NRA has too much influence

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.



the laws are there to keep a general consensus as to what is right and wrong and a justifiable punishment. laws aren't created to control people, they are created for punishing people, let's not get things confused. although the fear of punishment might be a controlling mechanism, the main purpose of a law is to administer a just punishment if it's broken. basically they are there for people like me that think breaking in my house means death by pistol where the government sees it fit to just slap them on the wrist if they claim it was for a drug habit...

the holy grail os isms is anarchism. no, it's not the anarchy depicted in the movies.. that kind of anarchy is actually called chaos. utopian anarchy is not having any laws because laws are unnecessary. people do the right things because its morally right. but, since humans can't seem to follow what's morally right all of the time, we have laws to administer punishment.


oops double post .


And some dems are just plain stupid!


And some Republicans know less than people WHO WATCH NO NEWS AT ALL!!


In my car that I am in a great deal, I have the first three channels on the radio programed to.


I listen to all three for a broad opinion!


Haha very well then. Although the report says that NPR listeners know the most about what is going on, but I myself find it a little too boring and don't want to fall asleep while driving..


- CNBC comes after that but on Sirus they all are scheduled to have a comercial at the same time so then music is just a click away : )


If you watch Fox, that tells me one thing: you're unable to tell the difference between real news and "ideological opinion masquerading as news"


Coaster, it is funny that you say this. I made a special note today to listen to the specific words while driving. In particular it is each news caster that speaks their own dialect. Take Rachel Madcow for example MSNBC, she was talking about the house and senate, her words identify each “the idiots in the house” Then turns around and says “the senate that is trying to move forward” This is not reporting, there is no more reporting anymore. Every newscaster puts their own personal opinion into everything no matter the station!


This from a man that gets his news from Rachel Maddow, and his wife.


Take the guns they will kill with other weapons! Lets ban kitchen knives too!


Then let them use other weapons . The gun made the sword and the battle axe obsolete , because of it's efficiency as a killing machine . So , bring back the swords , axes , maces and such . Perhaps it will also help us to remember how real taking anothers life is , and not something you can do without getting actual blood on our hands .


With an honest background check, confiscation is next when govt. knows where to get them!!!!


We register cars and many other everyday items, and nobody is confiscating them. Get real, and come up with a REAL argument for why we shouldn't have universal background checks and mandatory gun registrations. Nobody wants to take away guns from law abiding citizens. Sheesh....


Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right. If you don't know the difference you need to go back to school. Maybe you should ask you wife.


No one is disputing the right to bear arms , even you have to agree that not just any wacko , or criminal should be able to easily get a gun . And some just can't handle them , like Dick Cheney ; ))))


We register our children when we get them a social security number . Why isn't there a big stink being raised on that ? I guess to some , their guns take priority over their children.


U.N. wants your guns, Obozo wants your guns, Liberals want your guns so Annie get your gun.


And gun manufacturers want you to buy MORE guns . Pretty obvious to see what their motivations are . Money , money , and more money .


@goofus...may I ask why you think that an honest background check will cause a confiscation of your gun in your mind? Please be specific? If you have no felony background or mental illness in your past, why would background checks cause confiscation, please?

The Big Dog's back

goof doesn't know. He is just repeating something he read on a right wing website.


Ok, I will explain it then. It has already been said by the Justice Dept. that the expanded background checks won't do anyything without registration. Why? Because there will be no way for the government to know if someone is breaking the law in a private sale. As it stands, the only guns registered with the Federal gov't are fully automatic weapons (which is not only difficult, but expensive for the average citizen to own.). So in essense a person could continue to sell guns in a private transaction without a background check. Who is going to know? As it stands there is no way for the government to trace the gun back to the person who sold it. As for registration and confiscation, do I really need to post all the instance in history where registration has led to a dictator confiscating private firearms? The reason we don't have registration is for that very reason. If you think it would never happen, I'm sure those who lived in Nazi Germany, or the former Soviet Union thought the same.


Thank you Gov. Strickland for making the Castle Law happen. Gov. Taft fought it. Figures.


I find it ironic that the Chicago Times says the NRA has too much power, when they have the strongest gun laws around, but have the highest death rate from guns in the US. How is that working for Chicago?

Why does anyone want to take guns from law abiding citizens? We would not need personal guns if the judges would keep the lawless, and violent offenders in jail or prison instead of pleading them out. Also if crazy people were put where they cannot harm themselves or others.

If guns are taken from the average citizen, the only people with gun protection will be the rich, the connected, and Hollywood. They can hire professional protection, and carry a gun.

The Constitution demands we the people be allowed to keep and bare arms, for self protection. It has little to do with hunting, but a lot to do with keeping violent people out of the homes and schools of law abiding individuals. The president is armed. Why aren't our schools protected with armed guards? IT is a gun free zone in many instances, and a target for anyone wanting to shoot someone. Gun free zones are the cause of crazies targeting them.

There should be NO gun free zones. Guns are for protection from criminal behavior and the mentally ill.

Mr Bean

You should all spit your gum out! Except "Flower Mom"---you are the only one to make a sensible argument--Go girl!

The Big Dog's back

Sensible? Looks like the same old right wing gun nut argument to me.


Sorry, flower mom only makes sense when viewed through an NRA frame of mind.

Mime Bloggling's picture
Mime Bloggling

So this article falls under the "Register Viewpoint" section? The same Sandusky Register who published the addresses of all the law-abiding citizens in Erie County who obtained a legal concealed carry license? No surprise. Shame on you SR.


For at least 5 years we've been reading and hearing how Obama is going to "take our guns away!", yet no federal legislation has yet been passed to do this, while gun & ammo manufacturers and sellers have realized record profits. Fear sells.

And no one knows better about selling fear than the NRA. NRA chief Wayne LaPierre has drawn comparisons to Israel, saying that the U.S. should follow Israel’s example of loose gun laws and of responding to mass shooting by posting armed guards at schools. LaPierre says Israel has lots of guns and lower rates of gun violence, so clearly the problem with America is not our guns but something else. Only problem is that Israel actually has quite strong gun restrictions and very low gun ownership rates, some of the lowest in the developed world. Back in late December LaPierre said, “Israel had a whole lot of school shootings, until they did one thing. They said we’re going to stop it and they put armed security in every school and they have not had a problem since then.” A spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry told the New York Daily News that this was simply wrong. “We didn’t have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism,” he said. “What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years.” The spokesperson added, “It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion.” Israeli guns laws, it turns out, are much stricter than America’s gun laws. This may help explain why Israeli gun ownership is just 1/13 of what it is in the U.S. To bring that number into focus, it would likely be even lower if not for mandatory military service, which means Israelis are more likely to be familiar with guns. Israel’s unique security challenges and its periodic bouts with terrorism would also seem to bolster an NRA-style case for allowing more privately owned guns so that more citizens can defend themselves. And yet, there are far fewer guns in private citizens’ hands, and far less gun crime. Israel limits gun ownership to security workers, people who transport valuables or explosives, residents of the West Bank, and hunters. People who don’t fall into one of those categories cannot obtain a firearm permit. Moreover, Israel rejects 40 percent of firearm permit applicants, the highest rejection rate in the Western world. Both Switzerland and Israel require yearly (or more frequent) permit renewals to insure that the reasons are still applicable.

Even if the Senate were to pass any type of gun legislation, be it even for increasing background checks, it's DOA once it gets to the GOP-controlled House. And in the meantime, gun & ammo sales will continue to increase as the fear machine keeps chugging along full-steam.


Excellent comments, OSU. You hit it out of the park, and dispelled many of the phony reasons the NRA fights even common sense gun reform.

Any illusions that the NRA has Americans' best interests in mind Evaporated when they began robo-calling Newtown residents recently. They are the ugly underbelly of America that most of us wish would just go away.