
and nuclear weapons?Yes or No?
I am greatly disappointed in our two US Senators from Utah who did not have the
common sense to vote in favor of expanding background checks. Anyone who really
understands the Constitution knows that the Supreme Court has the power to
interpret the Constitution and they have determined that background checks and
other limits (such as age) are constitutional and does not violate the concept
"shall not be infringed". They have to look at what was the intent of
the 2nd amendment when first adopted in 1791 and how it applies to us today.
That is why we have a living constitution that has served us well for over 225
years. Our two Senators know this and have chosen to follow the far right party
leadership rather than the citizens who they were elected to represent.
The biggest threat to the future of this country and our posterity is a complete
and utter collapse of our economy caused by unsustainable debt and deficits. So
naturally the President and Dianne Feinstein waste the American people's
time with a meaningless piece of legislation that everyone knew was going
nowhere. So after the legislation went down in flames the President acts
like a spoiled child because he didn't get his way and we have Democrats
criticizing Republicans for the failure when the majority leader of the Senate
who is a Democrat also voted no. Why don't the Democrats just move on
to their next piece of reactionary, illogical piece of legislation. Cash for
Here is some of the text of the DECISION. Not one person.(2) Like
most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to
keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the
Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to
cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons
and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive
places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the
sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of
dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.This is the Supreme
court ruling. Yours and my opinions don't matter. It does contain other
things also, in support of guns.But it is clear by this ruling, not
one persons opinion, that some "restriction on our ownership of
firearms" are permissible. No twisting whatsoever. Out of posts.
Joe Blow,Would you cite the oath that a Supreme Court justice takes?
To whom does he owe 100% obedience? To his peers or to the Constitution?You are so fond of quoting one justice, with whom you agree, at the
exclusion of everything else said by the Court or of the fact that no
restrictions were placed on gun ownership and that no legislation was ruled on
that limited or restricted ownership. That doesn't stop you from
pretending that Justice Samuel Alito ruled against ownership of guns. HE DID
NOT! No case was before the Court to limit or to infringe on ownership of
firearms. If you are honest, you will stop pretending that judge Alito limited
our right to own firearms or that he placed ANY restriction on our ownership of
firearms. HE DID NOT!You are twisting a ruling to suit YOUR
Re: "'Nothing' is the goal of the NRA."You say it
like it's a bad thing.Real people understand liberals'
gun-control proposals can't actually control guns. Only people. The wrong
people.And, we understand liberal's proposals don't even
address the issues presented by the "crises" they claim motivate them,
like Newtown.Most importantly, we understand that that
liberal's proposals are phony "solutions" in search of a problem
--The tiny percentage of gun-show sales have not really been shown
to create a problem.Background checks are not really a problem, as
demonstrated by the Obama regime's refusal to use the background-checking
authority it already has. "Assault weapons" are not really a problem.
Rifles are responsible for only a tiny fraction of gun deaths, and rifle color
and aesthetics are not associated with misuse.In other words,
nothing is the best response to this, as well as nearly ALL the "crises"
liberals demand we address with their phony "solutions."
one voteNo constitutional amendment is necessary. The filibuster is
Senate rule and could be changed by that body. But parties reverse in power
every so many years and the party in the minority likes the extra power provided
by the filibuster. It tends to make the Senate move more collaboratively.
I see J Thompson.So, in one post you fully support Supreme Court
rulings, and in the next you don't. How convenient to stand behind them
when you agree with their interpretation and throw them under a bridge when you
dont.How convenient to call their ruling the "supreme law of the
land" when it suits you and that they have no "authority" when you
don't like their rulings.Look at the Heller Ruling. You are
free to pick and choose which parts you like, but you are not free to choose
which ones set the legal precedent that governs this country."Obama has twisted the words of the Constitution. Why does he want the
government to suppress ownership of guns?"Probably the same
reason Reagan did in supporting background checks. Heck, Reagan even pushed and
got a 15 day waiting period in California.Regardless of what Reagan,
Bush or Obama do, or how you feel they twist words, the ultimate decision with
any proposed legislation as far as what is Constitutional, lies with the Supreme
court, LIke it or not.
@Copy CatSo basically you were fine with it until you read that it would
set up a registry? Unfortunately, what you were reading was a lie. The
background check provision they were voting on and rejected carried a 15-year
felony jail sentence for anyone who attempted to make such a registry.
In the Heller ruling that overturned Chicago's gun ban the Court did note
that regulation of guns is Constitution (even Scalia did so and he's the
most conservative justice). So anyone arguing that an expansion of background
checks is unconstitutional... you disagree with the entire Supreme Court.
Joe Blow,Why don't you answer those questions? Why don't
you show us where the Court ruled against the 2nd Amendment and infringed on
your right to keep and bear arms? Why don't you show us the steel ruler
against which the Court based any decision and then tell us how their
"rubber ruler" has basis for deciding a Constitutional question? Why
don't you tell us who gave the Court, the President, or Congress authority
to infringe our right to keep and bear arms?There is no authority in
America - that the people have Constitutionally authorized - that has authority
to infringe our right to keep and bear arms. Those who improperly use firearms
can be prosecuted AFTER they have broken laws related to the USE of firearms.
They cannot be prosecuted, under the Constitution, for keeping and bearing arms.
If you disagree, then you disagree with the only document in
history that guarantees your freedom from government and from being a slave to
political tyrants who would twist and change words to suit their purposes. Obama has twisted the words of the Constitution. Why does he want the
government to suppress ownership of guns?
The failure of this faulty bill is not due to the NRA. It's due to the
Constitution. And I'm glad a sufficient number of Senators saw this bill
for what it was.But above this being a constitutional issue, the
overriding question, which should have been asked by the media, was how passage
of this bill would have prevented Sandy Hook. The fact is it wouldn't
have...anymore than the banning of shooting on public land prevented fires in
Utah. (Note that the media and leftists did not request the banning of smoking
on public land in this state. Only shooting. The concern wasn't fires. It
was guns.)This isn't about protecting children or preventing
shootings (this administration instigated "Fast and Furious", which
provided thousands of auto- and semi-automatic weapons to the Mexican drug
cartel), it's about taking control of the people and taking away their
rights. And some of you are simply pawns being used by those in power to further
their agenda. And some of you are part of the agenda.
This is the actual 2nd Amendment, taken directly from the Constitution, not the
paraphrase version of wrz who was the 1st to comment. "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."Please note J
Thompson from Springville, Mike Richards and the like that it is one sentence.
It is not 2 paragraphs. This would indicate in English that the well regulated
Militia and right to bear arms are connected. Your arguments are faux. We did
not have a standing military until the late 1800's. Even during the civil
war the armies were made of state militias, regulated by the individual states.
It is no concern to me if you are responsible, competent, and sane, you own a
weapon but with 2 million denials of legal weapon purchases the past 15 years
don't tell me that closing loopholes in the background check laws
won't help protect our citizens.
@ JThompsonyou write "They refuse to accept the ruling of the
Supreme Court. In effect, they refuse to support the Supreme Law of the Land
"Yes or no questionsHas the Supreme court ruled that
it is Constitutional to limit who can own a gun? Yes or noHas the
Supreme court ruled that it is Constitutional to limit where one can carry a
gun? Yes or noHas the Supreme court ruled that it is Constitutional
to limit what kinds of weapons one may possess? Yes or no
Those ignorant of the Constitution keep trying to link "well regulated"
with the right to keep and bear arms. They refuse to accept the ruling of the
Supreme Court. In effect, they refuse to support the Supreme Law of the Land in
favor of the inferior law being proposed by Obama and the rest of those who have
total disdain for the freedoms of 330,000 Americans.Would those who
are so ignorant of the law sit back peaceably and wait for clearance from
government before posting - as the government pre-qualified their speech?Would those who are so ignorant of the law sit back peaceable and wait
for permission from government to worship God in the religion of their
choice?Those who believe in a nanny state where liberties are doled
out to the citizens by government do not deserve to be free. They want a king
to rule and reign over them. They deserve to be pawns and to be used for the
political purposes of those who disrespect the freedoms guaranteed to the people
by the Constitution just as Obama shamefully used and abused citizens to promote
government infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
Re: "Forty percent of those who purchase guns are not subject to background
checks . . . . Currently, there is no law prohibiting "straw
purchases."Here's a good illustration as to why it's
impossible to have a reasonable conversation with liberals about gun laws --
they lie.Straw purchases for prohibited persons have been a
10-year/$250k felony since 1968.And, Obama's 40% figure is a
lie. It comes from a dated, questionable study, includes intra-family gifts and
inheritances, and is "rounded" up from 35.7%.Most tellingly,
that same study found that only 3.9% of purchases are made at gun shows.Funny we've never heard that. Or that most gun-show purchases are
from licensed gun dealers, who are already subject to current background check
laws.It's hard to have a meaningful conversation with people
who want to start it off with a disingenuous premise.
Here's a little experiment for Mountainman, Mike Richards, and their
philosophical kin:Do you support the right of *any* US citizen to
purchase as many, and as powerful of guns they can legally purchase, including
100 round magazines, even if they're disgruntled immigrants from muslim
nations? May these same immigrants also purchase as much ammonium nitrate
fertilizer and diesel fuel as they wish, without the federal government tracking
their activities?And if you believe the feds actually should track
immigrants and perhaps restrict their activities, what makes you think the same
federal government couldn't track you and limit your rights?Does Rand Paul still want to get up on the soapbox and claim the federal
government must never have the right to track US citizens?At some
point, the ultra-right needs to temper their paranoia that the federal
government is the enemy. Come in off the range, boys, and sit down and talk
rationally with the rest of us. Maybe it's not inevitable that
our government in DC is going to become tyrannical. This paranoid fantasy is
what actually allows people like the Chechen brothers in Boston to operate.
Again and again Richards and others distort the 2nd Amendment. I am still
waiting for you to inform us what "well regulated" militia you belong to
and if so then why do we have a standing military? Again and again Richards and
others pick and choose what part of the Constitution you want to follow based on
your bias. With every right comes responsibility and if you aren't a
responsible gun owner you should be excluded like I would be with the 1st
Amendment if I yell fire in a crowded dark theatre. How do I know? It has been
established by law, another part of the Constitution. If you are using the
argument that background checks won't stop all crime then lets repeal all
restrictive safety laws because they don't stop violators as the fertilizer
explosion in Texas demonstrates.
Re:wrz, MikeRichardsYou conveniently edit the 2nd Amendment, "A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."Your views are far to the right of the conservative Justicies serving on
the Supreme Court. And the conservative Justices serving today are to the right
of past conservative Justices on this issue.
Facts matter, and this letter has distorted the facts. It is already illegal to
buy a gun for someone who legally cannot. No need action needed other than
enforcement.I seriously doubt that 90% want more background checks.
That number has been created through carefully crafted deceptive polling. I
thought more background checks was a good idea until I learned that it also
requires everyone who sells a gun to keep a record of who they sold it to, i.e.
they are making a registry. One day the government will call in all those
records and the gun registry will be complete. That is contrary to the
Constitution, and rights to privacy.Utah's senators did the
right thing. Great job Senator Lee and the TEA Party, and the NRA.
Politics is about survival, who can put you out of office, who can give you the
resources you need to keep getting re-elected.At this point, almost
all GOP Congressmen (and some Democrats from Red States) fear the 10% from the
NRA more than they do the passive 90% who would support background checks,
outlawing straw purchases, etc.A sizable chunk of the 90% will be
outraged enough to help contribute resources to like-minded political
organizations, like Mark Kelly's PAC. Sadly, the 90% can't simply
assume their representatives will do the right thing. (This is discouraging in
itself, part of how politics turns people off.)But until the GOP and
red-state Democrats fear getting booted from office by angry voters who are
focused and motivated by a political organization that counters the NRA,
there's no reason for Congressmen to change their orientation.If enough people who are outraged give money to Mark Kelly's PAC, maybe
we'll begin to see GOP and red-state Dems "evolve" their positions
on these issues. Until then, nothing will happen. "Nothing" is the goal of the NRA.
There needs to be a constitutional amendment to get rid of the filibuster. The
blocking of reasonable bipartisan will be the high mark of obstruction and game
Your thoughts are my thoughts but your words are better than my words. Thank
you Richard Burt.
Since alcohol and illegal drugs kills and destroys far more lives than guns,
maybe we should have more laws against drinking alcohol and illegal drugs! Think
of the lives background checks, mandatory waiting periods to purchase alcohol,
meth or cocaine and limited container sizes of would save in America! Do it for
the children! We know addicts and criminals will obey these laws don't we?
Parade drug and alcohol abuse victims on TV and demand new laws against these
evils. After all, liberals, we need to be consistent in fighting evils plaguing
our nation don't we?
"We the People" doesn't have much sway with any elected
representative who allows a powerful gun lobby to grade lawmakers on their
voting record. Legislators live in fear of offending the NRA.
There is a lot that Richard doesn't understand. 1) the "40%" is a
myth. It comes from a Clinton-era survey of . . . 251 people taken before the
Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks. The real number is
closer to 10%.2) Richard also doesn't know that making a straw
purchase is currently a federal offense. It is illegal.
When has the GOP done the will of the people since Obama became president? Their
#1 priority isn't to do the will of the people but to make Obama a 1 term
president, remember? Now that he was reelected, they are opposing him just to
make Democrats look bad: maybe even force the economy into another recession so
that they can blame democrats later to make it easier for themselves in the next
presidential election.It is time to get to business and do the will
of the people. But the GOP refuses to do so
Here's what bothers me about letters like this....Do you
actually know all the things that were in bill that the Republicans defeated?
Yes there were some good things in it that would help with purchases of guns,
but there was some very wide open interpretation of parts of the bill that made
people scratch their heads..This is why they should not combine
things into one big bill...
Mr. Burt hits the nail on the head! "90% of Republican Senators" voting
NO Hatch and Lee included, all the while thinking of ways to use their next NRA
campaign donation. But lets not forget the four Dems. who voted NO, while
shaking in their boots for fear of being primaried by the NRA and Tea Party in
the next election. There is definitely a shortage of backbone in DC these days.
Seems votes are easy to get, respect is another issue!
We the people have been usurped by them the monied. The NRA, oil companies,
pharmaceutical outfits, big tobacco...those that fund campaigns hold sway.
Something needs to be changed.
You will find what your looking for. My Dad would say that to me every time I
got into trouble. If someone really wants a gun, they will find it, somewhere.
The Supreme Law of the Land says that government cannot infringe on our right to
keep and bear arms. The letter writer disagrees with the Supreme Law of the
Land. He disagrees with the Senators who upheld the Constitution and who were
elected by the people to represent the views of the States. He agrees with a
President who has violated his oath of office to protect and defend the
Constitution when Obama pushed legislation that would make our right to keep and
bear arms null and void. He refuses to use the method chosen by the people to
modify the Constitution, i.e. an amendment proposed by Congress and then
ratified by 75% of the States.In short, he is calling for the Senate
to disregard the Constitution. He is calling for the President to have power
over the people. He is calling for government to dispense rights, when the
Constitution clearly and absolutely requires government to submit to acknowledge
that all rights are held by the people and that government is allowed to perform
a small number of enumerated duties for the people - duties which are listed in
Article 1, Section 8.
When we have the "best congress that money can buy" the will of the
people is of little consequence.
Unfortunately, we can not have a reasonable discussion about background
check.That is not the discussion that the NRA wants. Why? Because
it is clearly supported by an overwhelming majority of the American People.So, they turn the discussion into - Background checks are in
violation of the 2nd Amendment.This is clearly not true. The Supreme
court has ruled that background checks ARE constitutional.You may not like
it. You may not agree with it. But that does not change the FACT that
background checks ARE constitutional. - This will lead to a
national gun registry with the governments ultimate goal to confiscate all
guns.Why would the government want to confiscate our guns? Do you have
such little faith in America?Has the federal government EVER done ANYTHING
that would suggest that?There are extremes on both sides.Left extreme - get rid of any and all guns.Right extreme - Any gun, any
place by any one.The bulk of Americans do not fall into either of
those 2 camps. And I can assure you that even those who support background
checks would NEVER allow a federal gun ban or confiscation.I give
the American people much more credit than some.
They can background check til the cows come home. But no one can be denied a
gun... Says so in the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment... For those who may not
have access to a copy it goes something like this... 'the fight of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Sounds fairly clear
to me.If there's to be any restrictions on gun ownership it
should come from the US Congress. And it should start with Congress amending
the 2nd Amendment. But will the Congress do anything like that? Not likely.
It's too hot a button. Politicians don't like to jeopardize their
cushy jobs by having black marked on them.