posted
Why Harry Reid Must Make Universal Background Checks Part Of Gun Law Reform
By Zack Beauchamp on Mar 20, 2013 at 9:47 am
Tuesday night, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) declared that an assault weapons ban would not be in the gun law reform package he was planning to bring to the floor for a cloture vote, a move expected by all sides of the debate. But in an surprising twist, Reid also suggested that a provision requiring gun purchasers to undergo background checks could also be excluded from the comprehensive package.
Though Reid cited a recent breakdown in bipartisan negotiations over the issue of whether dealers should retain records of background checks, failing to pass the measure would deal a major blow to gun violence prevention efforts. Advocating for universal background checks isn’t just an obvious political winner — it’s absolutely critical to keeping guns out criminal hands and, most importantly, preventing innocent people from dying from gunfire:
1. Universal background checks deter criminals from purchasing guns. This isn’t really a contestable point. 80 percent of crime guns are purchased through “private” sales, which means from unlicensed dealers at gun shows or other people currently exempted from having to run background checks under federal law. Forcing all sellers to run background checks both deters criminals from buying guns (if they fail the check they can be prosecuted) and prevents a check on sellers that might be inclined to sell to shady characters if they didn’t know they were committing a federal crime. Unsurprisingly, the best available research suggests that “states which do not regulate private gun sales, adopt permit-to-purchase licensing systems, or have gun owner accountability measures, like mandatory reporting of gun thefts, export significantly more guns used by criminals to other states that have constrained the supply of guns for criminals by adopting strict gun sales regulations.” That’s why the law needs to be federal — states with lax background checks are de facto shipping crime guns around the country.
2. They save lives. Johns Hopkins gun expert Daniel Shapiro recently studied what happened when Missouri repealed its “purchase-to-permit” law, which was essentially a universal background check requirement. Turns out that, while regional and national gun homicides were declining, Missouri’s spiked by 25 percent. If the federal law worked in reverse, reducing gun homicides by 25 percent would have saved 2,750 lives per year.
3. They’re virtually cost free. Background checks are very cheap, very quick, and easily accessible to virtually all Americans. So background checks wouldn’t really prevent law-abiding Americans from purchasing guns, but would significantly limit criminal access to firearms.
4. Americans are united around them. Poll after poll has confirmed that somewhere around 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks. The figure is basically identical among gun owners (87 percent) and slightly lower, but still overwhelmingly high, among NRA members (74 percent).
Reid, who has a relatively high NRA rating (for a Democrat), has expressed skepticism about some parts of President Obama’s comprehensive gun violence prevention package. Still, lawmakers will ultimately have to vote on background checks — as an amendment or part of a comprehensive plan — and those who oppose the measure, they’ll have to justify their position to the 90 percent of Americans who support it
[ May 31, 2013, 06:55: Message edited by: Bob Frey ]
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
80 percent of crime guns are purchased through “private” sales, which means from unlicensed dealers at gun shows or other people currently exempted from having to run background checks under federal law"
ray, you do realize that 99% of drug crimes are drugs purchased thru unregistered private sales too right?
all this is going to do is set up another 'drug war' type scenario with even higher stakes and higher mortality, and worst of all much more colateral damage...
as long as they do not require registration lists? most gun owners are going to accept this type of law, the problem is that states like your "beautiful california" (i think you must avoid most of the highwyas to think that) now require registrations....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
State: $500 reward for turning in illegal gun owners Updated: Wednesday, March 20 2013, 09:19 PM EDT ALBANY – A program aimed at rewarding people who blow the whistle on illegal gun owners has yet to show significant results, says three police agencies in the New York. In February of 2012, 11 months before the passage of the NY SAFE Act, Governor Cuomo’s office announced a four pronged initiative to curb gun violence. One of the programs was a cash reward for citizens who lead police to the arrest and confiscation of illegal fire arms. Known as the “Gun Tip Line”, New Yorkers can call a toll free hotline to alert police if they believe someone they know has an illegal gun. The call would be picked up by state police and local law enforcement would be notified if the tip seemed reliable. If there was an arrest the tipster would receive as much as $500.
what would be real intersting would be to see how the courts look at these piad tips" in these cases. the cops are basically buying a warrant for 500$?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder in these hard economic times how many people are trying for the reward?
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Connecticut Governor Compares NRA Vice President To ‘Clown At The Circus’
By Annie-Rose Strasser on Apr 7, 2013 at 10:02 am
Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (D) tore into the National Rifle Association during an appearance on CNN’s State Of The Union on Sunday. The NRA this week introduced its legislative response to the massacre in Malloy’s home state. Its plan focuses on arming school staff.
Malloy specifically called out NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre for his absolute opposition to commonsense gun regulations, including the new gun law just enacted by Connecticut. After watching a clip of LaPierre mocking Connecticut’s new law, Malloy shot back, “Wayne reminds me of the clowns at the circus. They get the most attention”:
MALLOY: That’s what he’s paid to do. But the reality is is that the gun that was used to kill 26 people on December 14th was legally purchased in the state of Connecticut even though we had an Assault Weapons Ban. But there were loopholes in it that you could drive a truck through. This guy is so out of whack, it’s unbelievable. 92% of the american people want universal background checks. I can’t get on a plane as the Governor of the state of Connecticut without somebody running a background check on me. Why should you be able to buy a gun? Or buy armor-piercing munitions? It doesn’t make any sense. He doesn’t make any sense. Thus my reference to the circus.[...]
Bring it back to reality. Why are they against universal background checks when 92% of the American public is in favor of them? If they can’t answer that question — and they can’t, Candy — What this is about is the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as possible even if they’re deranged, even if they’re mentally ill, evening if they have a criminal background, they don’t care. They want to sell guns.
Malloy then went on to say that there is “precious little” he can agree on with the NRA, and that the organization is coming “pretty darn close” to recommending that every single American carry a gun. He also pointed to a recent report by the Center For American Progress that shows states with weaker gun laws also have the highest rates of gun violence.
(45)
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is checking watch lists equivalent to doing background checks?
Nope, said Dallas-based TSA spokesman Luis Casanova. "Bottom line," Casanova told us by email, "we compare against watch lists, we do not conduct background checks (unless you are coming to work with us)."
Zimmerman guided us to the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, whose executive director, Marc Rotenberg, said in an interview that after 9/11, the government sought to require full-fledged checks of passengers, but those plans were cancelled in 2004. He called the current comparison of passenger information to names on watch lists "streamlined background checks."
Law professors with expertise in this area said the use of watch lists isn’t the same as background checks.
Matthew Finkin of the University of Illinois, who specialties include privacy issues, said background checks, most often invoked by prospective employers, commonly consider someone’s credit worthiness, outstanding criminal charges and civil litigation, bankruptcies, driving and marital records -- even their use of social networking. He said he’s not heard of airlines running background checks of all passengers: "The airlines are not going to spend that kind of money. Why would they care if you have a speeding ticket?"
Counter-terrorism legal expert Gregory Maggs of the George Washington University Law School similarly said background checks occur when individuals apply for government jobs or seek a security clearance. Doing them for every airline passenger would be unmanageable, he said: "Too many people buying airline tickets."
Zimmerman said by email that the FBI and TSA are "large, powerful bureaucratic organizations with very significant resources to check on travelers. It would also make sense that they would not divulge all the depth of details of what they do."
Upshot: Every airline passenger must hurdle a check of basic personal information against a federal database before stepping onto a commercial flight. But these do not constitute actual background checks. We rate the statement Barely True.
posted
what? no response Ray? do you understand why i assert that the polls are rigged now? becuase real background checks are very intrusive. The NRA in stating they are opposed to real 100% background checks is responding to the actual defintion of the phrase. My wife and i (and you too based on your work experince) have been thru real background checks. they even went to our old elem. schools...
if we all got on the same page to discuss how to keep guns out of criminals hands? we might actually accomplish a little bit. it shuld be easy to compile alist of people who have been in front of Judge and found guilty or incompetence and not allow them to purchase a firearm. That is is not a background check tho. reuiring backround checks for every gun pruchase int e US in it's real governmnet ID'ed form would cost somebdy thousands. I was told my BC cost about 25 grand.
i am told that it is nearly impossible to identify whetehr or not people can even be idnetified as illegal immigrants and not eligible to work. i know that is not true, but people do claim that it ieasy to assume a legit ID and get wrok so real criminals would still do that to get guns and avoid having their name show up on "the list".
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ray is just a mother jones/media matters mouthpiece who cant think for himself.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
no response some of us do more than sit by our key boards.
if you want a reponse i will give you one the polls are rigged,BS.
Anyway I don't like your attitude and I am changing my mind and going to work hard as hell for a complete gun bill thru the local DNC. Thank you for making me see the light. It is just a matter of time before things change. Just as sure Rush Limbaugh is a fat slob and Hannity is a midget things will change some time in the future.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
It is just a matter of time before things change. Just as sure Rush Limbaugh is a fat slob and Hannity is a midget things will change some time in the future. _________________________________________________
Will that really be the best thing for future generations?
I am getting so tired of our rights eroding away just to be protected. Emotions have been played big time by our politicians to get people sucked in again.
Young people i can see this happening to, but older people should have a clue by knowing what has happened in the last 50+ years to their rights.
But on the other hand, older people seem to feel they need more protection, because they are older and won't be around to see what rights will be left in 20 years... if any
quote:Originally posted by raybond: no response some of us do more than sit by our key boards.
if you want a reponse i will give you one the polls are rigged,BS.
Anyway I don't like your attitude and I am changing my mind and going to work hard as hell for a complete gun bill thru the local DNC. Thank you for making me see the light. It is just a matter of time before things change. Just as sure Rush Limbaugh is a fat slob and Hannity is a midget things will change some time in the future.
i'm glad you are able to do more than sit by your keyboard ray. i often wonder ow many are only able to do just that. the polls are all rigged. I don't nromally name drop but you should apreciate that i have met and have friends that have wqroked closely with Noam Chomsky author of Manufacturing Consent. I highly recomend the book if you want to understand how they can come up with any of the poll numbers that they do. In this case? They don't actually tell people what a Background check is.
I'm going to ask you again, should a doctor be able to take your guns away? What if some person living in your house goes the doctor and says they are having sad thoughts? Should your doctor be able to send the SWAT gun collction team by to confiscate and destroy all your guns? Or should some bureacrat decide that because you post on the wrong blogs you are a threat and cannot be trusted with gun? You can't exapect them to hire people to sit around read all these blogs, so thye'll just take note of which ones you log onto and ban you that way..
That seems to me to be CHANGE you want to bring.
There is no dialogue happening in this country anymore, it ALL just a big game of Manufacturing Consent now.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i haven't read the new bill myself, but several sources are now reporting that it will allow Doctors to put your name on the NICS. Interestingly the claim is that you will not even know you are on the list until you try to use it.
this should be found unconstitutional under teh Fifth ammendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
if this is implemented? many people will stop seeking medical treatment and probably get worse.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
National back ground checks are coming, and you guys made your statements and gave your stupid big mouth opinion. And I don't care what you think ,Live with it. Or your other options are fight it. You can even go up in the hills and try to start a new revolution. You know sit around a fire eating mre's and telling your friends that we don't know who we are messing with until the beer makes you pass out.
Maybe you guys have commercial interest in guns on a small scale or you are just stupid either way the law will change and the only people that will be hamperd will be criminals a lawful living citizen will still be able to buy a gun.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
On Thursday, the senate will take-up a comprehensive gun bill that seeks to expand the background check system, enhance penalties for gun trafficking, and invest in school safety. The action will represent the first Congressional debate about firearm safety since the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
The vote to proceed to the measure will come just one day after Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) announced a bipartisan agreement to require background checks for gun sales at gun shows and online websites. Under their amendment, sales of firearms in these venues will be treated in the same way as gun purchases at federally licensed gun shops: individuals will have to undergo background checks that will be recorded with a federal licensed dealer. “All personal transfers are not touched whatsoever,” Manchin said.
As Congress considers the measure and conservatives led by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Rand Paul (R-KY) try to slow down debate, here is the ThinkProgress guide to the myths and misinformation surrounding background checks:
MYTH
REALITY
Background checks are ineffective and restrictive. Checks “would significantly restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans while doing little or nothing to protect against further gun violence.” [Sen. Mike Lee, 4/9/2013]
Ninety percent of background checks can be completed in less than two minutes and the Manchin-Toomey proposal would expedite the process. Under the amendment, if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, the background check would be required to be conducted in 24 hours. Background checks have already contributed to violence reduction. In the 14 states and Washington D.C. that require background checks for private handgun sales (including Toomey’s home state of Pennsylvania): 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners, 17 percent fewer firearms are involved in aggravated assaults, and 48 percent less gun trafficking.
Criminals will avoid background checks. “My problem with background checks is, you’re never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks.” [Wayne LaPierre, 1/30/2013]
From 1999 to 2009, 1.8 million people were blocked from purchasing guns after failing a background check because they had criminal records or suffered from mental illness. In fact, Seung Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech and Jared Loughner, who targeted Gabby Giffords, both obtained their guns legally and slipped through the cracks of the existing background check system. The Manchin-Toomey bill addresses this by encouraging states to provide their available records into the federal database and directing future grant money towards creating systems to send records into the database. The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply.
Background checks will lead to a gun registry. “The Democrats’ proposed legislation would require universal background checks for private sales between law-abiding citizens, which according to DOJ would be effective only if accompanied by a national gun registry. ” [Sen. Ted Cruz, 4/9/2013]
Federally licensed gun dealers have conducted background checks for more than 40 years without ever creating a national gun registry, which federal law specifically prohibits. Under this agreement, federal dealers would conduct screenings for private sellers and keep the record; the federal government would not. When a gun is recovered at a violent crime, law enforcement can use the records to track down the perpetrator. All information identifying the buyer generated by the background check would be destroyed by law enforcement within 24 hours. The Manchin-Toomey amendment explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry in three different places and treats the misuse of records for the pursue of creating a registry as a felony punishable by 15 years in
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: National back ground checks are coming, and you guys made your statements and gave your stupid big mouth opinion. And I don't care what you think ,Live with it. Or your other options are fight it. You can even go up in the hills and try to start a new revolution. You know sit around a fire eating mre's and telling your friends that we don't know who we are messing with until the beer makes you pass out.
Maybe you guys have commercial interest in guns on a small scale or you are just stupid either way the law will change and the only people that will be hamperd will be criminals a lawful living citizen will still be able to buy a gun.
Your ilk are the kind that take private info on conceal and carry or just handgun owners in cities and publish it irresponsibly for everyone to see who has one. Not because its the right thing to do but because your far left agenda is just so broken it has no boundaries.
Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: National back ground checks are coming, and you guys made your statements and gave your stupid big mouth opinion. And I don't care what you think ,Live with it. Or your other options are fight it. You can even go up in the hills and try to start a new revolution. You know sit around a fire eating mre's and telling your friends that we don't know who we are messing with until the beer makes you pass out.
Maybe you guys have commercial interest in guns on a small scale or you are just stupid either way the law will change and the only people that will be hamperd will be criminals a lawful living citizen will still be able to buy a gun.
LOL ray, you're wrong. just because the Senate takes up discussion doesn't make for new law... the House won't pass it, you seem angry.
your wild accusations are a bit off... i've never passed out form drinking in my life. don't like it that much...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No kidding glass, back ground checks are coming if not now within 12 months.
You are living in la la land
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
On an average day in the U.S., guns are used to kill more than 80 people, injure almost 300 more, and commit approximately 3,000 crimes. Since John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, more Americans have been shot and killed on our own soil than in all the 20th-century wars combined.
What’s not well-known is that the vast majority of the approximately 12,000 annual gun murders and 66,000 non-fatal shootings are committed by people who have no legal right to a gun. How do criminals and other prohibited people get guns so easily? Through a highly efficient, organized, and profitable business of gun trafficking that moves guns from legal manufacture to dealers to criminals and young people who can’t buy guns legally.
Where do crime guns come from?
Virtually every gun starts out as a legally manufactured product, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) points to three common ways guns move from legal distribution channels to the criminal market: •Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms. •Straw purchasing: Straw purchasing is the most common way criminals get guns, accounting for almost 50% of trafficking investigations. A straw purchaser is someone with a clean record who buys guns on behalf of someone legally prohibited from possessing guns. Straw purchasers are often the friends, relatives, spouses or girlfriends of prohibited purchasers. The two Columbine High School shooters recruited friends to buy guns for them at Colorado gun shows. One of the buyers admitted she would not have bought the guns if she had been required to submit to a background check. •Gun Shows and private gun sales: Gun shows have been called “Tupperware parties for criminals” because they attract large numbers of prohibited buyers. A loophole in federal law allows unlicensed or “private” sellers, many of whom work out of gun shows, to lawfully sell or transfer guns without conducting a criminal background check. Gun show dealers have been known to advertise to criminals with signs that read “no background checks required here.”
How Federal Gun Policy Contributes to Illegal Trafficking
Congress has passed a series of laws in recent years that allow easy access to guns and restrict law enforcement’s ability to go after traffickers. Three policies in particular impede law enforcement’s ability to prosecute traffickers: •Keeping crime gun trace information secret: Until 2002, the ATF released aggregate crime gun trace reports to local police departments, researchers, policymakers and public safety advocates. The reports revealed for the first time that 1.2% of federally licensed gun dealers supply 57% of the guns used in crime. But, bowing to pressure from the gun lobby, Congress voted to restrict police access to crime gun trace data and cut off public access altogether. These restrictions, known as the Tiahrt Amendments (named for the Kansas Congressman who sponsored the bill), have passed in every Department of Justice budget since 2003, despite the fact that prominent law enforcement associations oppose them as a serious threat to public safety. •Handcuffing the ATF: The ATF, the sole government agency charged with enforcing federal gun laws, has operated without a permanent director since the Bush Administration, and operates with just 1,800 agents to monitor approximately 77,000 gun dealers. Given these constraints, it would take ATF 22 years to inspect all federally licensed gun dealers. Even if the ATF had the manpower to inspect most gun dealers, federal law limits the agency to a single unannounced inspection of a dealer in any 12-month period. Congress has made it increasingly difficult for the ATF to revoke licenses of crooked gun dealers. •An absence of records: It is impossible for law enforcement to know the whereabouts of millions of firearms in circulation today because Federal law explicitly bars the ATF from establishing a database of retail firearms sales, and private gun sellers are not required to keep a paper trail of transactions. Prior to 2001, federal authorities maintained criminal background check records for up to six months. Under President Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed this policy and ordered the destruction of all criminal background check records within 24 hours. Even though the General Accounting Office found that destroying these records endangers public safety, the policy remains in effect.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: No kidding glass, back ground checks are coming if not now within 12 months.
You are living in la la land
what is goingt o happen in 12 months to change the House of reps? a democrat takeoever?
you all are closing the door on any hope of the Democrats taking back congress with all this stuff, which is exaclty what i pointed out to you the day this new anti-gun campaign started. In fact? i think you all just forgot the lesson you should have learned in 94. That was when Clinton lost it all... maybe this is good thing tho becuase Hillary is setting up her run now, and this should put a GOP in the WH next time.. sadly? i don't thnk it will even have to be good candidate after this fiasco.
you have already lost on most of the issues. there will be no semi-auto wepaon ban (so-called assault guns) and there will be no magazine limit either.
IF the only thing that comes from this is expanding the NICS? you will have lost.
IF doctors are really allowed to add people tot eh NICS list without Due Process? then it will be struck down by SCOTUS.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never was for the ban on semi autos if you ever read any of my posts. Until yesterday when you pissed me off. so what we will get there as for doctors you are living a dream. Either way it is a win for me the republicans will get fried in the mid terms and then it will pass. Face you have the NRA on your side not the people..
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i do read your posts ray. you should know better by now than to get pissed off at a blog post. you said you were interested in human nature awhile back- don't you think it's an intereting aspect of human nature that the NTSB doesn't does not do "backgorund checks", but for guns we can? or thta illegal immigrants cannot be trtacked for employment purposes but gun buyers can be chacked in five minutes?
fact is? i am not ameber of the NRA- i joined twenty years ago and they sent me so much junk mail i think they used all my mebership fees to solicit more money from me- i quit.
gun violence won't go awy from this universal background check any more than drug abuse has gone away from the govt war on drugs.
suicide is highest in nations where guns are not even legal- yet most gun deaths in this country are suicides. more thna half.
as tto polls? you should go look up the polls and the questions they actually asked. for instance only 53% of people want more gun controls not the 90% that asked for background checks... makes you wonder what the 1000 people they polled are really thinking doesn't it? i mean that's alot of peopl right? 1000 people? and if i ask the right 1000 people the right questions int he right way? i bet i can get any results i want for polling purposes
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On The Anniversary Of Virginia Tech, The NRA May Once Again Try To Weaken Gun Laws
By Aviva Shen on Apr 16, 2013 at 10:45 am
Six years ago, Virginia Tech University went down in history as the site of the deadliest school shooting to ever occur in the US. Seung-Hui Choi, a 23-year-old English major, gunned down 56 people and killed 32. Choi had been declared “an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness” by a court in 2005, yet was still able to pass a background check to buy two guns and several high capacity magazines. Armed with these high-powered weapons, Choi’s massacre took just 15 minutes from start to finish.
Since Virginia Tech, there have been 20 mass shootings in the US. In December, the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, CT, came the closest to matching the Virginia Tech bloodbath, with 26 casualties.
The post-Newtown push for more effective gun regulation in some ways mirrors the momentum for change after the Virginia Tech massacre. In the aftermath of Virginia Tech, the Bush administration proposed legislation requiring states to share with the FBI the names of people who had been involuntarily committed to mental health facilities, so they could be included in the federal background check system. Congress passed the bill, but only after the National Rifle Association extracted two concessions that ultimately undermined the entire law.
The NRA refused to support the bill unless it also required states to set up gun rights restoration programs for mentally ill people, and narrowed the definition of a “mental defect.” These two provisions both enabled the bill’s passage and created new loopholes in the Gun Control Act of 1968. As a 2011 New York Times investigation detailed, the law has been rendered toothless by lenient state restoration programs. Hundreds of people with mental health issues have their gun rights restored every year — and some go on to use those guns to kill themselves or others:
In a typical case, Joshua St. Clair, who served in Iraq with the National Guard, got his gun rights back last year. About six months earlier, Mr. St. Clair, now 22, had heard a rattling at his gate. He said he “kind of blacked out” and the next thing he knew, he was pointing his M-4 assault rifle at his friend’s chest. That led to a temporary detention order, treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and loss of his firearms rights. He took a note from his psychiatrist to his restoration hearing, which he said “lasted maybe about five minutes,” but he said the judge did not even ask to see it.
In the wake of the Newtown shooting, the NRA spent months loudly denouncing any effort to strengthen gun laws. To appear supportive of background check reform, the gun lobby threw its weight behind a deceptive bill claiming to strengthen background checks. In fact, the bill would let individuals who had been involuntarily committed skip judicial screening to restore their gun rights. Instead, people could apply to have their names removed from the system immediately.
The Senate’s most promising background checks compromise will likely come to a vote this week. The NRA remains opposed, but one gun group enthusiastically endorsed the bill because of its stiff penalties for gun record compilations and its restoration of gun rights for veterans deemed “mentally defective” by Veterans Affairs. Yet even with these concessions to gun rights groups, the background check bill is still short of the 60-vote threshold needed to defeat a filibuster.
To entice pro-gun lawmakers, the Senate may also consider adding an NRA-supported amendment requiring all states to recognize concealed-carry permits, essentially wiping out tough state laws. Another concession on the table would allow unlicensed gun dealers who live more than 100 miles from a federally licensed dealer to forego background checks.
(5)
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
NRA chief: Obama 'bit off more than he could chew'
The head of the National Rifle Association mocked President Obama's Rose Garden "tantrum" after losing the gun control fight in the Senate, charging Thursday that Obama suffered the worst defeat of his presidency because "he bit off more than he could chew."
David Keene told Secrets that the president and his team misplayed their hand because they don't have a sense of the public's attitude toward gun control. "They just can't gauge the public reaction to what they do because they don't have any sense that the public has feelings different than they do," said Keene.
"He thought and his folks thought that Newtown changed everything. Newtown was a tragedy but that doesn't change people's basic values and feelings," added the NRA president. "What he learned is that he bit off a lot more than he can chew and that you can't just talk your way to a victory. You have to have something that makes some sense and he what he was proposing just didn't make much sense."
The loss devastated the president, who ranted about the NRA's power during his Rose Garden address after Wednesday's vote.
Keene, however, saw it differently. "It was the biggest legislative defeat he suffered but that does not justify the unseemly picture of a president of the United States throwing a public tantrum."
Keene said that many lawmakers who voted against the background check expansion felt that if it passed, gun control advocates would simply return to the issue to chip away more at the Second Amendment, so they decided to "just stop it now."
In a way, Keene signaled that to the sponsors of the Senate compromise, Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin. Keene recalled that he took a day off last week to fish for trout on the Missouri River in Montana. "Unfortunately, I took my cellphone with me and my cellphone rings in the midst of my float and it's Joe Manchin, who's talking about how reasonable his idea is. And finally I said, 'Look, I'm in the middle of the Missouri River, I've got a trout on the line. I don't agree, you will have to make your own decisions, and I hung up. You have to keep your priorities straight."
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are still living in lala land glass. The senate voted against the will of the people just wait till the next shooting that is coming and it is.
You sufer and buck can make another case that the schools don't have armed security in them to prevent these shootings not knowing we already have over 20,000 schools that already have armed security. Including the first school shooting at columbine that had armed security on duty. That was a great job what a waste.
Also glass loosing a battle does not mean you lost the war
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
no they didn't vote against the will of the people ray, that's what i have been trying tell you. Those polls were rigged for the numbers the liberals wanted. the USA is pretty screwed up right now, but in general the country is not full of as many wussies as you want to think
i lived in California for a long time. i know LaLa when i see it and smell it- you definitely live there.
it's OK. LaLaLand has it better points to...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
this explosion in West Texas? it's only 19 mile (accroding to ggogle) from Waco. The explosion happens the day before the anniversary of the massacre there? It seemed like toomuch coincidence to me, but the right wingnuts that would be doing that are not the Boston bomebrs are they? it appears teh boston bombers are "former" Chechiens.... If i were really paraoid? I would think the old KGB guys would have been behind them in order to get US to support the Russian dictatorship (in democratic costume) against Chechnia...
but it isn't really all connected is it? it's just modern times, and let's face it, there's alot of mental illness out there..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
