Ballot may determine gun control measures

After struggling to sway both state and federal lawmakers, proponents of expanding background checks for gun sales are now exploring whether they will have more success by taking the issue directly to voters.
Associated Press
Apr 29, 2013


While advocates generally prefer that new gun laws be passed through the legislative process, especially at the national level, they are also concerned about how much sway the National Rifle Association has with lawmakers.

Washington Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Democrat who had sponsored unsuccessful legislation on background checks at the state level, said a winning ballot initiative would make a statement with broad implications.

"It's more powerful if the voters do it — as opposed to our doing it," Pedersen said. "And it would make it easier for the Legislature to do even more."

On Monday, proponents of universal background checks in Washington will announce their plan to launch a statewide initiative campaign that would require the collection of some 300,000 signatures, according to a person involved in the initiative planning who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the official announcement.

The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility has scheduled a fundraiser in Seattle at the end of next month and hopes to have a campaign budget in the millions of dollars.

Ballot measures may be an option elsewhere, too. Hildy Saizow, president of Arizonans for Gun Safety, said an initiative is one of the things the group will be considering as it reconsiders strategies. An organizer in Oregon was focused on the Legislature for now but wouldn't rule out a ballot measure in the future if lawmakers fail to pass a proposed bill there.

While advocates have had recent success on background checks in places like Connecticut and Colorado, they've been thwarted in some other states and in Congress. The U.S. Senate rejected a plan to expand background checks earlier this month, although lawmakers in the chamber are still working to gather additional votes.

Brian Malte, director of mobilization at the national nonprofit lobbying group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said passage through Congress is the ideal in order to have a national solution and so that states with strong gun laws aren't undermined by nearby states with weaker standards. He noted that initiative campaigns are costly endeavors that can drain important, limited resources.

Still, Malte said, the ballot measures are an option to consider.

"At some point, certainly decisions need to be made about what the right time is to say we take it to the people," Malte said.

Brian Judy, a lobbyist who represents the NRA in Washington state, did not return calls seeking comment about the new initiative. He has previously said the NRA would likely oppose such an effort, arguing that the recently proposed laws on background checks would largely impact law-abiding citizens instead of the intended targets such as criminals and the mentally ill.

Gun measures have had mixed results at the ballot. More than 70 percent of Washington state voters rejected a 1997 initiative campaign that would have required handgun owners to pass a safety course. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, voters in Colorado and Oregon approved ballot measures the next year to require background checks for buying weapons at gun shows.

Following another massacre in Colorado earlier this year, state lawmakers approved a bill to expand background checks to private transactions and online purchases. A similar expansion plan in Oregon is stalled in the state Senate.

Some states don't see initiatives as a viable option right now. In Missouri, state Rep. Stacey Newman has been pushing for background checks with little success. While she spoke positively about the idea of a ballot initiative, she said there's no serious consideration of it because of the cost and coordination required just to get it on the ballot. Instead, the supporters of background checks in the state are simply working to prevent NRA-supported legislation from passing the state's General Assembly.

"We're continually on defense," she said.

Gun buyers currently must undergo a background check when they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer but can avoid checks in most states by using private purchases, such as at gun shows.

Washington state advocates believe polls show the public is sufficiently on the side of expanding background checks further. An independent Elway Poll conducted two months ago found that 79 percent of registered voters in Washington state supported background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions.

That wasn't enough to shepherd the bill through the Legislature. Even in the state House, which is controlled by Democrats, supporters fell short after an NRA campaign put pressure on some lawmakers. Pedersen had offered concessions through the process, including the option of sending the measure out for a public vote and exemptions for people who already have concealed pistol licenses or law enforcement credentials.

Pedersen said he was working with the initiative organizers on language for the proposal, and he said the Legislature would first have another chance to adopt the measure early next year. If it fails among lawmakers again, the proposal would then automatically go to the ballot, where Pedersen said he welcomed a campaign competing against groups like the NRA.

"I'm not afraid of it at all," Pedersen said. "The public is really with us. It's the right policy. I think it can be useful for further progress."



Señor Clown

Why do background checks keep coming up as the proposed solution to gun violence? The article references the support for them after the Columbine shootings, and again now, but in both instances the shootings took place with STOLEN GUNS. Can we effectively perform background checks on people looking to steal a firearm? The solution to this problem is much more complex than any proposal of 'more laws' or 'tougher laws' can address, but sensationalism is good for politics...

looking around

Background checks are a good place to start along with listing the guns and their serial numbers on your permit as some states do already. Then if a gun is stolen from you, it is more likely you will report it as if it turns up in the hands of a criminal and the serial number has not been filed off it could be traced back to you.....then we need to look into how you store your guns. If not in a responsible manner then maybe you should be charged as well. Serial numbers should be put on guns in multiple places as automobiles to further allow for traceability. If you sell a gun in private sale, it must be reported and removed from your list of guns along with the identification of the purchaser. Let's get it on the Ballot!


So if I am a person, living in a dangerous area and have my gun in my dresser drawer (because lets face it, I don't have time to run to my gun safe in the basement, fiddle with the combo in the dark, tell the burglars to hold on a minute...grab my gun) and lets just say my house is broken into while I am out to dinner that evening. They steal everything, including my gun that I have for personal protection. You are saying I should be charged?

If so, what happens if they just haul my safe out and take all my guns by easily cutting my safe apart off location? Or what if I had my handgun in a small personal safe that they broke apart with a crowbar while they were robbing my house?

Bottom line is they broke into my house, and stole my possessions. Why should I be charged.

looking around

We have gone through this before! Have your gun or guns at the ready if you feel the need, they are in your possession. But if you leave the house be responsible and store your weapons and ammo properly so that they may not fall into the wrong hands. If someone makes off with your safe report the theft and let authorities know exactly the full content of the safe. That being done, as a responsible gun owner it is doubtful you would be charged with anything however if you were not storing you weapons in a responsible manner, then let the chips fall where they may. YOUR GUNS ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! Even the military, and gun shop owners take due precautions to prevent theft. In the military on base not in a war zone, the weapons and ammunition are stored and issued when needed, all ammunition and weapons must be accounted for after the training exercise. Go ask a gun dealer how he stores his weapons when the store is locked up for the night.


I see EXACTLY what you're saying! You're saying that

• If somebody steals my car (which I have no alternative but to park on the street), I'm liable for any accidents since I didn't have it secured in a garage.

• If somebody steals my XBox and later goes on a school shooting rampage, it's my fault for the bad guy being able to play games which MIGHT have inspired him.

• If somebody steals my lawn mower and then tries to clean it while it's running, I have to pay the medical bills because the storage shed was too flimsy to stand up to a determined burglar.

If any of these things AREN'T true, then why would it be true if somebody broke into my locked home and found a hidden firearm that they later used in the commission of a criminal act? Many things in my house — and yours! — could POTENTIALLY be deadly. Granted, if I personally use any of those things to kill somebody, I'm entirely liable. But if somebody else does, why in God's name would you even THINK to blame ME?

looking around

Your automobile has anti theft devices built into it, try telling your insurance company that your car was stolen because you left the keys in it...the police ask that first thing when your car is stolen. Once reported stolen you rarely would have any liability for its use unless you loaned it to or made available use authorized or not to someone you know. You are required insurance on your automobile by law.

I copy paste here some information I found on an insurance site.

Sometimes the owner of a motor vehicle can be liable for injuries caused by the driver of their car, even though they are neither driving nor at the accident scene, on the basis of their ownership and their grant of permission for the at-fault driver to use the car.
Vicarious Liability for Car Owners

Where a car owner lets another person drive a car, most jurisdictions will treat the car owner as sharing liability for any accident caused by the borrower. The car owner's liability may be predicated on statute, or on common law principles such as negligent entrustment. From a public policy perspective, owner liability helps ensure that there will be insurance coverage for the accident, as the owner of a car will typically be insured. A borrower of a car is less likely to be insured.

Owner liability ordinarily involves the permissive use of a vehicle. That is, the owner gives the borrower permission to use the car, or knowingly acquiesces in their use of the vehicle. Depending upon state law, in the event of an accident a member of the owner's household may be presumed to be driving with the owner's permission.

Owner liability does not ordinarily extend to non-permissive uses of a car, although an owner's negligence may sometimes cause liability to follow even where a car is stolen. For example, some jurisdictions will hold an owner liable if they leave the keys in the ignition of the car, and their car is stolen and subsequently involved in an accident.

Where the owner of a vehicle is a government agency, sovereign immunity may apply.

X-boxs have no regulation so it is not even a good example and rather silly don't you think?

Lawn Mower as well is a bad example...but if he starts it on your property and is injured you might be surprised at your liability....hope you have good homeowners insurance.

As pointed out before it is your responsibility to see to it that your weapons don't fall into the wrong hands. If they are stolen you better report the theft ASAP. If it was found you did not take precautions to make sure your weapon could be used by another in the commission of a crime, then by all means you should be held responsible.As it is now If you store a weapon irresponsibly and your kid gets a hold of it and in the process of showing his buddy your weapon and injures or kills that person you are liable.

The key is proper and responsible storage. The word negligence come to mind.

Here is an interesting link:

Don't confuse items in your home which could be used as a weapon with actual firearms which by design are understood to be lethal weapons. Your responsibility pertaining to the later should be understood.

9/11 terrorists gained control of aircraft and used them in the commission of a crime, The Airlines were still held accountable and liable to an extent, they and their insurers had to defend themselves in court.


I agree that leaving the doors unlocked and the keys in the car are an invitation. But what if the doors ARE locked and the keys NOT in the car? Is it STILL my fault if somebody takes it? And I'm not talking your "permissive usage" here. I'm well aware that's a different story.

So. My house is locked up. Neither my X-box NOR my guns are readily or carelessly available to ANYbody. And yet somebody takes a sledgehammer to the back door. Do you blame me, now, for the robbery? Or just for the beating committed using the baseball bat the thieves stole from my son's room (where, wonder of wonders, it was actually put away and NOT out in plain sight to "tempt" anybody)?

P.S. As far as X-boxes not having regulation, you're right; they don't. But the ugly head of censorship is rearing yet again where X-box (and other) games are concerned. I didn't use that as an example quite as cavalierly as you seem to think!

looking around

I replied a few links that shed light on negligence and liability written by experts in the field. Don't take responsibility lightly unless you feel you have an iron clad defense.


“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom.

When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”

― Edward Gibbon

Eph 2 8-10

What is needed is people control.....


Are there already laws on the books making it illegal to shoot school children?

No new gun laws - better enforcement of the present ones.


People control! We need background checks to regulate scum bags and illiterate people from propagating! Would background checks have prevented the recent knife attacks? You see those don't make the news. Their not as dramatic as a shooting.


Up or down vote by the people.

end of story.


Remember: Chancellor Hitler was popularly elected.


In Illinois, the elected members of the Democrat (Socialist) Party have ignored the 2nd Amend. for decades.

SURE, "this time" is different. :)

2cents's picture

Kimo, do you know why the Bill of Rights exists? It didn't, you know, when the Constitution was written and distributed for ratification. It ended up being appended before any vote to ensure that the tyranny of the majority could never, NEVER infringe the unalienable rights of the individual.

Shall we vote next on what religion(s) are "inappropriate" or "unpalatable" or "nonsensical?" If not, WHY not? I mean, if the majority votes to outlaw a given religion, doesn't that make it okay?

Maybe we should vote on whether or not we should get rid of the Fifth Amendment. If you did something wrong, shouldn't you HAVE to confess? I'm betting you could get a majority vote on that one any day of the week!

On the other hand, why waste time doing this piecemeal? Let's just outlaw FREEDOM! Yeah, THAT'S the ticket!

"Liberty requires responsibility. That is why most men dread it." George Bernard Shaw


In the liberal-socialist alternative Constitutional universe, the 2nd Amendment guarantees a citizen's right to hunt.


I'm sure that's the understandable result of "the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly have known about modern-day weapons — they just wanted us to be able to have muskets!" argument.

Not being unreasonable, I'm willing to make a deal with that particular crowd. If they give up their freedom of speech on the Internet (which SURELY the Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined); and if they give up their Fourth Amendment rights where GPS tracking and computers is concerned (even Benjamin Franklin might be surprised by those little marvels!); and if they give up their Sixth Amendment rights (California's already working that one by suggesting illegals serve on juries); and if they're willing to set aside their Eighth Amendment rights to punish law-abiding gun owners for crimes committed with stolen weapons; well, frankly, I'm pretty sure THEY deserve what they get. It's just the REST of us who don't!


This thing would get shot down easily by the people voting.


Nobody says universal background checks will end gun violence. But it will help. Nobody claims limiting the size of magazines will end gun violence. But it will likely save some lives.

These are simple, easy common sense measures. If criminals get guns illegally it gives law enforcement something to charge them with before a crime is committed, instead of waiting until after the crime is committed.

This is not rocket science, people.

I take a vitamin pill every day. It won't prevent cancer and I still have to exercise and watch what I eat. But it helps.

Please think for yourselves. You don't need the libs and you sure don't need the NRA to figure this out.


Read some stories on how firearms saved lives:

News that the socialist controlled media doesn't want the public to hear about.

looking around

Really! A link to the NRA.......that's not biased is it? How about some links to stories about gun owners using bad judgment and consequently being charge with criminal charges, Like the Tampa block watch case in court now. How about weapons recovered by law enforcement being traced back to irresponsible owners? The NRA has run those story's as a regular feature in their rag for decades but they seldom report the full story or aftermath of events.

Here is something to think about:


@ looking around:

Merely attempting to demean the source does not disprove the content.


Okay, ignore the NRA. Fair enough. Just set yourself a Google news alert for "self defense," "gun self defense," and similar phrases. I regularly see a dozen stories a DAY, and from a variety of sources.

Conservatively speaking, guns SAVE between 1 and 2 million lives a year. Sorta makes any murder stats pale in comparison, don't it...

looking around

In your example, a person legally owning a gun uses deadly force to thwart a crime being committed against him, was the perpetrator armed? If so where do you suppose he got the weapon? You better understand the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force. I have nothing against a legally armed citizen protecting himself or another if justified, but be prepared to defend your actions and face the liability if it is found you were not within your rights. . My big issue is with people not being a responsible gun owner....I've seen to much of it. It amazes me how many gun owners take their responsibility so lightly and their supposed rights so literally.

Here is something to think about:

The Big Dog's back

sam, you see a dozen stories a day because it's the same story bouncing around the right wing echo chamber.


Thanks for clarifying. I was unaware that "Kansas" was just another word for "Florida!" I also had no clue that the AP represents the "right wing echo chamber." You might want to contact them to let THEM know. I'm pretty sure they're convinced they're just the opposite!

Thanks again —

Kottage Kat

Good read
Bookmarked this for future reference
Thank u 4 posting


rubbish from a relative



2cents's picture

What's the "game plan"?

The political ruling class (nomenklatura) creates so many new and complicated laws that it becomes next to impossible for any "law abiding" citizen not to be a criminal.

From "Atlas Shrugged":

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?”, said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age of beautiful gestures.

We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.

One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone?

But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt.

Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

Say what you will about Ayn Rand, but she grew up in the USSR, she understood what it meant to live under authoritarian rule.


I did ask a question some time ago about ideas for background checks for people buying guns at gun shows or from private individuals. Nobody answered my question.

Instead of back ground checks on people, why not have a list of people prohibited from buying or owning guns? The Ohio sheriffs already do background checks on people who desire to have a CCW license. I don't like giving up state rights to the federal government. There are many ways for states to regulate the sale of guns to those who should not have them.

I have a motorcycle endorsement on my driver's license. Yet people without a MC endorsement will break the law and ride anyway. An endorsement to buy firearms could be put on a driver license or identity card. If an individual lacks the firearms endorsement, then no gun sales to that person.

Voters in general are not informed or will vote party lines. It appears that the Democrats want more gun control legislation yet the laws already passed are not enforced. Outlaws will not follow the laws. Voters will vote in corrupt people into office and vote out the decent and honest people.

In Cuyahoga County, Ohio voters almost voted in a corrupt judge that the FBI and Plain Dealer newspaper exposed yet the voters almost voted in this corrupt judge because she had a "D" behind her name.

On the local levels in Perkins Township, in Erie County, Ohio, the voters booted out an honest and well qualified Fiscal Officer and voted in an unqualified person with no experience who then asked for money to hire an assistant.

Putting the gun control issue on a ballot for the voters is a poor idea. There are better options out there to keep guns away from those who should not have them.

looking around

They had a chance to put in place reformed law but the gutless wonders couldn't do it because they feared retaliation from lobby's such as the NRA when election time rolled around. So now it may end up in the voters hands. My bet is that it will pass and will be even more stringent then what was originally proposed.

S w Rand 2016

While I am not all that concerned with expanded background checks, I have to take issue with anyone who advocates it by providing false information as the justification..especially when they note that "it would make it easier for the Legislature to do even more."

Let's look at the facts on the rel crime stats. <--- This should be all we need to say, but let's go even further with

How many times does it have to be said before these people get it through their thick skulls?
- Violent crime and murder in the U.S. has gone DOWN by 50% in the last 20 years since the Assault Weapons Ban was done away with. Just look at the FBI official statistics on their .gov website.
- What about the UK, you say? Their murder rate has steadily gone UPward as they incrementally passed more and more Gun Control.

Stop wasting money we don't have to gather support and to pass laws which are PROVEN (see above crime stat videos) to INCREASE our murder rate, making us LESS SAFE. Period. That is all.

S w Rand 2016

"I didn’t want to post about this, because frankly, it is exhausting. I’ve been having this exact same argument for my entire adult life. It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much every single thing an anti-gun person can say. I’ve heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked. Yet, I got sucked in, and I’ve spent the last few days arguing with people who either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I don’t mind at all), or the willfully ignorant (who I do mind), or the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme (them, I can’t stand).

Today’s blog post is going to be aimed at the first group. I am going to try to go through everything I’ve heard over the last few days, and try to break it down from my perspective. My goal tonight is to write something that my regular readers will be able to share with their friends who may not be as familiar with how mass shootings or gun control laws work.

A little background for those of you who don’t know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking about, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV."

That was an excerpt from which pretty much destroys all of the Gun Control advocates arguments and talking points after you take it all in.
And if people don't have 20 minutes to read the guidance being provided by an expert on this issue, then how much weight does your response truly hold?

S w Rand 2016

Let's see how many people do not even bother to hear out the information. It will be the same people who assume that the head of the National Rifle Association "holds sway." They probably think he paid someone off because they never watched the Senate footage on C-Span2 or C-Span3 to listen to the actual debates on the floor.
Is it now considered critical thinking to defer to the judgment of opinion bloggers and media pundits instead of seeking guidance from an expert? The comments will surely tell.


Thank you for the link.


Ayn Rand? Seriously?

OK. Let's follow her logic. If there are no laws there can be no law-breakers. Ergo, let's repeal the laws. Some may call it Libertarianism. I think Anarchy is more accurate. Several years ago we saw what happened with deregulating the financial systems. West, TX recently saw the glorious benefits of deregulating the fertilizer industry.

Rather than following Rand's simple-minded theories, let's be a bit more practical and follow the money. The firearms industry funds the NRA. The NRA sells bogus patriotism to chickenhawks and buys politicians who are too timid to think for themselves or do what the vast majority of their electorate want them to do.

Ayn Rand. Sheeesh.


@ Turduckenbreath:

Merely attempting to demean the source does not disprove numerous methods used by authoritarian regimes to subjugate and control their populace.

Never say: It can't happen here.

S w Rand 2016

@Turduckenbreath You do realize that everyone who listens to the facts in those crime stat video links is going to KNOW that you have no idea what you are talking about, right? Or worse, they will think there really IS something wrong with you. I suggest getting the facts and changing your position before you paint yourself into that corner.
Like I said above, "the comments will surely tell." You need to watch the debates on the Senate floor (C-Span 2 and some on C-Span3 or try their online archives) and get the facts which I posted in those crime stat video links.

And Senator Rand Paul is not Ayn Rand (read: having "Libertarian leanings" does not equate to being a Libertarian). Seriously, how are people NOT getting that S w Rand 2016 = Stand With Rand 2016?

Shattered Mind

Hey now, I like Ayn Rand, but that's immaterial.

You really think the gun industry funds the NRA? Seriously? I've got a bridge for sale, too... Interested? As a Benefactor member and a close to 40 year membership in the NRA, I can tell you you're barking at the wrong tree. Sure, they donate, as any person would but they can't come close to what is donated out of pocket by the citizenry of this country and yes, your neighbors. You want proof? The NRA is going to be holding it's annual meeting next month. Check out the credentials of the attendees if you would. There will be plenty of manufacturers present with displays and the booths will have the usual half dozen employees... but do you seriously think that the majority of the estimated 75 to 80 thousand attendees expected will all be from the manufacturers? Now compare that to the last big anti-gun rally to make the news... With the hefty attendance of about 50 individuals braving the weather and smiling for the cameras. Heck, even just plain old Ohio had better than 300 people on a three day notice show up in January to protest some anti-gun proposals in some OTHER state. I was there... I have pictures to prove it.

The main problem with the "UNIVERSAL" background check is that as proposed, it was neither universal nor was it factual as to exactly what it meant. It called for a background check on ANY transfer of a firearm. Do you know the definition of "transfer"? OK, you and I go to the range. You don't have a gun (obviously) and plan on using one of mine to shoot at targets. If I hand you a firearm, under this "universal background check" system, I have just "transferred" the firearm to you. You have control of a firearm... all by your lonesome. You and I would both be facing felony charges as a result. Or how about this... your great grandfather had the old "family" shotgun since he was a youth. He gave it to you some twenty years ago. You now want to give it to your son. Under the "universal background check" you and your son would have to go to a local gun shop, he would have to fill out a Form 4473, the dealer would have to call it in on a NICS check ( to make sure your son isn't a budding terrorist) and then have to pay the dealer what ever he would charge to complete the transfer. And that transfer fee wasn't even covered in any of the 100 plus pages of that bill. So yeah, you might get charged $50 or 100 bucks ... Just to give grandpas old wallhanger of a shotgun to your boy.

Nope, sorry. That bill was just bad. Schumer's version was even worse, adding a permanent registry to his bill. Ask any Holocaust survivor how that worked out. Nazi Germany was the last country to impose a registry on it's people. That made it nice and convenient for them to find all the firearms in the country and remove them from the people.

Besides, why bother? We already have background checks in place. Some 77 thousand people were prevented from buying a firearm from a gunshop. Whether it was from littering, or going through a stop sign or some other MAJOR crime, something showed up to prevent that sale. Want to know why they weren't prosecuted? Because that was precisely why they weren't. Some idiotic minor misdemeanor clogged up the sale. Check out the amount of people charged... Less than 4% of the 77 thousand.

And as far as stopping criminals from getting guns, if they couldn't buy it on the streets, they'd probably just have the drug dealer throw in a couple dozen handguns on top of the heroin or cocaine shipment they're going to receive from Mexico or South America. Brazil DOES make some pretty nice handguns.


"As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared":

"The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting.

By the turn of the 20th century, the number of criminal statutes numbered in the dozens. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, according to a 2008 study by retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker."

To be found guilty of many federal crimes, mens rea (intent) is not often necessary.

Did you do it? Innocently or not - you're guilty!

Never say: It can't happen here.

"Bernadine Dohrn, the wife of Bill Ayers, who is herself also a former member of the domestic terrorist group the Weather Underground, is now joining the chorus of liberals calling for greater gun control."

Terrorists supporting gun control. Imagine that.

The Big Dog's back

Right wingnuts who don't favor better background checks. Imagine that.



Turduckenbreath should be easier for everyone, including psychopaths and career criminals, to get guns, right? (Because they're going to get them anyway, right?)

And while we're at it, let's not limit the number of shots a gun can fire without stopping to reload. (Because we might want to shoot something 30 or 40 times, right?)

God help us.


So give up your rights and foolishly allow State appointed bureaucrats to determine who are the "psychopaths and career criminals"?

A potential slippery slope of defining deviancy down

Ever seen a health professional for symptoms of sadness or depression? Ever belong to a support group? No firearm for you!

The Soviet Union could and did declare those who did not appreciate their "worker's paradise" as mentally ill.

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."

H*ll, these dunderheads can't even get a "No Fly List" straight.


S w Rand 2016

re: Turduckenbreath in regards to your comment on magazine capacity

Again, you are ignoring the experts. Go to , hit Ctrl-F on your keyboard and copy-paste "We should ban magazines over X number of shots" (uh, without the quotation marks) into the search box and read the next 17 paragraphs after it.
Are you sure you are qualified to comment on this issue?
Also, think about this: He has the world record. The video shows him firing 12 shots from a 6-shot revolver in under 3 seconds. 6 shots, reload, and 6 more shots..all in under 3 seconds. You want to ban 6-shot revolvers now, too?

Look. THIS is not rocket science. It is simply and clearly RECKLESS to convince people to weaken their ability to defend themselves against criminals and their organizations. The more you weaken the law-abiding citizens, the more the criminals will prey upon them and then you end up resorting to stronger gun bans and, eventually, complete gun bans.
Do you really want to see SOME cities disarm themselves while their neighboring cities (which also have criminals) do not pass the law (setting aside, for a moment, the fact that even an attempt to disarm the entire citizenry would not stop criminals from moving their arsenal around to avoid detection and/or just having more weapons shipped into the country after any eventual confiscation)?


"Take a look at how dumb the average citizen is, the AVERAGE citizen, and now think for a moment and realize that half of the population is dumber than that." George Carlin

Puting this to a vote could be more than disasterious for the gun control proponents. It was only when Obama was elected that a record number of democrats voted... I some how don't think gun control is generating as much sensationalism with them to win the vote, let alone get them tk show up to the polls. Which is why they are exploring the option instead of going for it head first.


Interesting that the state with the strictest gun control, Illinois, just had a shooting a week or ago that killed 4 people goes to show that tighter controls on the weapons are not the answers.

Put it on the ballot and it will go down in flames! However, they thought that in California with homosexual marriage. It was voted down and now there are all kinds of lawsuits.

I say settle like the movie Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome. Put 2 people in a cage and listen to the chant "2 men in 1 man out" and the winner rules!!

The Big Dog's back

Eight of the 10 states with the weakest gun-control laws, including Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Montana and Oklahoma, are among the 25 with the highest rates of violence, according to a study by the Center for American Progress.

S w Rand 2016

You want to cite, as your source, a Left wing partisan think tank with close ties to President Obama and the White House (first two paragraphs) and ignore the advice of the overwhelming majority of law enforcement as well as the FBI Crime Statistics?

Link that study, please. I would like to debunk it in full :)
Oh, wait..I already did. YouTube "Choose Your Own Crime Stats," uploaded by AmidsTheNoise and linked by myself in a previous comment on this article.
Are you intentionally trying to spin the comprehensive data, or do you just have tunnel vision?


Oh, don't you fret. Even if the voters overwhelmingly say no to this legislation via a formal election vote, federal judges can always overrule the vote and say the populace isn't educated enough to make that call (bless their hearts) ;-/

Turduckenbreath should be easier for everyone, including psychopaths and career criminals, to get guns, right? (Because they're going to get them anyway, right?)

And while we're at it, let's not limit the number of shots a gun can fire without stopping to reload. (Because we might want to shoot something 30 or 40 times, right?)

God help us.

(I posted this a second time because the nonsense it generated the first time was so stupid I'd like to see more.)

S w Rand 2016

No. You re-posted it because you had nothing else to say after these same remarks were exposed as nonsensical rhetoric the first time. And you want to bury your defeat by pushing it back as many pages as possible without being too obvious about it. So, by calling it stupid, you pretend that the comprehensive case which was made to you is somehow in dispute so that we might write even larger comments (which no one will read) to explain in more detail.


@ Turduckenbreath:

Repeat socialist dogma until believed, if that fails use force.

Dr. Goebbels and other authoritarian propagandists would be proud.


Repeat lies until they're believed.

It's not working for you clowntango.



The responses mostly figured out some exception, then argued it as the rule.
Bogus reasoning.

You cannot change that opposing universal background checks makes it easier for psychopaths and career criminals to get guns. So what do you argue? That some of the wrong people might be classified. BOGUS reasoning. Admit it; you don't give a damn who gets guns as long as you get yours.

Same with high capacity mags. Because some guy can reload fast, there should be no limit on size. Really? No, really??? Well even though some people might be able to reload quickly, I'd rather take my chances against a ten round clip than against a 30 round clip. Now you try real hard to find fault with that reasoning.

S w Rand 2016

First and foremost, nothing you just said can negate the better judgment of the experts. Your talking points have already been debunked at
Secondly, I was arguing against banning guns which can receive magazines with over 10 rounds in them (which is, effectively, about 90% of the rifles and handguns that Americans own and purchase), as well as banning the magazines themselves. I already gave you a link and a string of text (We should ban magazines over X number of shots) to paste into the search box with Ctrl-F on the magazine issue. And if 17 paragraphs can't spell it out for you, I don't know what will.
In closing, I don't own a gun. I just feel safer knowing that law-abiding citizens around me might have them.


High capacity mags come in REAL handy for feral hog families.

Hogs are overrunning Europe and attacking children thanks to kind hearted environmentalists and excessively restrictive gun laws which make sport hunting extremely expensive if not impossible.

The Big Dog's back

Trolling again?


Weak argument, Cont

Shattered Mind

"I'd rather take my chances against a ten round clip than against a 30 round clip."

Seriously? Everyone I know can do the job with one round. But it's got nothing to do with standard magazine capacity (which is what the gun comes with, by the way) rather it's a matter of choice. The thirty round magazine comes as standard equipment. What you are arguing for is to make us spend more ( why do democrats always think spending more solves problems?) for a REDUCED capacity magazine. And while we're on that, the guns don't use clips... or more properly called stripper clips. A modern firearm uses magazines. You use stripper clips to fill the magazines, then place the magazine into the gun.

Anyhow, even the most inept clod can usually reload a spare magazine before you can even start to stand up in case you were thinking of stupidly rushing someone who went over the edge. Never mind anyone who has been shooting for awhile... They can usually slam a fresh magazine in place before the empty one hits the ground. Besides, the cure for reduced magazine capacity is just more magazines.

But it matters little. Nobody was talking about confiscating standard 30 round magazines... Only the sale of new 30 round magazines. The only people inconvienced would be a new owner. And if he really wanted 30 round magazines there would be hundreds if not thousands ( hundreds of thousands?) of magazines available on a new black market that would spring up to fill that need. Ever hear of Prohibition?

S w Rand 2016

I would like to clarify something to anyone who sees your remarks, where you say no one is talking about confiscating 30 round magazines, and may mistake it as a response to my own comment as well. If my understanding is correct, you are merely responding to Turduckenbreath because of his/her tendency to preclude any logical argument against banning 30-round magazines.
As for myself, I had even commented (on a previous SR article regarding the Senate vote) about how many of the Gun Control advocates were arguing as if background checks were all this were ever about (in their attempts to paint Gun Rights advocates out as being paranoid). And they were doing this before AND after Senator Feinstein's "assault weapons" ban proposal (which would've effectively banned the future sale of 90% of the handguns and rifles which Americans own and purchase) was shot down and the Senate switched over to merely talking about universal background checks and mental health.
So I just wanted to clarify, to others, that I am not jumping on any "they are trying to take our guns again" bandwagon. In fact, it seems to me that this new development is mostly just a PR stunt in order to save face for those GC advocates who took part (whether knowingly or not) in what I just described (in the above paragraph).
However, and I am sure Contango would agree, those who may mistake your comment (to imply anything more than what it says) should take care that they not be so naive as to assume this new development would never be used as political posturing toward working around to the "assault weapons" ban again, especially when the article quotes Pedersen as saying "it would make it easier for the Legislature to do even more").

S w Rand 2016

Oh, wait. I did, in an earlier comment, refer to an "eventual confiscation." However, It should be clear that this was merely a hypothesis. Assuming a scenario where, years from now, the citizenry are nearly crippled in regards to defending against criminal organizations. And that, in such a scenario, the final solution would possibly be an attempt at total confiscation (which is a terrible risk to take as, again, it would likely fail to stop those organizations and make it that much worse for the law-abiding).


good idea...if the voting machines were not already rigged....wake up people!


Larry Correia writes about magic, werewolves, and vampires. WHY would I care what some fantasy writer has to say about anything?

Of course, if background checks are relaxed, werewolves and vampires will have their rootin tootin six-shooters and Larry's magic will make sense to folks like you.

S w Rand 2016

re: Turduckenbreath
From Larry Correia's article that I linked: "A little background for those of you who don’t know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs"
He goes on to say that "I am now a professional novelist. However, before that....." and he goes on to write six healthy-sized paragraphs about his extensive qualifications to speak on this topic.

I cannot tell if you are being willfully ignorant or if you are really that terrified of being wrong and so, instead of reading the article, you decided to Google his name and proceeded to both begin and end your search for knowledge at


And families of feral hogs? Man, you've got to warn a guy before saying something like that. I almost spewed my beer clean across the room. Yeah, lotsa feral hogs around here. Real problem.

BUT, giving your observation all the respect it deserves, I suppose after the next school shooting where some guy with a 30 round mag guns down a couple dozen little kids, we can take comfort in knowing the feral hog population is under control.

S w Rand 2016

I haven't looked into it but I heard there were later reports, including reports from NBC, which indicated that the Sandy Hook shooter used handguns.
Either way, I'm sure Contango would agree that you don't seem to give any observation (which doesn't agree with your cause) any respect at all.

It would seem that, when you see a mountain of evidence against you, you separate all of the aspects into molehills which you refer to as "exceptions," failing to address the issue comprehensively. I guess we would have to call that "making molehills out of a mountain."
That's a good way to progress, but it certainly is not in the interest of America when you use it in an attempt to REgress (in regards to personal defense and even national defense).

And, on that note, could you give us your reaction to ? While there is a brief introductory paragraph, I refer you to the short video clip of Senate footage which, by the end of the remarks, gives another example of how common sense solutions seem to evade those of us who are not jealous of our 2nd amendment. (and, by jealous, I refer to the lesser known definition which is "solicitous or vigilant in maintaining or guarding something: example: The American people are jealous of their freedom."


Turduckenbreath writes:

"Yeah, lotsa feral hogs around here. Real problem"

Yea, they are:

You asked: Who needs a 30 round clip? I answered.

CT had some of the toughest gun laws in the country like an "assault weapons" ban - didn't help.

swiss cheese kat's picture
swiss cheese kat

Increased background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.
Not sure what you gun hating nitwits don't understand about that fact.

A background check doesn't tell anyone about your intention to become a future killer. Criminals don’t care about laws.
There are plenty of laws on the books that would prevent murders and mass-murders.


Let the people speak/VOTE. Its that E-z.

Shattered Mind

Not really. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. Look at what we have for a president to confirm that thought.

S w Rand 2016

So, I previously took no interest in the subject of universal background checks. My only concern was Senator Feinstein's "assault weapons" ban proposal. But, since that seems to be off the table for now, I've decided to take interest in what exactly a universal background check system would entail. is where I am starting.
excerpt: ""Most Americans support background checks, but they … have very little clue about what that means," said David Kopel, a gun law expert and adjunct Constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. "When you phrase something in an attractive way like 'universal background checks,' who wouldn’t be for it? But if you get into the details, there’s a bit more grey-area.""

Apparently, universal background checks would require a national database of every American's medical information (including mental health status and substance abuse history) to be effective. So, it doesn't just affect gun owners/purchasers. It requires everyone's info to be in the database.
Is that OK with everyone? I dunno what I think about it, personally.


Errrrr. All can just enter the military then? NO. There are valid reasons for people NOT to be an aviator, or have access to sensitive information. Or using that same premise let anyone become a doctor or a heavy equipment operator. Sadly though many are allowed to operate (poorly) a vehicle on America's roadways.


today's military is mostly just weak minded people that let their instructors brainwash them, if they weren't already brain washed, into thinking they are doing something meaningful flying to the middle east to fight a stupid, un american war

Shattered Mind

Huh? Wow... Just wow. I can't believe you just said that.


So we got another warrior hater. Typical of much in America.....weak.

Ned Mandingo

Lies lies lies, the state of ohio like all other states already have background checks.
These tactics are used to fool people who know nothing about the facts of this issue. "It's for the children of sandy hook" is one of their favorites, what a lie. Adam Lanza was denied gun purchases in the weeks leading up to the shootings. The background checks worked, that's why he murdered someone and stole her guns. Please put it on a ballot so it can be defeated, again.