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

KnuckleDragger

Why not? We are letting about 2% control the debate on the definition of marriage, something that isn't even a Constitutional right. Geez liberals, admit it the only time a minority has a right to be heard in your pea brain is when it's for a cause you support. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Mr Bean

It`s mostly ignorant people who post these comments----how can you talk endlessly about things of which you are "mostly ignorant" . Try taping yourself , then playing it back----You obviously know nothing about the NRA. Without it, you would be living in a cage, waiting for the "Colonel" to call.

The Big Dog's back

Bullspit.

KnuckleDragger

^^this one lives in moms basement.

your babies Daddy's picture
your babies Daddy

come on boy anytime anyplace.

KnuckleDragger

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal attacks (including: name calling, presumption of guilt or guilt by association, insensitivity, or picking fights).

your babies Daddy's picture
your babies Daddy

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Off-topic comments.

SamAdams

From the Chicago Sun-Times, eh? Where the NRA doesn't have ENOUGH influence, and Democrats all too much!

The Chicago Sun-Times might want to look closer to home than DC. After all, even considering DC's own crime problems (and strict gun laws), Chicago's even stricter gun laws have resulted in the city becoming the murder capital of the country! NOT a list I'd personally like to top, though those far left Dems seem to think that more of what hasn't worked (and never will) will SURELY work THIS time...

arnmcrmn

Hows it working for Chicago, a place that has one of, if not THE strictest gun laws in our nation.....yet they have the highest homicide rate by guns. Can't blame the NRA on that one.

commonsense1969

Why are politicians protected by armed guards?

KnuckleDragger

Why does Diane Feinstein own semi-automatic weapons and possess a concealed carry permit in California?

The Big Dog's back

I dunno know. Why?

goofus

Do we have to spell it out porch puppy L-I=B-E-R-A-l H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

Bluto

It would help if you knew how to spell L-I-B-E-R-A-L ;))))

The Big Dog's back

To bad you have to resort to lying about Senator Feinstein. Feel better doing it?

KnuckleDragger

Nope, already been proven. Do you ever do research or do you always shoot from the hip? Feinstein admitted that she owns a .380 semi-auto pistol, and California records show she possesses a California Permit to carry a concealed firearm. Hypocrite.

deertracker

The NRA does have too much influence and distorts the facts. Fact is, there is and never has been an attempt to "take" people's guns but that what the NRA wants us to believe. I am all for gun ownership and the right to own guns but I believe you should use good sense as a gun owner. There is no need for any law abiding citizen to own an assault weapon. A thorough background check really isn't too much to ask.

your babies Daddy's picture
your babies Daddy

Who cares what the NRA has to say? They make as much sense as that ACORN group. Is it legal to poisen song birds for fun and profit?

commonsense1969

guess some people never heard of Hitler, Stalin and so on...

4-wheeler al

take guns away, what next?

Centauri

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/n...
"NEW ORLEANS (AP) — City officials have agreed to return hundreds of firearms that police officers confiscated in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, part of a deal to resolve a lawsuit filed by gun lobbying groups."

http://www.examiner.com/article/...
" In the days after Katrina hammered
New Orleans and adjacent St. Tammany Parrish, an order was issued that only police would be allowed to have guns. Law enforcement personnel from various other states, as far away as New York and
California, along with National Guard troops came in to help restore order. In the process, many citizens’ firearms were seized, sometimes at gunpoint, and invariably with the use of intimidation."

Bluto

In certain situations the government CAN seize weapons from the public . Perfectly legal.

vicariouslyAlive

yes, when those citizens are breaking the law. no officer of the law can confiscate a fire arm from a law abiding citizen that has has't made a threat, acted in a threatening manner or other wise committed an action in an attempt to cause a panic. gun on the hip in open sight perfectly legal... but when an officer of the law tries to say that you're trying to insight a panic just because you're living within your rights in this state, it turns into a crappy game of your word vs. theirs, and judges tend to side with the cops, even if the whole thing is foul.

Bluto

Yes they can . Look it up . In times of Marshall law / state of emergency.

vicariouslyAlive

"David Kopel, October 2, 2006 at 1:16pm] Trackbacks
Congress outlaws gun confiscation during disasters or emergencies:
This weekend, Congress passed, and sent to the President for his signature, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, H.R. 5441. The Conference Report of the bill includes a variety of non-appropriations measures to enhance homeland security. The most notable of these is the construction 700 miles of fence along the portions of the Mexican border which are the main transit zones for illegal aliens. Also included in the legislation is a ban on gun confiscation during emergencies and natural disasters, to prevent a repeat of the post-Katrina abuses such as law enforcement officers breaking into homes and confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens."

looks like they looked into that issue and rectified that problem.

law abiding citizens need not worry about gun confiscation.

good day sir.

Bluto

All this talk of government taking our guns , I have yet to see any legislation that attempts any such thing . The NRA actually pushed for universal background checks at one time , until it became a political bargaining chip .

vicariouslyAlive

although a ban on guns with particular features and a confiscation of guns are 2 different things, they both result in the same act, the removal of guns from law abiding citizens. the proposed legislature that you claim to have never seen must be at a fault of your own. the latest attempt at gun removal was targeting anything with a vertical grip, anything, that had a clip that held more than 10 rounds, and anything with an adjustable butt stock... that basically that puts us back to the wild west days of 6 shot revolvers... kinda tips the scales in the governments favor in the arms race if they in fact did turn this place into a police state.

whether its a ban on gun types, or guns in general, it's still removing them from many people that have done nothing wrong. yes, there is a large number of people using guns in morally objective ways... but when you put that number up against the amount of legal gun owners... you'd see that the guns used to commit crimes only account for 1% of all total gun ownership, and most of those guns used to commit such crimes are illegally owned... new laws only punish those that follow them... for the people that already aren't following the letter of the law, it means squat.

Bluto

Sorry , but regulating the types and features of guns doesn't equate to abolishing the 2nd amendment . To me it just reflexs the times we now live in , where weapons technology has increased guns deadly efficiency . I believe that's why the founding fathers designed our government to be flexible ; to adapt to changing times and attitudes.

KnuckleDragger

Regulating, "scary looking" guns won't do anything to stop criminals from murdering either, so why do it? Our own government even admitted that the last assault weapon ban did nothing.

The Big Dog's back

Why have any laws then? Criminals are going to break them anyways.

Pages