NRA has too much influence

Register
Apr 4, 2013

Excerpt from the Chicago Sun-Times: 

Don’t look now, but the U.S. Senate might actually pass legislation that has a chance to significantly reduce gun violence. Some advocates of stronger gun laws were discouraged recently when the Senate dropped provisions to ban assault weapons and highcapacity ammunition magazines from legislation that will be considered starting next week.

But what remains — a bill that would expand background checks when guns are purchased and stiffen penalties for straw purchases — is perhaps the single measure that could do most to tamp down the shootings in America’s neighborhoods. Mass shootings with assault weapons are awful when they occur, but over the course of a year, as we in Chicago know too well, far more Americans are killed by handguns.

We need universal background checks, because we need to stop making it easy for criminals to buy guns. Virtually all firearms start out as legal, but gaps in our laws allow guns to flow from legal to illegal hands. Under the “gun show loophole,” no record keeping is required in private gun sales, which now account for two out of every five firearms transactions. A “straw purchaser,” someone with valid credentials who buys guns for those who can’t legally purchase them, can easily operate in the nether region where no records exist.

That’s a huge loophole, and truckloads of guns are driven right through it.

The NRA opposes universal background checks. It helped push through a measure that prohibits the FBI from hanging on for longer than 24 hours to records of those who pass the existing background check system. That makes it hard to spot a pattern of straw purchases. Lawmakers should not be swayed by the NRA on this issue.

Comments

Bluto

The NRA's ONLY concerns are to help the gun manufacturers sells more guns . They could care less what people do with them once they get their money .Their greed is killing our children .

JACKEL

If I were black I would be a lifetime member of THE NRA,They fought the KKK for the rights for blacks to have guns to defend themselves .Sure they want to sell guns that is their business, just like who ever you work for .

Centauri

How about cops with guns allowed to be on the job under the influence of alcohol? How many cops get tested for alcohol or drugs when a shooting occurs?

http://www.bettergov.org/a_dange...
"The City of Chicago recently approved a $4.1 million settlement to the family of an unarmed man fatally shot by a Chicago police officer who was reportedly drinking before work."

http://www.bettergov.org/
"The Better Government Association promotes reform through investigative journalism, civic engagement and advocacy. We're a watchdog, shining a light on government and holding public officials accountable."

No matter what gun laws are passed against law abiding citizens, crooks will always be able to acquire guns. I have an opinion of how to deal with gun sellers and gun buyers at gun shows or between two private citizens. For now, I will keep my opinion to myself. I ask the Sandusky Register readers for their opinions about how to deal with gun sales between private individuals? I do have a gun permit to carry and I am pro gun for law abiding citizens.

MiddleRight

Chicago should know about gun laws. They have the strictest, and one of the highest homicide rates in the country.
How's that working for you?

commonsense1969

Facts never matter to a Marxist.

The Big Dog's back

Somalia has no gun laws. How's that working?

goofus

USA has gun laws and background checks, how's that working?

coasterfan

Correction: America has relatively weak gun laws, compared to many other countries (England, for one), and only has background checks for gun purchases for about 60% of gun purchases (which is like building a fence around 2/3 of your yard in order to keep your dog kenneled). Last year, England had 139 gun-related homicides.

vicariouslyAlive

you see... the problem with comparing one country with another negates many variables... variable 1, the united states have over 6 times the population of england. variable 2, higher standard of education. variable 3, economic standard are better off in england, meaning if everyone has more, then there's fewer that have less and have to resort to a life of crime. there are a myriad of other very influential variables that will dictate the crime rates of one country when put up against another, this is why countries like england and Thailand both have gun bans, and yet the total number of people killed in both countries by firearms are vastly different. so to say that the gun ban is working based only on the amount of people killed by guns is a farce argument at best. that's like saying India is better than America because they have more people with genius IQ's that america does... sometimes it's not the legislation from one country to another that is working in an arguments favor... sometimes it's just the laws of statistics that people feel like ignoring.

Pterocarya frax...

So what you are telling us with the variable you listed is that if we can raise the education levels here in the U.S., and give everyone more, then we will lower our crime rate like England. Excellent argument for socialism, dude.

vicariouslyAlive

Ignorance.... associating 1 thing and calling it another. Raising the education level and lowering senseless taxes isn't exactly socialism. But you people and your fear of l isms, stuck in a mind set that's so dated you still classify how a club try is run by giving it an ism or an ocracy name... people need to realize that on a social level we are no more civilized than anyone else and many of the free domes that you think you have are a farce if it pisses off the wrong people. Nice try though

SamAdams

With all of its gun laws and its lower percentage of gun homicides (England, by the way, has a lower murder rate than the U.S. of ALL kinds, so that's not really a fair stand-alone statistic), know what ELSE England has? The most dangerous city in the Western world, London.

When gun laws in Great Britain were changed to make guns all but illegal, guess what followed? A dramatic spike in violent crime. Australia? Same exact thing. What we see in Chicago and DC here has happened on a larger scale country-wide in places that thought it'd be a great idea, too.

Never mind that there has never been a gun registration program in history that didn't result in confiscation. Never mind that Dianne Feinstein has publicly and REPEATEDLY admitted her ultimate goal IS confiscation (she, of course, has a hard-to-get CCW in California because apparently she's much more important and worthy of self defense than any of us "little people"). Look again at Chicago, DC, and WHOLE COUNTRIES that thought such laws were a good idea, and explain just how laws HERE will prove different.

Good luck with that... (Extra points taken away from any idiot who brings up the thoroughly discredited "study" — including by those who actually conducted said study — that suggests a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member than an attacker.)

Darkhorse

Another point to make is to guess what weapon is used most in attacks. I know I didn't believe it when I first searched, but after searching through around 25 major cities crime rates the one weapon that was used most was the "Hammer". Now does this mean that they are going to require us to register a hammer when it is purchased at Sears or we find one at a flea market. This is just a feel good measure for the Feds and this illegal president so they can come back and later confiscate your weapons. Just ask the people of Germany how Hitler did it. They had them register first then went house to house and confiscated them. The people had to hide them so they could not take them away.

KnuckleDragger

Don't forget their violent crime rate is higher than the US. As for the 40% not getting background checks, well even the publishers of that study no longer stand behind that number. It has been debunked so much I don't even think the Brady bunch uses it anymore.

JACKEL

The majority of their murders is with knives.The ratio is higher than guns here .

commonsense1969

Somalia, ruled by communist, marxist, socialist butchers

WiseManOnceSaid

It's mostly ignorant people who view the government as trying to "take away their guns". They generally like to forget the rest of the quote "right to bear arms". The rest of that says "against tyrranical government". It does not give the right for every person to have a gun, just the right for everyone to be able to fight the government if it is being unjust...

SamAdams

Actually, that's NOT what the Second Amendment says. You might want to re-read your handy dandy pocket Constitution since you've either forgotten or didn't understand it the first time around...

arnmcrmn

I was thinking the same exact thing Sam. Funny how people get on here and claim to know what the 2nd is about, yet their postings show otherwise.

WiseManOnceSaid

I did not mean literally although my post seems to indicate that. The interpretation is viewed as a militia to overthrow government. It has never been ruled as an amendment protecting individual ownership of guns. As a law student it is brought up in just about every class.....
•The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller (1939), found that there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns. The Supreme Court has spoken only once, it has spoken in favor of the civilian militia interpretation, and it has not spoken since. If the Court has held a different view, it has certainly had ample opportunity to rule on the matter since then.

BW1's picture
BW1

The Heller decision established it as an individual right. Furthermore, if you support the insurrection rationale you cited, exactly how are people supposed to overthrow a tyrannical government without guns? Torches and pitchforks?

WiseManOnceSaid

The amendment was written before we had an actual military. Not until Adams created the Navy to protect our trade ships did we have a group of professionals. But today would it even be possible to overthrow the government with guns? I think it would require tanks and aircraft. The only way to overthrow the government now would be by non violent actions. Insurrection could not be executed with firearms alone. Especially with the increased domestic use of drone aircrafts. The situation (dont quote me here) where we ok'd the drone attack of a US citizen who was supporting Al Qeada abroad bypasses due process which is scary enough when you think about it.

Centauri

"But today would it even be possible to overthrow the government with guns?"

How about a group of terrorists who made bombs to try to overthrow the government? Weather Underground, Bernadine Ohrnstein AKA Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers among others did try to overthrow the government. Where were the sedition and treason charges?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wea...(organization)
"In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, under the name "Weather Underground Organization"

http://www.collegehillreview.com...
"By March, the New York collective's immediate goal was to turn Fort Dix, New Jersey, seventy miles away, into Saigon. There, a dance for noncommissioned army officers and their wives and dates would provide a setting for bringing the horrors of Vietnam home to America. As they planned the bombing, Cathy Wilkerson later claimed, "we still didn't talk about the physical impact of the actions, either on buildings or people . . . 'You cannot act with such greed and recklessness without consequences!' I wanted our message to be, and I wanted to say it as loud as we could." It was the bomb they planned to plant in the Fort Dix dance hall, a dynamite pipe bomb studded with roofing nails to shred the dancers, that exploded accidentally in the townhouse basement around noon on March 6."

SamAdams

Untrue. The Heller case ruled the Second Amendment does, indeed, protect an individual right. Further, the words "the people" as used in the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments have repeatedly been determined to mean "the individual," so why wouldn't "the people" in the 2nd Amendment mean the same thing?

The answer? Well, maybe a few guys who were actually there and actually WROTE the Constitution and Bill of Rights might know more than either you or I do. They uniformly affirmed not only the individual right to arms, but also the notion of individual self defense.

Centauri

"It has never been ruled as an amendment protecting individual ownership of guns. As a law student it is brought up in just about every class....."

It appears that all schools are attempting to change history but historical documents and newspapers say the opposite. Ohio's militia is not the Ohio National Guard as some may want you to believe. There are plenty of references to militias as shown in documents. Militias have been used to stop riots before the state National Guard arrived.

http://www.daytonhistorybooks.co...
" Without waiting for a mob to organize, Sheriff Cook called on the local militia for assistance in guarding all approaches to the jail. This had an opposite effect to that intended, since it served to increase the crowd about the courthouse and jail, and to anger the populace, now apparently deserting their regular routine for a place where they could witness any act of violence that might ensue. During the early evening the crowd had swelled to considerable size, and Sheriff Cook appealed to Gov. McKinley at Columbus for aid."

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fi...
Good reading about militias. If it were not for the citizen militia to stand up against the standing British army, there would not be a United States. The Founding Fathers knew what they meant by the word militia. Today, you have rich and powerful people who want to strip the average American of their rights.

vicariouslyAlive

yeah, and look at what happened to those folks up in Michigan when they were accused of forming a militia even though it's well within their american rights to do so... that might just be the reason they were all released without a single charge... possibly because the government broke it's own laws???? hmmm....

BW1's picture
BW1

The Heller decision established it as an individual right. Furthermore, if you support the insurrection rationale you cited, exactly how are people supposed to overthrow a tyrannical government without guns? Torches and pitchforks?

JACKEL

The government that controls the guns, controls the people.You can BS all day, it is that simple !

coasterfan

Statistics show that 90% of Americans are in favor of universal background checks for all gun purchases. Why are we letting the other 10% control the debate? And why are we letting them hide behind an imagined attack on the 2nd amendment? Nobody is planning to take anyone's guns away. We just want to stop all the senseless killing, and stop making it so easy for people who shouldn't have guns (felons, mentally ill) to purchase guns.

SamAdams

Percentages don't matter one whit where unalienable rights are concerned. The Bill of Rights was crafted solely to, in the words of John Adams, protect the minority from "the tyranny of the majority."

I'll bet a majority of people disapprove of certain books you've read, movies you've seen, opinions you have, etc. Does that mean we can invade your library and burn your books or duct tape your mouth shut? Admittedly, the latter is tempting in some cases (relax, not you, but some REAL extremist wackjobs), but that would be an egregious — and illegal — infringement.

Pages