Marxist and others,We need to take the drama down a notch.Not
passing this bill does NOT mean we have "resigned ourselves to increasing
numbers of slaughters of innocents". It doesn't mean we are doing away
with background checks. We already have them and will continue to have them.
It just means our legislators in Washington need to try again, they need to try
harder this time to craft legislation that is paletable to both sides (not just
one) and try harder make the legislation acceptable to ALL Americans (including
the few Americans with 2nd Amendment concerns).All this pretending
that because we aren't all willing to give in to this recent opportunistic
overreach means we have resigned to increase slaughters of innocents or that
someone's proposing giving guns to the crimials, terrorist and the
insane... is just ludicous drama!It's not the end of the world
OR Capitalism. It's just a bill that didn't pass.
Well then, I guess we have resigned ourselves to increasing numbers of
slaughters of innocents with military-style assault weapons. At some point
people will not tolerate this, and that will be the time of capitalism's
collapse (for that and a number of other reasons).
Remember that concept of sitting on a fence, if ye are neither hot nor cold I
will spew you out, And then those sins of ommission. Pesky of God to demand you
take a stand. Lds Liberal, airnaut, and lds tree hugger, how many more labels to
you post under so we all know its still the same poster.
Mike,Lds?lib already hasLDS?LIB,No one is putting words
in your mouth, just repeating positions you have espoused numerous times
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWhy should we use agency when he has
already figured everything out?[Completely ironic to hear YOU saying
that.]They'll just declare that anyone who believes in the
Constitution must be mentally ill - therefore, they'll find a way to use
that excuse to keep society safe from firearms -[There it is,
there's the hidden paranoia.] except for Obama's Fast and
Furious gun giveaway to gangs. He put automatic weapons in the hands of gang
members.What complete foolishness![and Reagan/Bush Sr.
armed Saddam Huessin in Iraq to the teeth! Including giving him the chemical
weapons Bush Jr's Daddy told him HAD to still be there. Agreed! What
foolishness!]As so many liberals have pointed out, power is in the
hands of those who can fund elections. Does anyone think that the people would
be protected from government once government could herd us like sheep?[Guns? they don't care about your guns. Gadiantons control Governments
and people withtheir banks - and you won't be able to buy or sell anything.
Guns? You've got bigger things to worry about than guns.]
Why not just let LDS Liberal decide what is right and wrong for all of us? Why
should we use agency when he has already figured everything out?The
People retain all rights to keep and bear arms. At no time have the people ever
given away that right nor have they ever authorized any government entity to
infringe on that right. A few misguided souls, who apparently have little
regard for freedom, insist that Washington has all the answers. They have the
perfect solution. They'll just declare that anyone who believes in the
Constitution must be mentally ill - therefore, they'll find a way to use
that excuse to keep society safe from firearms - except for Obama's Fast
and Furious gun giveaway to gangs. He put automatic weapons in the hands of gang
members.What complete foolishness!There is no government
on earth that can be trusted to do the right thing for the people. As so many
liberals have pointed out, power is in the hands of those who can fund
elections. Does anyone think that the people would be protected from government
once government could herd us like sheep?
Lets use the Alcohol analogy again.It is illegal for people under 21
to buy alcohol. In an effort to support that law, we make it illegal for people
to sell or give alcohol to those under 21.Yes, some will obviously
still get it. But when they do, a crime has been committed.Using
the mentality used previously, why should we restrict stores from selling
alcohol to minors? Why not just prosecute those minors who get it?Additionally, with todays system of background checks, it is like requiring
Grocery stores to check ID's for alcohol purchase, but not the Gas Station
down the road.Of course the 18 year old will always go to the gas
station.Criminals and the mentally ill will get guns on line or from
other unlicensed dealers. It is just to easy to avoid a background check.
@Redshirt"(this includes terrorists)"The NRA has
fought back successfully against attempts to ban people on the terrorist watch
list from owning guns (their argument was that the list could have errors and
that wouldn't be fair to decent people who shouldn't be on the list).
@Mountanman"If an underage person wants to get alcohol, they will!
"So then why have any laws regulating sale of alcohol to minors?
Why should we have speed limits? Heck, why should we require drivers licenses
anyway? Why should we have any laws prohibiting anything? Laws don't stop
everyone but surely they stop some people. It's the same way that being
part of a church that is against pre-marital sex doesn't stop all of its
members from engaging in it but surely it stops some of them. @Redshirt"We already have the laws on the books that prohibit the
sale or transfer of guns to criminals and people who would do harm."Without requiring background checks on all purchases, how would anyone
doing a private sale even know they're selling a gun to is a criminal
looking to do harm? The reason the law can't be enforced very well is
because it requires proving the seller knew the person was a criminal and
didn't care. That's hard to prove when we don't mandate a system
that flashes "hey don't sell to this guy".
Irony Guy,600 LEGAL purchases, maybeCan you PROVE those turned
down for concealed carry permits did not steal guns or buy them on the black
market?I didn't think so.
@jsfCenterville, UTgiven from a poster that by his own posting
says he supports:abortion, Pre-marital sex, smoking and
drinking, pornography, gambling, and other forms of vice and
decadence...=============I will speak for myself thank
you, and please stop putting false words in my mouth:given as
the poster who has done NONE of those himself nor encourages others to do so,
but has show the integrity to support others Free Agency to choice
for themselves, encourages others to submit their freewill to God and not tries to pass legislation on everyone else based on one's
particular religious view point.And then stepping back and letting
God hold each responsible.
I for one believe that God will ultimitely hold ALL those responsible for these
sorts of crimes.Sins of Commission.Sins of Ommissiongiven from a poster that by his own posting says he supports:abortion,
Pre-marital sex, smoking and drinking, pornography, gambling, and other forms of vice and decadence...
LDS LiberalYou may be LDS... and you may be liberal... but you still
don't speak for God. I think God will hold responsible who he will hold
responsible, and he won't be consulting you OR Congress.As for
those nasty "pro-gun people" who are giving "UN-RESTRICTED access to
KNOWN CRIMINALS"... who are they? You certainly aren't describing any
proposal I've heard of (name the proposal to give unrestricted access to
known criminals, insane, and terrorists please).I wouldn't
characterise the approach of anybody who doesn't want to do it YOUR way...
as "Doing nothing". Even the NRA has proposed doing MANY things. I
don't know of ANY group or people proposing doing "Nothing".So you may call down the judgement of God on people who don't want
to do it your way... but I don't think it's going to work around here.
We know nobody's proposing doing nothing, and nobody's proposing
giving guns to the criminals, or the insane, or to terrorists.Sorry
but your guilt-trip didn't make any sense me.
To "LDS Liberal" that is a lie. Current US law, specifically the Gun
Control Act of 1968 prohibits giving criminals (this includes terrorists) and
mentally unstable people guns.Why do you continue to lie and ignore
existing US law?Why are you fighting to get more control and more
government involved when the problem is that the government isn't enforcing
the laws that they already have?
I for one believe that God will ultimitely hold ALL those responsible for these
sorts of crimes.Sins of Commission.Sins of Ommission.Knowing you could do something about it to stop it, and in fact did
NOTHING.IMHO the pro-gun people - by giving un-restricted access to
KNOWN criminals, KNOWN mentally insane, and suspected terrorists - are just as
guilty for the crimes as the perptrators themselves.
NOBODY wants guns in the hands of the mentally ill Mad Hater... no... not even
the NRA. If you think just because people won't give up their
Constitutional Rights for the illusion of security... or if they won't
pretend the government knows our state_of_mind... means they WANT the mentally
ill to have guns, you really are "Mad".Even Sandy Hook
residents aknowledge that more screenings would NOT have prevented what
happened. The gun owner (The mother) passed all government screening.So... Can you really expect the GOVERNMENT to solve this problem? They
can't guarantee they know who is stable! The Government just doesn't
know that much info about it's citizens to reliably detrmine the
citizen's state-of-mind at all times. And they can't monitor to
insure all citizen's family or friends are also stable. Can't be done
by strangers in Government.WE_THE_PEOPLE should know our family
members mental state better than the GOVERNMENT does. Don't give
children, spouse, etc, access to guns if you know they are unstable!!!The Government CAN'T reliably do that! Only we can.
Not only is Mr. Brown correct, but state mental health databases aren't
typically shared with other states. All a person has to do is cross the state
line to buy a weapon and no one will know that they are incompetent to own a
To those who think we need more laws. You are wrong. We already have the laws
on the books that prohibit the sale or transfer of guns to criminals and people
who would do harm. In fact, the law was passed in 1968. Read the Gun Control
Act of 1968.The prohibition is already there, and has been there for
45 years. What we don't have is the enforcement.Using examples
already used here. Making new laws against prostitution or drugs won't
stop those activities, but stepping up enforcement of existing prostitution and
drug laws will.Lets make it something easier to identify with. If
you have a rule that your kids can't watch more than 1 hour of TV in a day,
yet never enforce that rule, what good will it do to make a second rule stating
that your kids can't watch more than 60 minutes of TV, Netflix, Hulu, and
other internet based TV programing?Lets take the simple approach and
enforce the law, rather than making new unenforceable laws.
Mountainman seems to advocate the elimination of all laws. If people will just
break then anyway why even have them? Such logic wouldn't even
stick in a 9th grade civics class let alone a college class. I'm sorry but
anarchy isn't the answer. Never has been and never will be
@MountanmanHayden, ID@ LDS liberal. Thanks for making my point! Will
passing ever more laws against buying and selling illegal drugs stop people from
buying and selling drugs? ========= OK, let me be more
specific then -- It is illegal to buy sex and drugs at bonafide and
licensed dealerships and stores, but it is perfectly legal with no background
checks over the internet, at the shows, and on the street.I repeat
-- What you are saying is that passing ANY laws to curtail the illegal
activity having to do with guns is complete and utter waste of everyone's
time and money.Banning sales to KNOWN criminals, KNOWN mentally
insane, and KNOWN terrorists is not Un-Constitutional, but is just good old
common-sense.Why do you support such non-sense?
Background checks do work. This very newspaper reported that Utah's
concealed-carry requirements kept 600 "unqualified" people from buying
guns last year. That's 600 purchases that should not have happened and
didn't. Undoubtedly, some of these people got guns other ways, but at least
we made it harder for them. What's wrong with that?
@ alt134. I disagree. If an underage person wants to get alcohol, they will!
Don't believe it? Visit any high school. How? The same way mentally ill
people or criminals who want a gun will get them! More laws will not stop them,
never has, never will.
@LDS Liberal,Your examples are nonsense. At last reading,
"drugs, prostitution, and illegal immigration" are not guaranteed in the
Constitution.Placed in perspective, background checks, although not
perfect, have value. Sensible checks should be enacted.
@Mountanman"Background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of
mentally ill people or any other person bent on committing violence. They will
steal guns, buy them off the street or produce false documents to purchase.
"It won't keep guns out of all of their hands but
it'll keep guns out of some of their hands, just like ID checks for alcohol
purchases at stores won't keep alcohol out of all underaged hands but
it'll keep alcohol out of some of their hands.
@ LDS liberal. Thanks for making my point! Will passing ever more laws against
buying and selling illegal drugs stop people from buying and selling drugs? No
they won't. We have gun laws, drug laws and illegal immigration laws but
passing ever more laws is not only a waste of time but ridiculous excuse for
doing something meaningful! Since drinking alcohol kills more people in America
than guns, lets have background checks and mandatory waiting periods for buying
alcohol, that will stop drunk driving, right?
LDS? lib,why does it not surprise me that you are espousing the
legalization of drugs and prostitution?
@MountanmanHayden, IDBackground checks will not keep guns out of the
hands of mentally ill people or any other person bent on committing violence.
They will steal guns, buy them off the street or produce false documents to
purchase. ======== [I'm sure you a man of utmost
integrity so you must feel the same way about drugs, prostitution, and illegal
immigration as well then....those laws don't work so why have them?]
Background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people or
any other person bent on committing violence. They will steal guns, buy them off
the street or produce false documents to purchase. Gun control laws have never
worked and they never will but you people keep telling yourselves otherwise as
gun violence increases in our society regardless of all the laws. And when the
gun control laws we have don't work, demand more and when those laws
don't work demand even more laws! This worthless cycle will continue even
when guns are totally banned, the crooks will STILL get them and the rest of us
will be defenseless against them. In other words you surrender the only defense
we ultimately have; self defense.
Well get a proposal from the republicans to keep firearms out of the hands of
the mentally ill. You can't, it might slow sales a little. Nocando.This letter is pretty misaimed since you know the republicans won't
vote for ANY background checks for firearm sales. You know that, they say it. It
could be the best background check plan in the world; nope. It could be a
background check devised by a republican; nope, NRA says no.
Most of us can agree that a background check for guns is a good thing.The problem is that politicians are now in the habit of giving a bill a title
everyone can agree on in hopes of getting the bill passed, but then putting
things into those bills that have a lot opposition. This is what happened with
the gun bill that was defeated.This bill if it became law would have
made it illegal to transfer a gun in many instances without a background check.
Want to get your gun repaired? First the gun smith must have a background check.
Want to get your gun back from the gun smith? Now you need to get a background
check. If the system goes down and you need your gun you are out of luck.Also if you sell a gun you must by law keep a record of the sale. What
happens if you lose the record? A fine? you lose your gun rights?
How can anyone identified a someone society doesn't want purchasing a gun,
including the anti-social, psychotic mentally-ill, from buying a firearm when
the NRA is so opposed to background checks? Although the gun lobby says it
would like to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally-ill, they provide no
mechanism by which it can be done.The NRA supported background
checks over 15 years ago, but now it is opposed because more guns, regardless of
who is buying them, is big profits for the gun industry. As with any other
political issue, gun safety has become a question of money and who's
getting it. Next time, it may require the child or grandchild of a
congressperson the casualty of a mass killer before members of Congress take the
issue seriously. It took President Reagan getting shot for the Brady Bill to
pass Congress, and then it was weakened by the special interests headed by the