Which of these gun safety measures passed by the Senate Judiciary committee do you support?

First, I feel that any time anything is voted on along straight party lines say bill should be immediately thrown in the trash without further ado and everyone should start again.
In response to the actual question:
Items I and 2 are the ones I would be in favor of.
Items 3 & 4 I am not.
Item 5 is your typical bullshit, kneejerk, get me re-elected reaction that will result in more regulation, more rights violations, more wasted funds, with no significantly better results than we have at present.

I’m with @rojo, and I would also recommend a new law stating that an individual should be licensed before they are allowed to sell firearms (not just the store), and I’d support a bill that stated you couldn’t purchase your oxycodone prescription, beer, a ski mask, and a rifle in the same shopping trip or from the same location. Do we really need guns and ammo at WalMart?

Why do they not just copy the Japanese Gun Laws?
Also, what do they mean by “strenghten safety at schools”?
Having armed guards all around the place? Turning it into a Gulag for children?
And it would not even work. Fort Hood was a fucking military base and it did not prevent it.

I thought we were requiring background checks for all gun sales all along. I was shocked to find out that we don’t, so #1 is a yes. Making new penalties for gun trafficking – yeah, right! We don’t enforce our laws now. That would be an empty threat. Banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines – that is like locking the barn after the horse escaped. Surely you aren’t suggesting that the police go from house to house, confiscating these items. I think a ban like this will make the sale of said items skyrocket! Safety at the school – Sandy Hook had a state-of-the-art security system to no avail. If someone in the administration had been armed, that would have been the only thing that may have stopped it.

1, 2, and 3. Stiff laws for possession of these, as well. I see no practical use for assault rifles, for hunting, or otherwise. It ruins the meat. And if one is worried about a tyrannical government takeover, an assault rifle will do very little against RPGs, choppers bristling with M-60s, or a flight of fighter jets. Get real. If our military doesn’t defend the constitution like they are sworn to do—and I believe they will—then we are just SOL. The only real defense against this is a proactive, intelligent, constant use of our democracy.

I would also like to see each firearm come from the manufacturer with an FBI-registered ballistics test showing the striation pattern found on the round fired and each firearm registered to the buyer. Each barrel change would require another registered test, or the barrel couldn’t be legally sold. .This would save a lot of police work when these guns are used illegally. Lawful users would have nothing to fear from this.

@Espiritus_Corvus I would point out that we are in our eleventh year in Afghanistan with no end in sight and this was after the Russians gave up and left and that these people started fighting with little more than assault rifles. I believe some even started out with muskets. Just saying.

I’m a liberal Republican and all five are okay by me, and by most people I know.

@rojo: Yes, and the Brits tried before the Russians, and the Persians before that going back to Alexander. Trust me on this. Fat suburbanites who haven’t experienced protracted warfare on their own land since the late 1700’s are not Afghanis. They are little children who dream of an apocolyptic netherworld in which they think they will have more self determination to do as they wish.

@Espiritus_Corvus I don’t agree with banning assault rifles or high-capacity magazines, but love your idea about the ballistics test. Only problem is that guns get stolen so often. I had a break-in at my house in 2008, and they took all of our guns. Most were in a gun safe – they took the safe! One showed up a few years later, someone threw it out of a moving car and it was found on the road. Another showed up at a gun show in Las Vegas. The rest have not surfaced yet.

Most gun owners don’t even claim that their guns are just for hunting. They are for defense.

Unfortunately there really isn’t a good safeguard against the “lone, angry nut.” It is the wildcard in society, whether it be a crazed shooter or a serial killer. The sheer randomness of these acts make them virtually impossible to legislate against.

I’m happy with all of them although like another poster, I question what “strengthen safety in schools” means. Do I think they’ll pass the House? Not a snowball’s chance in hell!

@Skaggfacemutt In that case, that striation pattern can be listed as belonging to a stolen gun, which would be searchable immediately. Provided, of course that the gun was reported stolen. Also, it might be helpful to see which guns are reported stolen after a crime was committed involving that striation pattern.

@Seek_Kolinahr Well, sounds good to me. I would be all for that.

Well put @Espiritus_Corvus

@rojo Well, Thanks, but I forgot the Civil War.

All of them. However, I’m unsure what the school safety one means.

We have background checks now. NICS. Of course they mean nothing if you are outside the law and ignore them all anyway.
It is already against the law to make straw purchases, such as the one Mark Kelly made aka Mr Giffords .He bought an AR 15 and a pistol, I believe, and was intending to turn them over to the police. That is against the law. If the police dept. wants an AR15 they have to go and fill out all the documents and make the buy- not acept one that someone else bought in their name. BAD.

No bans on any kind of firearms or magazines that are in common use today. Not going to solve the root problem. We are going to hear that term alot in the near future: common use. We would really feel better if a criminally insane person takes Joe Biden’s advise. Then slaughters kids with a shotgun? There is no way to make a weapon obtained for self defense only work in that capacity. Anything that is acceptable for defense will do just as much damage in any offensive roll. Its just the way it is.

Safety at schools. I can get behind that one. Schools in the US have already started this. They need people looking out for schools. How they will eventually do it will be up to the school districts but really guys. The gulag comments seem silly referencing guards. It can be done in a way that won’t interfere with school activities. Whats to loose there?

I predict any or all of this will hit the wall when it gets to the House. If any survives the Senate.

@ragingloli “Fort Hood was a fucking military base and it did not prevent it.” Military bases are really communities not unlike any other. There are no weapons there. In fact fewer on base than in the town outside the wire. They are the perfect place to massacre people as they are all unarmed. Had Maj. Hasan attempted that crap an A-stan he would have been cut to pieces in short order.

@woodcutter I don’t understand this: “Had Maj. Hasan attempted that crap an A-stan he would have been cut to pieces in short order.” ???

Check this out- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

The troops in the sandbox are already half nervous because an attack can come from anywhere at any time. They are ready to rock. Those people in Ft Hood didn’t see this coming as is usually the case in mass killings.

I am in support of 1 through 4. I think schools will be plenty safe when handguns and military style weapons are outlawed, so 1 through 4 would help make 5 a reality.

Thanks to all who weighed in.

@woodcutter We do not currently have universal background checks. We have background checks only at gun stores. Gun shows in many places, and private party sales, even from the trunk of a car at a gun show, are exempted from background checks. Therefore, anyone who knows they can’t pass a background check avoids buying where they will be subject to one. That means that felons, people on the terror watch list who can’t board and airline, the criminally insane and people under restraining orders for beating up their spouse buy weapons with ease. The NRA insists that it stay that way, because they are really a lobbying group for the weapons manufacturers. And the NRA has such power with the Republican primary process that the Republican party will simply vote however the NRW wants them to vote. So @rojo, there will NEVER be a piece of gun legislation that will limit weapon’s sales in any way that will pass muster with Republicans—not till they stand up to the NRA. And selling guns to terrorists and drug kingpins is profitable. They want lots of them.

Strange, the idea of armed guards at schools actually came from the NRA. I guess Republicans were against it now because Obama supported it.

@Skaggfacemutt There is no proposal to confiscate anything anyone currently owns. But limiting further sales on things like high capacity magazines would help keep availability down and save some lives, more as time goes on. Where mass shootings have occurred, the shooter was generally stopped when he had to reload. So a 5 shot shotgun wouldn’t be a great choice for a massacre. That is probably why the Batman movie shooter chose an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine instead of a shotgun.

Our gun running laws are certainly enforced. The fact that some people escape charges is not proof that the law is never enforced and should be abandoned or can’t be strengthened. Some people manage to drive drunk and get away with it. Does that mean we should legalize it and allow the liquor industry to start advertizing its benefits? I certainly don’t think so.

It seems to me there are some steps we could take that would reduce mass shootings to some degree. I can’t buy into arguments that nothing can possibly be done. @Espiritus_Corvus’ point on ballistics testing would be a great improvement. It would certainly be a boon to police in tracking down gun crime. It might make criminals a bit more nervous about stealing guns, as well.

”And selling guns to terrorists and drug kingpins is profitable. They want lots of them”. That is interesting. Are you suggesting the administration was aware of the Mexican drug lords receiving weapons the justice dept paid for with our money? Those FAF guns? They were used to kill hundreds of Mexican nationals over time. Many are still out there south and north of the border. But north of the border these dreaded P.D.W.‘S are involved in maybe 2% of gun murders. There might be a believable cause and effect, enough to get support for a ban if they were common place at crime scenes. There is a desperate and emotional need to do something right now to make something happen, even if they go after the wrong boogieman and nothing is solved. It doesn’t matter to gun control groups that a ban would not bear fruit. A ban would look good to voters and the supporters would go down in history for defeating the NRA. And still the gun deaths in many of our urban centers would be coming in as if on a macabre meat packing line. They really want to make handguns go away and if that could be done, (hypothetical), there would be a very noticeable drop in gun homicides within the hour. But right now there is not as much push to ban pistols because the P.D W.‘s in current use are much more scary looking and therefore attract the ire of banners. If they can kill P.D.W.‘s , pistols they feel, would be childsplay. Registering guns is a bad idea for the 2nd amendment to survive. Bad guys are never going to submit paperwork on any of their weapons. Why should we?

@woodcutter How could you draw from my statement above that I am suggesting I have any inside knowledge of who knew what when in the gun walking crap.

I also fail to grasp the logic that registering weapons will cause the 2nd Amendment to somehow disappear. We register automobiles, airplanes, businesses, houses. None of those enjoy special constitutional protection, yet nobody thinks that the government wanted us registering these things so they could come confiscate them.

I am rather more sympathetic to your resistance on banning military assault style rifles. Defining what is and isn’t included in the ban is difficult, and a little engineering leads to a whole new genre that isn’t covered. I think it unlikely to do much good if it is passed. And I think the chance of it passing is nil.

I think we should ban any gun that has a number as part of its’ name.

just kidding guys

But you know, it actually makes as much sense as some of the other proposals put forth

“First, I feel that any time anything is voted on along straight party lines say bill should be immediately thrown in the trash without further ado and everyone should start again.”

Why? Shouldn’t a law be judged on its merits, rather than on whether or not some particular group of politicians is capable of recognizing its merits? The Paycheck Fairness Act was rejected by a vote along party lines. Should I now be convinced that women don’t deserve equal pay?

Yes, you are completely correct. A law should be judged on its merits. I just firmly believe that any time something is acted upon “along straight party lines” any or all objective contemplation of the particular merits of a bill have been tossed aside and are secondary to the need for party loyalty. If the entire fate of a bill is based solely on who put it up then the entire process is flawed and we need to start over and actually give it some thought. I do not expect 100% approval but I expect more than voting against something because the other party put it out there. I can get a simple machine to do that, and for a lot cheaper.
With your own example, do you thing that the merits of the Fair pay bill were even considered in the vote? And if not, would it not have been better to throw it out and demand that it be given the consideration that it deserved?

@rojo I think that anybody considering the merits of the Fair Pay Act would have supported it. Therefore, I think that a straight party line vote against it is not a sign that ALL those voting for it voted along party lines and without consideration of the bill. We now know that even as President Obama was being sworn into office, Republicans held a secret meeting where they agreed their best strategy to regain the White House during times of great financial stress (the Great Recession had not even hit bottom at that point) was to oppose every single thing he supported. They routinely voted no in straight party-line fashion on things that were originally Republican ideas and had always been supported by them pre Obama. So I think throwing out all bills that one party unanimously opposes would be a singularly bad idea in such a political climate.

@ETpro “I also fail to grasp the logic that registering weapons will cause the 2nd Amendment to somehow disappear. We register automobiles, airplanes, business, houses”

Seriously? There are no current efforts nor have there ever been to ban any of those things so, they can be taken for granted that they are safe. They won’t become a political football. We all can agree that a registered gun….just as deadly as one that is not registered? Not going to do anything to stop someone from doing anything bad hell, even Bobby Rush was heard saying that his total gun registration scheme will not stop crime but, it is a step in the right direction.

The right direction? which way is that anyway? The only useful thing a gun registry is good for is to let authorities know right where all the guns are to facilitate confiscation later. No need to be college educated to understand this. You know this. Right now emotions are high for gun control and when that happens some people want something done…anything even if all it does is make people feel that they did something, forget the fact it was only well intentioned knee jerk action that did nothing useful. Then all the legislators can report back to their districts they did something. You really think any of these so called leaders think they will gain much from this? Of course they did not. That’s the game.

There have been bans on continued sales of various weapons. But confiscations? Which ones? Enlighten me on all the times the federal government has rounded up an entire class of previously legal weapons. I’m unaware of any such thing happening.

It’s ridiculous to say registration is only useful to help authorities confiscate weapons. That’s as silly as claiming the same for automobile registration. Registration is a quick way to make sure that a firearm actually belongs to the person carrying it.

“You really think any of these so called leaders think they will gain much from this? Of course they did not.” So they pushed this legislation because they knew it wouldn’t work and would do them no good? I’m sorry. With logic like that, I can’t see much point discussing this further. What will be will be anyway. We will see.

I agree, I just feel that any bill that has that divisive a split in the vote has not had the reading, comprehension and consideration that something that is about to become the law of the land deserves. The bill deserves better. WE deserve better.
And, while I feel the Republicans have taken this tactic to new heights, the Dems are not completely blameless. Perhaps the founding fathers were right in there desire not to have political parties. Or, perhaps we need more of them. Whichever is the case, the two party system (or as I like to think of it, the two factions of one party) is breaking down and we need serious adjustments to our system of government.

@rojo About the party system breaking down, I totally agree. It’s just not clear to me what the fix will be.

@ ETpro A ban on any class of firearms is the same effect as confiscation. Only delayed. Those that have them already in their possession will get to keep them but they are dead men walking (the guns) because there will be no way to repair or service them when needed because there is sure to be a ban on parts also. Those two go hand in hand. Plus it will make it a legal quagmire for them to be transferred to next of kin when it’s time.

Just because we haven’t seen confiscations in our past is no reason to believe there will not be if the political climate permits one day. Having them all on file will make it all possible. Barring that it will be a guessing game for lawmen to do this and negate any attempts to try.

”With logic like that, I can’t see much point discussing this further. What will be will be anyway. We will see.”

oh no you didn’t

@rojo It seems to me that the problem you raise is with the process, not the bill. So it’s not that the bill should be tossed out, since that will just lead to the same broken process creating the same bill and getting the same party line vote. What’s needed is a change to the way we do business. This is a much more difficult task, of course, but a much more worthwhile one.

@SavoirFaire You are correct, it is the process I have problems with. I was not really commenting on a particular bill but on the fact that many times we have legislators who have no inkling what is in a bill because they do not feel the need to review it after being told how they are to vote by the party leadership (and I use this term loosely).

It will be and always has come down to the vote tally for and against, not so much which side is really more just. The simple truth here is, is that democrats like their guns also ,and the NRA will make sure they win elections to the best of their ability. If you think about this, America really shouldn’t even need an organization like the NRA but as the attacks against gun rights keep-a-coming as if on a conveyor belt sometimes ,it will only serve to make it bigger and stronger, never to atrophy due to a lack of purpose.

• Require background checks for all gun sales
I am not entirely positive what I think about background checks. Although in theory they sound quite logical, I fear that it is another step in the wrong direction. If it were 30 years ago, I am quite sure that I would support it. These days though, I feel that requiring background checks for everyone who purchases a gun opens the door to more and more gun regulation – most of which I have zero interest in.
As another thought, Lanza (the man involved in the newtown shooting) did not even own the guns that he used. Holmes, who did the Colorado movie theatre shooting, did not have any background which would have prevented him from getting a gun(s).
__
• Create new federal offenses for gun trafficking
I agree. Gun trafficking is a serious crime that ought to be duly punished. If someone can’t or won’t obtain a gun legally there’s an issue.
__
• Ban military-style assault weapons
I disagree. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Infringe = Act so as to limit or undermine
Whether or not registration, or background checks is an infringement on our gun rights can be debated, but banning certain types of guns is very clearly unconstitutional.
Here is a testimony that shows this point. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151312030446726
__
• Ban high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition
Quite a silly regulation actually. I am not even a huge gun person, and I still know that if you practice a bit, it takes very little time whatsoever to change a magazine. Such a regulation is just not going to be very effective in saving lives.
Not to mention the fact that it limits gun ownership, and is therefore unconstitution nomatter what someone says. The constitution doesn’t have exceptions included.
__
• Strengthen safety at schools
What’s that supposed to mean? I’m in favor of requiring alarms at doors, etc. but I do not want teachers armed. That’s just asking for trouble.

Most parent weapons that were copied to build these fake assault weapons otherwise known as PDW’s came with the standard capacity magazines that total 30 rounds. They are not high capacity at all. 31 rds makes the leap to the high cap zone. a little factoid. So we limit them to ten = ineffective move. The people who want this to happen all have their hearts in the right place but in reality, any person can bundle low cap mags together to expediently get a bigger magazine thus negating anything that was hoped for. Or how about this: just change them out when they run out. And lets all not forget the other side of this whole deal, and that is honest people would be limited in their options after any kind of gun bastardization scheme that makes owning these effective weapons a burden only to them, not the criminally inclined.
Kalifornistan makes all AR owners install their now famous “bullet button” that makes getting an empty magazine out of the weapon impossible unless they use a small pointy object to press the release. Their bad guys out there don’t have to use this devise. That sound fair? All these well intentioned gun solutions can so easily be undone by anyone who want to undo them.
Keep violent people in prison forever, period. But OOOOOhhhhhh no, the bleating hearts will wail that is cruel. Stop the war on drugs and use the savings to house the misfits. Next make all SSRI’s illegal . Do it tonight. If you feel depressed burn a joint already and call me in the morning. But there is too much money tied up with big pharma pedaling these dangerous substances to everyone they can, that it won’t happen. It’s much easier to blame gun manufacturers.

@genjgal How is unlimited access to military arsenals, even for the criminally insane and terrorist, part of a well regulated militia? Other parts of the bill of rights guarantee the right of the people peaceably to assemble. I would assume that includes the expectation of not getting shot. Is the second amendment, or in truth, just a small part of it, the only part of the Constitution that matters?

@ETpro Many people do seem to like to gloss over the “Well Regulated” part of the 2nd amendment.

@ETpro “How is unlimited access to military arsenals, even for the criminally insane and terrorist, part of a well regulated militia”

I dearly wish you could clarify that sir. Like what is a real military arsenal? Because it has gotten tough to tell if you’re being shrill or do you know something scary that others don’t.

@woodcutter Do you think that terrorist should be allowed to buy AR-15s with 100 round clips because they are what the founders had in mind when they spoke of a well regulated militia?

@ETpro What terrorists? Where? This is just another attempt to scare the hell out of us. The terror angle has been just another tool to frighten us into letting go of our rights for our own collective good. Trust us they say. Please. If someone has never committed a crime ever, they are innocent. If any real “terrorists” get a weapon you can bet the bank the U.S. govt facilitated it. We are just waiting for a govt created false flag to justify tougher laws that would virtually price the second amendment out of existence. I really wish those who claim to be pro 2A would be honest and include this in their argument. Economics run or destroy everything. It’s getting to the point that anyone who is a law abiding voting tax payer can be labelled a terrorist if they buy their target ammo in bulk to get the better deal. Who needs all that ammo? Must be some kind of terrorist. If that is true than I am also a terrorist. See how easy it is to be a terrorist in this country?

Nobody has even discussed how many millions of dollars each year it will cost to properly maintain a gun data base. We are broke. The Canadians did this for years with the RCMP admitting this info was less than useless in solving crimes. So they dismantled their long gun registry recently. Many Canadians never registered their guns at the onset of this, so the registry was inaccurate from day one. Same thing would happen here but in drastically higher numbers.

But hell, lets just create another costly bureaucracy anyway for history’s sake.
Let’s be clear. Because we all understand this. The real aim from the left is to slowly chip away at 2A over time to get to the point where only the police and govt actors have weapons. Been done before in our world history with really crappy outcomes These so called “common sense” controls are a means to the end. Of course they will never come out and admit this but they don’t need to.

So now you deny that there is such a thing as a terror watch list? The level od absurdity just keeps rising.

@ETpro So many people get thrown on that list for no reason at all. Depending on how much money and influence a person has they may be able to get their name off it. Others who are on that list are going to find it hard to buy any guns at all, or fly. Not implying there is no list, man ,so no absurdity intended. Stop the manufacture of box cutters. Now that would be absurd.

@woodcutter Thanks. That’s close enough to reality for me.

Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond! I’ve typed up a response twice, but each time I’ve been interrupted and lost what i wrote.

@ETpro It seems to me that

and what do you know i just got interrupted again…perhaps someday i will find time to write this. :/

@genjgal Write it up in a text file and then post it all at once.

@genjgal, Feel the force around you. Wisdom, speaks @SavoirFaire. The dark side interrupt your efforts, do not allow. With a text editor or word processor, write. Cut then paste, do.

Finally …haha!
@ETpro It seems to me that you have distorted what I said. Since the Gun Control Act of 1968, felons are not allowed to possess any guns. This obviously includes military style weapons. According to my knowledge, Felons (or-ex felons) can only possess guns if: they have their civil rights restored, they are pardoned of their felony, or they petition the BATF and have their gun rights restored.
This article explains far more than I know about gun laws, and I strongly recommend reading it. http://www.williamslawonline.com/Press-Room/Top-10-Things-Know-About-Federal-Gun-Law.shtml
Automatic weapons have been banned since the 1930’s. Let us not mentally confuse semi-automatic with automatic.

Also, it’s far simpler to know who is a terrorist in theory, than it is in practice.

On another note, military style weapons ought not to be our greatest concern. [In saying that I do not mean to insinuate that we should not be concerned with them at all.] Although there have been horrible exceptions, assault weapons are not the gun of choice in gun crime. In Chicago, where murder is all too common, pistols are the gun of choice – even in gang shootings. “Assault” weapons are not easily portable or easily concealed.

In response to your point about the right of the people to peaceably assemble-
No. People (government or civilian) should not walk into peoples peaceable gatherings and shoot them up. But does this mean that we should disregard the 2nd amendment and disarm the people so that civilians do not disrupt other people’s gatherings. That doesn’t seem like a very good solution. Is the 1st amendment, or in truth, just a small part of it, the only part of the Constitution that matters?

@genjgal I’m glad you finally got that post together, so that I can deconstruct it’s flimsy logic. So long as it is dead easy to buy a gun without any criminal background check, felons have NO PROBLEM buying the gun they will use in their next felony. 89% of Americans, and even 75% of NRA Members support universal background checks. What’s the problem with instituting that measure alone?

Felons also have others who have clean records buy guns for them. That’s called a straw purchase, and while it’s currently against the law, it carries a slap-on-the-wrist penalty while it can provide handsome profits for those willing to do it. One of the Senate measures is to elevate straw purchases to a felony.

Evan Ebel, the White Supremacist parolee gunned down the Colorado State Prison Chief Tom Clements at his front door, and quite likely also shot to death pizza delivery man Nathan Leon on March 17th. Ebel subsequently shot at Texas State Troopers, provoking a high speed chase that ended in his crashing his car, shooting it out with pursuing troopers, and being killed by them. The gun he used was bought in a straw purchased legally by 22 year old Stevie Marie Vigil in a straw purchase. What harm will it do to legitimate, law abiding citizens 2nd amendment rights to own a firearm if we clamp down on straw purchases?

The argument that criminals will break the law is absurd propaganda spread by the gun industry’s lobbying group, the NRA, in a deliberate attempt to inflate industry profits by letting them sell to felons, terrorists and the criminally insane.

Certainly, laws don’t stop all crime, but they do stop some. It this were not so, then there would be no point having ANY laws. Drunks should be permitted to drive because some people will drive drunk even when it is against the law. Bullshit. At least, we can lock up repeat drunk drivers because we have a law. And if we have universal background checks and stong laws against straw purchases, we can lock up some criminals before they kill.

It’s equally bullshit to claim that because it can be difficult to identify who is and isn’t a terrorist, we should just sit back and wait for the next 9/11. Would you send a letter to the various fundamentalist Islamist groups operating today inviting them to attack us again, because we aren’t going to even try to stop them? Does 1 failure mean you abandon all effort? That’s beyond ridiculous. When ever increasing profits for gun manufacturers require such absurd arguments as that, but they only prove that if corporations are people, they are psychopaths.

No law ever written by any body ever stopped a crime….ever. How can an idea, which is what a law is, have the physical power to force compliance? The only time these laws carry any bite at all is after the fact. (Damage done). Some compliance however, can be levied under the force of fear of punishment. If that Idea was truly sound why are the prisons so overcrowded?

@woodcutter What utter nonsense. Millions of people have been arrested BEFORE they were able to carry out their planned crime. If I must, I can list dozens of links. A Google search will find you millions.

Our prisons are so overcrowded (we are 5% of the world population but house 25% of the world’s prison population) because of our idiotic method of dealing with drug crime.

EVERY TIME I make a gun purchase I have to fill out a long form (ATF form 4473) where the seller makes a live phone call to the FBI (NICS). If there is anything that looks out of place since the last time they looked at me the sale is stopped. What’s wrong with that check? Seems thorough enough to me.

The interrupted crimes you are looking at there were not halted by the laws themselves. They were stomped by police work. The fact they were stopped is because they were in progress to begin with. I find it hard to believe these people didn’t know they were doing something wrong before they got busted. Laws on the books technically do not stop anyone who is motivated from breaking them. People will always try and out of the ones that were successfully stopped how many more do you think were not? Let’s both go out on a limb and say at least twice as many? 5 times as many?....10 times as many?

Drug crimes? Dollars to donuts these so called victims of the drug war are doing hard time because of crimes of a heinous nature in conjunction with drug action thrown in. Petty drug offenses often are being pleaded down to house arrest or less, if not even prosecuted at all.

This link you have stating 75% of NRA members want universal background checks is bogus. The NRA has taken their own member poll did you participate? and there is nary a consensus among real members on this.I call propaganda: set in place to trick the blue dogs into throwing away their seats next year.

Your state may mandate universal background checks, or you may just not chose to buy in venues that don’t require them. This may come as a big shock, but your experience is not universal.

This just keeps getting more absurd with each post. Police work is useless if there is no law against the activity they detect. And no, most people doing hard time are there either for simple possession or because they are addicts turning to crime to support their habits. Other more enlightened nations attack the root problem of addiction. We just warehouse them on the first offense alongside hardened felons, who teach them the tools of the trade to support their habit when they get out.

The NRA is a lobbying front for arms manufacturers. They lie like a rug. There are a whole series of polls from independent polsters with no axe to grind and solid reputations. I picked one that was on the low end. You turn for your truth to the fox in the hen house. Enough of this ridiculousness.

You are trying to tell us if drugs were legal, users of them would somehow stay out of prison? Legal dope is just as life destroying as illegal dope. Dopers who can legally use will still need money to buy the drug of choice, and they will still be unemployed, thus having no money. They will take your money to do what they are accustomed to.They may kick the side of your face off to get it, and then they go off to prison for aggravated battery. Welcome back Homey. And so on. Yeah Yeah, yeah, everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, We get it. A long time ago. The question becomes: “Is gun control worth it?” To enact“for show” laws that all know will have a minimal effect. http://americasfuture.org/doublethink/2013/03/for-democrats-is-gun-control-worth-the-effort/

No, I am saying that nations that handle addiction in a more enlightened way don’t lead the entire world in their incarceration rate. The fact we do tells you we’re doing something very wrong.

I categorically reject the idea that when we recognize a problem, we should then go stick our head in the sand and not even look for an answer to it, because problems can not be solved. I don’t even believe you believe that. You wouldn’t be alive today if you did.

Here are the proposals that will have real impact on reducing gun violence.
  1   Universal background checks.
  2   Tough laws against straw purchases.
  3   Limit clip capacity to 10 rounds.

Why limit law abiding Americans to 10 round mags? 10 rd mags are woefully short in a desperate situation where there is more than one assailant. It happens right here in the U S. It’s unrealistic to assume how many times someone may need to fire to stop a threat,(s), as if it is supposed to come out even when it’s all over. I prefer to have some left over after an incident. A motivated killer will bring many guns (Aurora Co,Sandy Hook, Columbine), to a shooting each with a 10 round mag, as well as pockets full of them. There is no net reduction of potential fire power here. This is a fear mongering feel good idea.

The cops have these kinds of weapons and magazines for their own self defense on the job because they are effective. Tell us how the self defensive needs (remember the cops are not the first responders, they are the last responders), for the cops are more than the self defensive needs for the rest of us. Are we somehow more expendable? Our families are secondary to theirs? How many chances in a lifetime does one get, to die? Hopefully once in a lifetime the one that is old age, or some other affliction but certainly not at the hands of another person. This kind there is something that can be done to stop. You can argue this will never happen but I hope you are too smart for that.
I can get behind straw purchase fraud but that is already a federal crime, is it not? Can’t get much tougher than the feds. You can make a law to outlaw private sales but how to enforce? The fact that they are private means both parties don’t want anyone to find out. If I want to sell a gun of mine to my son or friend I should be able to. So many people who try to get a gun and fail the checks because they are a felon almost always go free. Why is that? But then again if someone somehow forgets they were in prison and is brazen enough to try anyway is stupid, and using the law of averages, will be in prison again….just for that reason and activities related to criminal acts.

The only way universal background checks would have the mechanism for a chance to work is for there to be total gun registration, period. This right here is the deal killer. It’s a BIGGIE .
And really, there isn’t a draft that has been agreed upon what exactly a Universal background check would be. Lots of ideas floating around. People want to see what this is before we can expect to think about doing this. It’s not going to work to vote this in and then define what it is after the fact. Sorry no bait and switch on this.

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. There is no constitutional right to smoke dope. Unless it can be strung into a right some way to include this as a right but even then, probably wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.

Check this out http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=41704&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=20130328social-facebook-NRAMy

Our town just ok’d the purchase of 67 new Smith & Wesson M&P15 assault rifles with tactical accessories (according to the article they already have 60 weapons of this type) and enough “specialized body armor” to equip 76 officers. Ostensibly, this is in response to a sheriff being killed last year while serving an eviction notice. Part of the justification for this is that they will make some of the money back on a “buyback program” where the officers have the option to purchase and retain their individual service weapons.
Ah, Texas.

@ETpro I agree with #2.
#1…like I said earlier…if it were a different day in age I’d surely agree…but I’m not sure that I do. I’m on the fence regarding background checks.

#3. I disagree strongly. Could you explain how this would make a difference?

@genjgal Sorry, I missed the above response and question. No, I can’t. I personally do not support banning assault weapons. I would support reasonable limits on size of clips, however.

An update on this same old question:

This just in: Even though 89% of people in the Granite state supported the background check legislation, last week, at a No More Names rally in Concord, NH, gun violence survivor John Cantin was heckled by a group of pro-gun supporters of Senator Kelly Ayotte. An especially aggressive heckler got extremely personal, but still John refused to be intimidated, and bravely continued to share his story.

Please take a minute to watch this shocking video, then share it with your friends and family: http://nomorenames.org/johncantinwatchandshare/

Getting shot seems to make a person an expert on individual rights and public policy.

@woodcutter What, exactly, it your point?

The speaker’s daughter was shot and killed because an abusive ex-husband was able to buy the gun to kill her. The speaker thought it would be a good idea to have universal background checks so that wouldn’t be so easy to do in the future. Seems to me he has more perspective on rights (like the right to not get murdered) and public policy than the asshole who asked him such irrelevant questions and went on to provoke a fight with 4 armed police officers just there to do their job.

Here is your information on backgrownd checks. You might be pleased to know they also have been building an illegal registry at the same time. And please dude stop shooting down every motherfucking link i try to help you with. You’re not that goddamned elitist are you? http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/korwin-nics-get-saved.htm If you understand how data entry works it will make better sense to you.

And on the crying victim props these anti gun promoters use. They need to stop. People get killed in this world every day. Deal with it. If these same people would gather together all the people who have stopped real threats with a firearm, including yourself ,they would drown out the one’s on the loosing side.

Gun homicides are dropping significantly since the 1990’s but do any of your favorite news sources ever cheer this? No it ends up on page 3 somewhere tucked into the rest of the shit no one reads.