For now, we must stay ever vigilant.
Meanwhile after the loss Obama showed the emotion we expected of a leader after Newton, Boston, Benghazi…but never got. I wonder why?
Given his record, there’s every reason to believe that what’s really bothering him is the fact that red-state Dems denied him an easy chance today to demagogue Republicans as the party of child murder or whatever, which he was hoping to use next year as a way to retake the House. Then, once he had a Democratic Congress again, he could pass some new horrible permutation of ObamaCare or immigration or the minimum wage or some other liberal wishlist item that has nothing to do with gun control. Just like in his first term! That’s what he’s mad about, that a political bludgeon was essentially taken out of his hands before he had a chance to use it to achieve unrelated goals.
Poor widdle President Stompy Foot.
This angry little man is the man we don’t see behind the scenes. He cannot tolerate dissent, cannot tolerant anyone who doesn’t agree with him…in short the definition of a bad leader.
See author page
It drives me
postalnutsbatty when he claims those who stand opposed to him are putting politics ahead of the interests of the children. Meanwhile….he’s not?!?CURT
this had to be said, I’m so glad it came from you,,
because of your high credibility,
they realize they could not follow the LEADER anymore finally,
it took a long time and not all jumped out the bandwagon,
but we have enough,
bye
@Wordsmith:
It’s very simple. Quibble with the efficacy of background checks, but unless you’re a member of the black helicopter crowd, it’s tough to argue that the President’s gun proposals aren’t intended to increase public safety and decrease the likelihood of mass shootings such as the one that took place in CT. No rational person can argue that having a country awash in easily accessible guns has no connection to the staggering rate of gun violence in the US. The public overwhelmingly supports expanding background checks. Background checks are not unconstitutional. The gun lobby would have you think differently on all these points. I have no reason to believe that public safety is something they care about and I defy anyone to prove me wrong, to show me one instance where they support a measure that would increase safety at the expense of sales/profits.
@Wordsmith, #1:
He wasn’t playing politics. He was representing the opinion of a majority of Americans. But the result of today’s vote will be used politically, to great effect. You can depend on that.
The vast majority of gun related homicides are due to criminals with HANDGUNS, and not law abiding citizens. This attempted power grab would do NothiNG to stop mentally ill or criminals from killing people. If gun control worked then why does Chicago and DC have a higher annal death toll from guns than US soldiers dying in Afghanistan?
Babydoc
instead of pushing for their gun control stupid law ,
they should take the example of the time when the first AMERICANS arrive and found a criminal and hang him or shot him for his inhumanity and bestal killing the good law abiding citizens
nothing work today,
it’s time to step back in time of the real justice for killers
and tormentors, and haters who disrupt a good tolerant SOCIETY who love their beautiful AMERICA, so ready to help in times of grievance
like the horrible BOSTON TERRORIST ATTACK
This memo from Obama’s own DOJ seems to dispute every single talking point for more gun control.
http://static.infowars.com/2013/02/i/general/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf
Obama used his defeat.
Obama demonized his opponents (like he always does).
This time it was:
No.
Those Senators, Republican AND Democrat, knew that the legislation before them would do NOTHING to protect one child.
Obama who has failed utterly to provide any evidence that would suggest that this bill would prevent gun violence in any material way.
Obama also demonized the NRA (not for the 1st time).
Straw man.
WHO said this?
No one I can find in print.
Finally more straw men:
Yes, Obama uses props or photo op backdrops of anecdotal victims or interest groups.
He even said to a small backdrop of military folks, ”You guys make a nice photo op.”
But no one I can find in print says victims don’t deserve to be heard.
Certainly no one who claims victims don’t matter.
We cannot decide federal or national policy based only on anecdotal cases that are culled from the headlines to tug the heartstrings.
This legislation, had it been in force before Sandy Hook would have made no difference whatsoever.
What would have made a difference is what Utah does: laws making it legal for teachers who qualify to carry to be armed in the classroom.
What a difference that would have made.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/our-crappy-political-system-killed-gun-checks.html
Tom, I put in something for you to think about on another thread in response to Greg. The bill was not only about background checks, and the media deliberately ignored the elephant in the room… the mandate, and the way it was constructed, to include “mental illness” reporting to the NICS. I suspect that the elected ones, as well as the public, don’t really want to discuss that. Most on both side of the aisle agree that guns should not be in the hands of lunatics. However the definition of a lunatic, especially being left to govt authorities, is one heck of a slippery slope. And for the pols to start a discussion on this doesn’t benefit either of them… regardless of their party. You’ll even see “conservatives” speaking out both sides of their mouths on this issue.
If they wanted background checks, they likely would have gotten it if they disassociated some other part of the bill.
Which 90%?
From Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/28/1197704/-Skew-the-NRA-Poll-Rec-it-up
Yes, Kos encouraged skewing the poll.
His peeps probably ”voted” hundreds of times each.
Read the comments about ”my voteS.”
And, although he’s the one I found first, I bet his was not the only liberal site encouraging skewing the NRA’s poll.
@Nan G:
I concede. Once again, Nan, you’ve sluethed your way to the bottom of the conspiracy without ever getting up from your keyboard.
@MataHarley:
Thanks for that information. I have not been able to find many details about the proposed changes regarding mental illness to the NICS. If you any, please share. It’s my understanding mental illness has always been a part of the database, although perhaps not comprehensively or systematically. I think what you’ve raised is a fair point worthy of serious discussion, but I can’t imagine a little publicized mental health component killed this bill. The NRA killed the bill because they are dead set against background checks period. It’s that simple. In fact, it sounds like several Republicans introduced an alternate bill with a strong mental health component that simply removed the background check part and the NRA was fine with it.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294499-sens-grassley-and-cruz-present-alternative-gun-bill#ixzz2QmaSUdT5
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
VP Joe Biden’s son…..
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden said the next step in gun-control is going to be expanding the definition of those deemed mentally unfit to own a gun.
The mental health definition has usually has boiled down to whether a person is adjudicated mentally ill.
Much of the debate on the Hill has been about whether a doctor can violate patient confidentiality in reporting a person to be listed in the gun-check database, and whether that would discourage those afflicted by mental illness from seeking treatment.
Biden called adjudication “a very high standard, basically being involuntarily committed to a mental institution.”
“We’re going to introduce legislation next week that says that if you are believed to be a risk to yourself or to others by your health care professional, that that health care professional would have an obligation to report that fact to a police agency who then would initiate a process to — to make sure that you do not possess a firearm,” said the vice president’s son.
ObamaCare pits doctors AGAINST patients.
The proposed gun law forces doctors to act as agents of the STATE.
And simply saying on a medical form that you OWN a gun might be enough for a doctor to tell a police agency you could be a harm to others…..depends on the doctor.
Nan G
they’re trying to label the PEOPLE who are self made,
unafraid to speak their mind in front of who ever, even with confidence
that they know what they are talking about, people with character,
the military back from war in hell, the one who are gifted with leadership
who are the first to get into action with determination to fix a problem, or a major devastation like we see in BOSTON those stepping out of the crowd, will be label like anyone with a brain to trigger action and expose publicly, the GOVERNMENT failure and willfull wrong doing for revenge,
those active people from another high standard of conduct, will be target as non conformist,
and there are many dangers, I surely don’t trust any analist who think he is worthy enough to
play JUDAS, like the HITLER REGIME BEGAN and was expanded to all atrocity on humanity,
NO NOT IN AMERICA NEVER
I am in the middle of a new book entitiled ‘The Obama Confession, Secret Fear, Secret Fury’ by Andrew Hodges MD. It does a great job of describing our president as a very angry man bent on destroying America because of the way his father treated him. According to the author, Obama (aand Mrs. Obama) display their hate of white America in many instances.
It’s a good read.
bwax
thank you,for the info, it does sound interesting,
and it’s exactly what we see,
bye
@Tom: “The NRA killed the bill because they are dead set against background checks period.” That is quite inaccurate.
One thing that was never really defined well was the whole “expanded background checks” idea. (The same is always done with sweeping phrases like “comprehensive” or “common sense”, etc by the left – who can fight “it’s for the children?”). Since background checks are already conducted by the FBI; just what more was wanted? The mental health issue is what was wanted from what I could see, and this was loose enough that just about anyone would eventually fall into that trap. As an example, one of the anti-gun bills currently in the NJ Legislature allows “mental health professionals” to declare someone at risk for owning a gun. Those “professionals” would include case workers, counselors and other positions held by people who might not even hold a Bachelor’s degree let alone a doctorate in some aspect of mental health. Would that be abused? The libs in NJ want us to believe that it would not, because this bill is for “the greater good” and is “common sense”. I was at the public hearing and even the author of the bill was chastised by others on the committee, because he did not acknowledge that even the Mental Health Professional Association of NJ was AGAINST this bill. And in NJ, we already have a mental health background check included in a gun application.
We have a lot of laws. Too many in some cases. Rather than every elected official heading to their respective posts thinking their job is to make more new laws, it is beyond time that they ought to consider eliminating ridiculous or untenable laws and fixing what we already have by enforcing what we already have.
Let’s discuss background checks. Sadly I work in Kommiefornya, I have firearms of all sizes, lengths and calibers. I had to wait 10 days to pick up a completely stripped AR clone lower. If you go to Vallejo (one of the many CA towns run into the ground by a Libtard city council) the only people you will find UNARMED are the poor slugs that paid too much for their house that is now worth nothing and they can not leave because they work for a living.
Honest people are honest — Crooks are dishonest — Laws don’t bother the dishonest at all.
I’m not too interested in this bill’s failure because there were so many loopholes that it wouldn’t serve the purpose, but would allow the radical right-wing more fodder to say that background checks don’t work, when, in actuality, the bill—as written—would still allow criminals to purchase fire arms.
I guess we’re going to have to wait until we have an incident a month (or per week) like Connecticut before this country takes appropriate action. Or maybe such an incident needs to invade the gated communities of Congresspeople. As I understand, 90% of the public, and 80% of Republicans (including gun owners) agreed with universal background checks; but those Congress people who voted against the interests of the country, and for their own personal interests to get re-elected to their cushy jobs.
Instead of shooting spitballs at everything the Obama favors—like is the favored position of this website—I would like to see these readers offer and debate one workable plan to lessen gun violence in this country, which does not rely on universal background checks or limitations on magazine capacity. But maybe the reason the black helicopter crowd doesn’t feel such a plan is necessary is because they don’t think violence—of all sorts—is a problem in this country. Maybe they think violence is a natural process for weeding out undesirables—at the expense of the innocent.
The typical conservative reaction is, “Let’s enforce existing laws.” I counter with, “What laws?” I listened to someone call into a talk show this morning who used this excuse. His example was the alleged shooter of the young lady in Chicago, recently His reasoning for this situation being an example of non-enforcement of existing laws: “Why wasn’t this killer not in jail instead of out on bail.” Has this caller ever heard of the concept of being innocent until proven guilty?
@Tom:
Before I get to the NRA, I have a question that I asked Greg in another thread that went unanswered. I would like to pose it to anyone that is for stricter gun control.
Why do you want to federalize the gun laws? The feds do nothing about them. They will make it harder to get a gun…for people that obey the law. For those that don’t, they’ll still get a weapon. Joe Biden made it very clear to Jim Baker, “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”
Yeah, most people are for background checks. I’m for background checks, as long as they are done right, and are not subject to administration-to-administration interpretation. This is straight from the Manchin-Toomey amendment.
I would never support that. Call me a black helicopter crowd person all you want. Change the wording on this to voting rights and think about the Secretary being under a republican administration. Would you want your right to vote subject to the interpretation of the Secretary?
I was going to get to the NRA. The NRA has pushed for tougher sentencing and prosecution under existing gun laws. None of this has happened. The left does not want to prosecute laws, they only want tougher laws.
Now for my question:
What is the use of new laws if the existing laws are not enforced? If the existing laws are only observed by law-abiding people and people that break those laws suffer no consequences, who do those laws punish? If the same holds true for any new laws, who will they punish.
@ThomNJ:
The proposed law would have extended background checks to weapons sold on the internet and at gun shows.
does the 2nd Amendment also cover pressure cooker bombs? certainly they too would be considered arms
@Aqua:
I agree conceptually that in a perfect world it would be best for states to regulate firearms. I believe it makes perfect sense that laws for cities and rural areas would be tailored to the local environment, population density, and cultural norms. It makes no sense to me that every gun law in New York City and every gun law in rural Montana would be the same. Where it all falls apart is that guns travel very easily. Therefore, the laxest state laws on the books are the de facto laws for all states. If my state doesn’t sell guns to criminals and yours does, it defeats the the purpose of my state’s laws when our criminals can just drive over the state border, buy guns, and drive back. It’s really no different than why we have Federal Motor Vehicle Standards – because cars travel easily between states, just like guns. There are some basic laws that go to public safety that make sense everywhere, for the good of everyone. If there is a better way that a federal law to achieve that, I’m all ears.
@Tom:
Are you even aware of what is required to purchase a fire arm via the internet? Do you think the dealer just plops it into a USPS envelope and sends it to you? Have you ever been to a gun show? Have you ever purchased a firearm at a gun show? Obviously no one has told you about a piece of modern technology called the cell phone that dealers use to call in their background checks before they release the purchased firearm. Instead, you swallow, hook, line and sinker, the old “gun show loop hole” meme put out by Obama that is 40 year old data and changed by the Brady Bill.
Yesterday, Dianne Feinstein admitted that this legislation would have done NOTHING to prevent Sandy Hook. Do you disagree with her because if you do, it is probably the first time. How do you prevent someone from killing their own mother, stealing her gun and creating harm with it? If you have an answer to that, I would be interested in hearing it.
These “feel good” bills have not one damn thing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. If that were the case, we would be putting Eric Holder, and half the ATF in jail. Criminals are not going to pay attention to your “feel good” laws and will only disadvantage law abiding citizens and give the criminals an advantage over them. Perhaps you would like to explain why Chicago, with its stringent gun laws, is such a swamp?
@retire05:
That may be so, but I think you lose the right to complain about the effectiveness of a watered-down law when you’re unwilling to support a more effectively stringent one. In the case of the Senate, some of the same people who neutered the law in the first place are now the ones using its alleged deficiencies for cover.
NOW they go for IMMIGRATION new law welcoming illegals,
HEY HOLD ON IMMIGRATION UNTIL
THE AMERICANS FIND JOBS< AND ARE THE FIRST PRIORITY TO GET IT
UNTIL ALL HAVE WORK INCLUDING THE FELONS OF NO DANGER FOR SOCIETY.
YOU ARE WORKING UPSIDE DOWN, AGAINST AMERICANS BEST INTEREST,
get in line to help the job market to regain trust they lost in this GOVERNMENT of cliff, and SEQUESTRATION non stop, I you cannot concentrate on jobs,
you are not fit to serve the public get off the position not deserved,
and let's see if you find a job, enough talk and more results only for the AMERICANS
A good day for the Constitution.
I read, and can not say with certainty until I read the failed bill, but deep inside of the bill was confiscation of weapons. If so this is not surprising as all bills have ‘nifty’ little things hidden in them.
Tom and Greg, as to my comment #1:
So president Obama is the white knight who isn’t being politically manipulative while those who opposed are putting politics ahead of the interests of children? One side has the best interest of children at heart and the other side does not?
Yesterday was a good day, listening to the Sound and Fury of the anti-gun crowd. All those who follow President Obama will end up in an unhappy place, and there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
From the movie Conan the Barbarian:
Q: Conan, what is best in life?
A: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
The bad guys and their misguided sheeple are beaten and dejected. Good. Time to drive right through. Let’s say it loudly in every available venue: they lost because they couldn’t present a reasonable argument. If you can about the safety of children and if you care about reducing violence, then there are valid, legal means to accomplish those goals. This isn’t it.
While on a roll, someone sent me the following:
Dianne Feinstein said:
“All vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms”
she really said it on a Thursday in a meeting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. the quote below from the LA Times is priceless.
Kurt Nimmo: “Senator Feinstein insults all U.S. Veterans as she flays about in a vain attempt to save her bill.”
Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times:
“Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re Number One. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ‘Macbeth’. The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.”
— Columnist Burt Prelutsky, Los Angeles Times
John
good you mention it,
we must remind OBAMA to get of the GUN and think about the BOMBS, or DRONES, oops
there is a question in there he did not mention it because he has the DRONES,
and he wont surrender his WEAPON, he like to play with it.
@Tom:
I totally don’t understand this. I live in Georgia, probably one of the most lax States in terms of gun laws in the country. It’s actually illegal for any municipality to register a firearm. Yet we still have background checks and they are tight. And even at gun shows, you have to pass a background check. That is the so-called “gun show loophole.” If you have a Federal Firearms License, you have to run background checks at gun shows, no matter the State. There are supposed to be some States that do not require a background check if the weapon is sold by a private dealer, even at a gun show. But I don’t know what States those might be. This map shows States that have the “gun show loophole” but it’s wrong.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
The number of independent dealers at a gun show is pretty small. Even so, I would support making them subject to background checks. Even if this forced independent non-FFL dealers out of gun shows, I would support it. Instead of congress having to make every single bill into a Comprehensive package, what if someone just wrote a bill stating all sells at gun shows will be required to go through background checks regardless of FFL status? A couple of lines and done. Why does every bill have to be a thousand pages long?
@Wordsmith:
I’m curious, did you read Obama’s actual remarks? I don’t agree that he is directly or indirectly stating that those opposed are putting politics before children. He very directly states that many of those opposed in the senate are putting politics before crossing the gun lobby. And he quite articulately lays out exactly how the gun lobby lied and fear mongered about the bill in question to put pressure on those individuals:
But your critique is a common one, and I can’t respond to it any better than Obama did:
@Tom:
As is her husband, Mark Kelly. But Kelly seems to think the laws are just for the little people, not hotshot astronauts married to a former Congresswoman.
“Doug MacKinlay, the owner of Diamondback Police Supply where Kelly bought the gun (a Sig Sauer 1911 handgun) said Kelly was initially turned down when he walked into the store several weeks ago because his identification was from Texas.
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE92C02W20130313
Do you not think that Kelly had a responsibility to know the laws of the very state he was living in? Or was he trying to scam the gun dealer, just like he is scamming the Galveston County Appraisal District by claiming a homestead tax exemption on his house in League City, Texas, when he declared that the home he purchased on 7/12/2012 in Tucson was his “primary” residence? Kelly is a liar first and tax cheat secondly.
Why pick dozens of white parents from Sandy Hook when there are hundreds of black parents from his own town of Chicago he could have used for a photo op? Or is it that Obama knows that no matter how stringent the guns laws are, as they are in Chicago, will prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns the criminals get from the black market?
Three people, including a young boy, are dead in Boston due to a bombing. The terrorist used a standard kitchen pressure cooker. Shall we now require every housewife to fill out a federal form if she wants to buy a pressure cooker come canning time? How far are you willing to go to relinquish your Constitutional rights all the name of some false sense of security?
@Tom, yes the NRA… who was instrumental in getting the NICS off the ground… obviously cannot be against background checks. As are most gun owners. But then federal databases of “prohibited people” can be a dangerous thing. And I doubt even most of those of liberal bent would disagree with that.
But allow me to correct, or clarify per se, the statement I made above about the mentally ill and reporting as it relates to this bill. The first part of Reid’s S. 649 – Title I – is all about grants for the NICS system. In other words, Congress is holding federal funds for the States ransom, plus imposing penalties, for not providing what is the required data to the NICS database.
Then what should follow is the question, what is the required data to be?
Pass this bill, and Lindsey Graham’s S.480 bill, the NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013, likely to pass because of it’s bipartisan construct, is creating a federal database on those with “mental illness”… and enforceable by withholding federal funds to the States.
So you might say this is another Congressional two-step. The NICS grant penalties and text seem innocuous, ensconced casually in the background check bill. But when you combine that beefing up of the database with the mental illness legislation coming down the pike, the result is the same as were it laid out in one bill.
You would think they would put those penalties andthe threat of federal ransom in the Lindsey Graham bill, being as it’s related to NICS database content. But no… that would make it too overt to we unsuspecting citizens.
Thus the elephant in the room, unless one also knows how Congress choreographs their dance to mask the end result. Both parties.
Mental illness is the new “gun control” that both sides of the aisle can agree upon. However how that is happening, how those medical records get on a federal database, who makes the decision on what is “mentally ill” and who inputs that data on the NICS is where the greatest danger lies. If they use the NIH classifications, you will have widespread prohibitions of Americans, unable to purchase weapons.
@Tom:
I haven’t read the transcript. But I’ve been listening to his remarks on radio and some mainstream news clips. So aside from not following closely the remarks in their entirety from beginning to end, I think hearing the inflections and tone in his voice and seeing his demeanor and facial expressions is a lot more telling than just reading what his remarks are (what was actually said).
So they are acting out of insincerity; are basing their decision on politics over having their emotional heartstrings tugged by Sandy Hook victims?
Has there been a sudden spike in gun violence that I am unaware of? Mass shootings? Why wasn’t this part of his 2012 presidential campaign if it’s such an important, life-threatening issue?
And isn’t this playing politics? Isn’t this what both sides do, to influence their perspective on a legislative bill?!
As he often does, he resorts to a strawman.
Why doesn’t he welcome Mark Mattioli to stand there as a human prop? (This isn’t the first, second, or even third time that the president has used human props in the background to try to influence emotion during a press conference).
It’s politics. And he is engaged in it every bit as much as the side that opposes him with a differing perspective on reality.
@retire05:
There are two common fallacious arguments buried in there. 1, if a law intended to promote public safety isn’t 100% effective every time, why bother; and 2, agreeing with a popular common sense regulation measure is akin to endorsing all manners of far-reaching bogeymen anti-Constitutional measures. These arguments have been shredded so many times, I won’t even bother.
@MataHarley:
That is definitely food for thought. Have there been alternate proposals as to how we curtail the ability of the mentally ill to purchase guns? Would it be necessary for a person to pass through the criminal justice system first? Am I wrong in recalling reading that psychiatrists can currently get someone onto the NICS?
@Wordsmith:
Fair enough. A visceral reaction to a person is something I can understand. GWB had the same effect upon many on the left. It’s interesting though that when Obama seems most sincerely emotionally honest to some, he seems most politically calculating to others. I don’t know that that was always the case with Bush.
No spike is necessary. Gun violence is already, and has been, at epidemic levels. Sometimes it takes a spark or a moment to coalesce support, or overcome complacency. As to why Obama wasn’t for it previously, it politically does nothing for him. Those who are for gun-control were already going to vote for him, and vice-versa. He’s expending political capital now, and absorbing an avoidable political defeat, with no real political upside. Where those who would say this is all politics now, I would say it was all politics then when he previously avoided the issue as a no-winner.
@Tom:
How many laws do you want on the books? We have federal laws, state laws and municipal laws that go even farther, and yet, not one of those laws have prevented another Columbine, have they?
And how are you going to feel when women, who have been stalked by some deranged man, wants to purchase a hand gun and take concealed carry classes to obtain her concealed carry license, is rejected because her docctor says she was treated for a “mental disorder” which could be anything, uncluding the depression caused by being stalked? Why do you on the left hate women? What about the old man, physically incapable of defending himself, living in a bad neighborhood because that is all he can afford, wants to purchase a gun for self protection but his doctor decides that he is being unreasonable in his fear and labels that a “mental disorder?” Why do you hate old people?
Do you really want the Federal government digging into your medical records?
After Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in OK City using fertilizer, the government decided to limit the amount of fertilizer someone can purchase without filling out a form and submitting it to the feds. What that did was punish every rancher/farmer who buys fertilizer in bulk. But if you want to take the time, and buy in small amounts, within a week you could amass the same amount of fertilizer that McVeigh did with absolutely no problem. Just another “feel good” piece of legislation that will do nothing to prevent another OK City.
Everything you libs want to do is reactive, not pro-active.
@Tom, I’m not sure there *is* an “alternative” to what already exists. There are already laws for those convicted of some crimes that are already prohibited from gun ownership. To place people on a database who have not committed a crime, but may be “ripe” to do so because of perceived mentally instability is an attempt at preemptive criminal behavior. And where does that line get drawn?
Even in Reid’s bill, that perception of omnipotence shows up under the straw purchase expanded section. Those with restraining orders, under certain conditions, are prohibited and will have to be put on “the list”. There is even one that starts out with an “intends to…”
Now how is the firearm seller… dealer or private party… supposed to be in possession of that knowledge?
To effectively achieve a stripping of the RKBA, one only needs to mandate NICS reporting so widespread that few people would be able to purchase. This can include people who take drugs for bipolar disorders, ADD/ADHD, mood control, PTSD etc, (all classified as mental illness via the NIH), and perhaps even repeated drunk driving charges.
You can’t preempt, or predict, criminal behavior without handcuffing most law abiding citizens, and infringing on their rights. You can only go with what is on record. And that’s already law.
And yes, it is worrisome that any medical professional could report a patient to the NICS, even without their knowledge, as being a potential risk despite not having a criminal record. With the passage of Reid’s bill, it would then be mandated to be reported. Where these medical professionals get that power, if they do have it, I do not know. But it should never be codified.
I heard AMERICAN sing together their love for AMERICA at the BOSTON playoff, REDSOCKS
REDSOCK and YANKEE all the fans together in one voice
it was so patriotic and so genuine,
so beautiful,
it made me cry with hem with their hurt,
go AMERICA keep signing those PATRIOTIC SONGS for all to get it once and for all.
BTW, TOm. This is a GAO study from July 2012, on why many states were not passing on medical records to the NICS. The 61 pg PDF is available, but the short story is that some were because of switching from paper to electronic databases, and others have State laws that prohibit this sharing of the medical records.
The Reid bill would usurp State laws, and force the States to load the medical records, or lose federal funds and pay penalties.
Either way, Congress and the feds are determined to have this sensitive medical information at their fingertips, and how that criteria is decided, and by whom, is what I am wary of the most. T’ain’t about the background check, itself, to me. It’s about what’s put on that background check database.
MATAHarley
how dare the FED hold the finances going to the STATES,
are they abusing their control again this is a threat as I understand it,
there was a blogger who mention there must not be a GUN NATIONAL REGISTRY, he
insist of the danger of it.
bye
Bees, there is no federal gun registry, and there will be no federal gun registry since that is unConstitutional. Already enacted legislation states that such a registration will not be created. Less worried about registries than I am federal databases of people they deem “mentally ill”, and by what method they got that classification.
The feds have every right to withhold federal funds from the States. It’s not the State’s revenue, and they have no automatic claim to such. So feds use that often to get states to comply. They did the same with motorcycle helmet laws, denying the states road funds unless they passed a law requiring helmet usage. It’s no different than you telling your kid that you will dock his allowance if he doesn’t do something you want. Your kid isn’t entitled to that allowance, and you make the rules as to how he can receive it.
@Tom:
I believe that President Obama is politically calculating- and good at it. But I also do not doubt that he is sincere in his emotions and his motives- that he truly wants to protect kids and reduce gun violence. I just disagree with him and gun control advocates that their desired actions will achieve desired outcome. I believe that a number of liberal policies achieve the exact opposite to well-intended, desired results. Well-meaning and misguided.
Derangement Syndrome exists on both sides of the political aisle. There were those Bush-haters who doubted his sincerity whenever he visits wounded soldiers or speaks fondly of the troops- after all, he sent them to war to make his rich oil friends richer.
@Tom:
On the contrary, Tom, it is quite easy to argue that public safety is not the primary concern, if a concern at all. All one has to do is refer to the facts: each one of the recent high-profile gun-violence tragedies have one thing in common… an attention to mental health warning signs would have prevented them. Sandy Hook WOULD have been prevented had the ACLU not blocked legislation that would have helped Nancy Lanza do what she was trying to do (and got her killed); put Adam in an institution.
Aside from the fact that when the object of the proposed legislation, the infamous “assault weapon”, the aforementioned object does not even exist, as available to the public, the entire proposal is a hoax. What would a gun or magazine ban do that stiffer and harsher enforcement of existing laws (and an end to forgiving violent criminals based on their subjection to “social injustice”) would not do much better? How would an “assault weapon” ban or background check have protected little Hadiya Pendleton in Chicago? Her killer(s) are not concerned about laws and have less regard for innocent life than the cred they achieve by throwing down on rival gang members regardless of consequences. They fear not repercussions because, more than likely, they have been there, beaten that.
I would also add that it is equally easy that a nation “awash in easily accessable guns” cannot be declared a safety hazard since, while millions of guns have gone into the hands of law-abiding citizens, violent crime has decreased. So, in fact, it could be easily and readily argued that MORE guns (legally in the hands of citizens, per the 2nd Amendment) leads to safety and peace.
If the entire campaign of the left wasn’t based on emotion and misrepresentation, perhaps they could have achieved some of their goals (as useless as they would have been). All they can do now is hope and pray (to their gods) for another horrendous tragedy to exploit.
@Tom: If you purchase a firearm on the internet it has to be shipped to an FFL regardless if the seller is an FFL or a private citizen. The FFL is the one who phones ATF for the authorization number. A private citizen can’t ship a firearm through the mail either. That can only be done by an FFL. That has been the law for at least 10 years (same for internet sales). Anyone not doing so is in violation of the law. I’ve come across a couple of sellers on the net who said they didn’t want to ship to an FFL. That means they were either a criminal, a scammer, or an undercover ATF agent looking to trap someone. Not sure where the confusion lies as to the background checks.
@Greg: Not the majority. You’re lying and you know it. Polls are, and have been, hopelessly corrupted to show what ever the dem/libs want them to show.
Stop speaking as though you are the “majority” and you have the right to roll over other citizen’s views. In case you didn’t know, we do not live in a “majority rules” nation. We have a political process, and that process was what you saw today.
If we ruled by just letting liberal AP take a poll, we’d be a full-blown fascist state before you could say the word “tyranny.”
@Tom: 90% Not by a long shot.