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 would he? Background checks aren't required for shotguns.

Bluto

And , that is exactly the problem , because there should be . If people got nothing to hide , then what's the big deal with universal background checks? The NRA endorsed it in the past.

camm

Fred come to perkins we will trade you for gunner

Mime Bloggling's picture
Mime Bloggling

" The NRA seems to be making the problem worse , and oddly enough that plays to their advantage . Kind of like Hitler using Jews as the boogyman to help control non Jewish Germans ."

You do realize it was Hitler who made it illegal for Jews to own guns right and we all know how that ended AND it began by them having to nationally register their weapons? Hence the resistance of a national registry of gun owners here in the United States.

If there's any boogyman it's those on the left side of the aisle politically and in the media making people think that any law-abiding citizen owning a gun has to somehow be irresponsible or a nutcase.

Think Matt Westerhold publishing all the names and addresses of the law-abiding concealed carry holders in Erie County a few years ago.

Bluto

You are wrong . Hitler didn't disarm Germany . Germany's gun control laws came about after WW1 , and were put in place by the allied powers to prevent Germany from regaining a military presence . All this took place about 15 years before Hitler came into power . Hitler actually supported deregulation for those deemed worthy that is . After Hitler's Germany fell , those same gun control laws that we help put in place returned .

Mime Bloggling's picture
Mime Bloggling

I didn't say Hitler disarmed Germany...I said he disarmed the JEWS.

Regarding the 1938 Weapons Law in Germany:

"Finally, with regard to disarming the Jews, there is no dispute that the
Nazis did disarm the Jews aggressively—of all firearms, as well as “truncheon stabbing weapons.”

The Minister of the Interior, Frick, passed Regulations
Against Jew’s Possession of Weapons on November 11, 1938,
which effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.
It was a regulation prohibiting Jews from having any dangerous
weapon—not just guns. Under the regulations, Jews “are prohibited from
acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as
truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and
ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.”
Moreover, prior to that, the German police and Nazis used the 1938 firearms
law as an excuse to disarm Jews. In Breslau, for instance, the city police chief decreed the seizure of all firearms from Jews on the ground that “the Jewish population ‘cannot be regarded as trustworthy’”—the language from the 1928 and 1938 firearms laws.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/file...

Bluto

So , you are saying the Nazi's used their position of power to tweak the existing laws in order to persecute a specific group of people because they didn't like them . Kind of like Republicans discriminating against Gays and Lesbians by hindering their rights as Americans , trying to reorganize voting districts to give Republicans the advantage , trying to weaken the Violence Against Women Act , by not including LGBT , Native Americans , and immigrants . Seems to me that the Conservatives are emulating the Nazi's on a much broader scope then Liberals .

Pterocarya frax...

Better watch out Bluto...you might get attacked as being stupid or ignorant.

Bluto

I guess it all comes down politics . We pick a side and follow them over the cliff . This whole gun issue has become a fight to keep control over an industry that doesn't want to give up any of the power and money that comes along with it . The NRA exists only to run interference for gun manufacturers , so they don't have to deal with the issues directly .

goofus

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

Bluto

What's the matter Goof , can't come up with your own material ? Well , if all else fails ... right . Oh , and I'm sorry I made fun of you because you didn't know how to spell liberal , or use the edit function . : )))))

vicariouslyAlive

pterocarya-fraxinifolia, if you didn't prattle like the ignorant, there would be no room to call u such.

and that's exactly the problem, only 2 sides of the extreme are represented and no credence is given to any sort of middle ground, forcing the die heard lefties and righties to agree with what ever nonsense that years poster child of infantile mentality choose to spout out. i believe it was a republican that made the nonsensical remark that was something to the tune of "there's no need for abortion clinics because a woman's body can just automatically shut down an unwanted pregnancy..." or something of that nature... not only is it bad enough that idiots like that guy are running the country, but millions of people actually agree with that moron. the same goes for the gun debate, there's no middle ground of letting those with a clean record keep going on, business as usual, but making those with misdemeanor charges file their guns to some sort of record. i do agree that the sale of a gun without a background check should be illegal, and sales of a certain number of guns at one time without proper licensing needs to also be recorded. just by doing those two thing it'll help stem some of the flow of guns making it onto the black market...

but all we hear is all guns must go, or all guns must stay, and that's such a childish way to look at it... in fact, with most of the governments debates if both sides could agree on some sort of middle ground they might actually get something done that's worth a damn. but instead, we're stuck in a country that's run by people that only see decisions being made by the red or blue, with no attempt at looking any deeper into the situation than that.

Pterocarya frax...

I don't know if you think that by bullying and name calling, you can get me, and other liberals to just go away, thereby being able to dominate all the conversation, and get everything you want...but it won't work. You see, true liberals are working towards realistic and common sense ways to reduce gun violence.

The Newtown 26 wanted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well.

vicariouslyAlive

Its not buying when you actually say foolish things. To sit here and think that any one side of government liberal or republican actually has the everyday citizens best interest in mind is ludicrous.

And again with the new town? You people pull up an event that happens nearly once every few years and cling to it like it happens all of the time. How about you people think about how ma
NY lives the private sales of guns saved last year, ljt that number up against u
Your by grail of mass murder, the single event, and then tell me that guns do more harm than good. In just Ohio alone in the week that followed new town 3 residences were broken into and defended by gun owners. So the amount of people saved in that week, just in Ohio, accounts for half of those killed in new town.

Like I said before laws only only created to km part a punishment. They stop nothing. Speed limits are broken every day causing mass murder. Breaking the speed limit is breaking the law. It won't matter how hard it is to get guns on the black market, they'll always find a way there. The law abiding citizens just want a way to protect themselves that won't involve a cavity search and a credit check. How is that too much to ask for? In the last 3 months the gas station around the corner has been robbed 3 times. I bet if it was known That the attendants behind the counter were carrying a gun it wouldn't happen so often.

Pterocarya frax...

Did you re read this after you posted it? And you called my posts "prattling"?

"And again with the new town? You people pull up an event that happens nearly once every few years and cling to it like it happens all of the time"

There were 14 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2012 alone. Over 3000 people have died from guns since Newtown in this country. You wouldn't say that if it was your daughter, or wife, or family member. So yes, I will cling to the lives of innocent children, over clinging to guns.

And then you prattle on about guns doing more good than harm with no proof to back it up. At least that is what I think it says. Your comment is so discombobulated it is hard to tell.

vicariouslyAlive

My mistake for answering from my phone and trusting auto correct. And your number of mass shooting seems a bit bloated... besides, when the number of individual shootings still greatly outweighs those of mass shooting, having people a le to defend themselves in a one on one basis seems to quell those numbers. Why don't you take a look at where most citizens dies of gun related homicide... oh, that's right, DC, Chicago, Colorado and vermont. All places with elevated or restrictive gun laws. How many of those deaths were in a gun free zone? How many of those deaths were unarmed civilians? My guess is you don't have answers for those questions nor would you want to answer them in the first place for fear of yet again playing the fool.

KnuckleDragger

Nope, because Bluto actually makes some fairly good points and is capable of engaging in a civil discussion. If you are being attacked, maybe you should reread the unsubstantiated junk you post.

Pterocarya frax...

Go ahead and keep piling on and acting like 5th graders, and crying about the stupid dumbocrats. Meanwhile, the people on the correct side of this issue have the American people on their side. A vote is scheduled on new laws in the Senate on Thursday. By then Portman and several other Republicans will have swung in favor of background checks, and it will pass.

Then Boehner really will have a reason to cry, because he ain't seen nothin yet. You see, times have changed, and liberals are motivated like they haven't been in a long, long time. So while you people are typing your hate we are working for real outcomes.

vicariouslyAlive

yeah, and just like raising the pentagon with your good intentions back in the 60's i see this all going over like a fart in a submarine now, just as things went for those that put feelings before logic did back then.

it's much easier to point a gun when you know one wont be pointing back. plain and simple. removing all of the guns from circulation is a pipe dream still being chased by the countries you people seem so desperately to want to modle the united states after.

the problem is this. for all of the countries that banned guns they're either 1, much much smaller than the US. england and australia for example have a total population smaller than the amount of registered gun owners in america never mind those that arent registered. point 2, for the countries of equal or greater size that have banned guns their political views a bit different from ours... something like dictatorship and/ or very oppressive comes to mind... china, vietnam.... countries like that.

so with our extremely high gun carrier to total population ratio and our seemingly free nature of a political system, i'd really like to see how one would propose to actually make things safer without breaking any of the founding rights in the constitution... because if one amendment falls, you can expect the rest to drop off just as quickly as the patriot act and the homeland security acts popped up.

the gun debate goes a bit deeper than people just wanting to carry a gun. for some of us, we've seen enough history to know that when one link in the chain that protects the citizens of a nation is weakened or breaks, it's not long after than the whole big show comes crashing down.

it starts with one thing that they get away with taking, and then the ball starts rolling. in the last 15 years we've lost the right to privacy, the right to not be detained without just cause (all the government has do to is cry wolf on terrorist activities and you go away, and their limitations on doing so are so vague that ordering certain books over the internet will get you red flagged, trust me i know first hand) and now our rights to protect ourselves not from only each other, but the very government that seems to be baring down each and every year more and more... the people that wrote the constitution broke away from an oppressive government and wrote the 2nd amendment to make sure that no government would be so powerful over it's citizens in this new nation... it's such a shame to see all of that hard work and lost life end up becoming the very thing they swore to never let this nation become.

what you short minded people fail to realize is laws stop nothing. if they did a simple sign that reads "gun free zone" would have worked in all of those places that got shot up. the plain and simple fact is that guns are here, and they're here to stay, this debate isnt about that, it's about being able to fight back against those that will pay no heed to this new law because they didnt heed the ones before it.

the war on terror? stalemate at best, and that's being extremely gracious there. the war on drugs... we've been losing that since the 80's... now they want to start a war on guns... 150 million registered gun owners and countless owners not registered... good luck finding the funding for man power and prison space there chief, because the last two endeavors have already bled us all dry.

Mime Bloggling's picture
Mime Bloggling

"So , you are saying the Nazi's used their position of power to tweak the existing laws in order to persecute a specific group of people because they didn't like them."

No, I'm not saying that at all..you did......but your uninformed bloviating and your inability to stay on task would make an interesting case study for any psych major. How many of your straw men does it take to shoot down the argument that Hitler knowingly disarmed the Jews for the purpose of annihilation?

Bluto

I never said he didn't target Jews . I said he used the people of Germany's fears and prejudices to control them by making the Jews out to be boogymen , just like the NRA is fear mongering by stoking peoples paranoia that the big , bad , boogyman government wants to take their guns . Republicans are in the pocket of the gun industries and are doing their bidding despite the overwhelming support for background checks coming out of conservatives own jurisdictions , you know the actual voters . They are doing this kind of thing across the board . You can't fight for 2nd amendment rights while at the same time suppressing the rights of Americans just because you don't like them , but that's EXACTLY what conservatives are doing as we speak . It's funny , when you people can't make a real argument you always revert to insults . By the way , you brought up Hitler , so if I were you I wouldn't throw stone about staying on task . I just responded to your comment . I say it is you with the straw army and guess what . They are burning .

camm

Fred come to perkins we will trade you for gunner

goofus

OSUBuckeye59

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 3:32pm

I miswrote . . . the Obama administration is *NOT* pushing for "expanded registration", they're pushing for "expanded background checks".

Funny but on either applications wouldn't logic require name AND address. More easier for Obozo to confiscate if he knows where you live.

OSUBuckeye59

@goofus, registration would be the same as a background check in terms of a person having to provide their name and address, but there *IS* a difference: current law bars the FBI from retaining records on those who pass background checks, and nothing in the president’s plan — nor those proposed by the congressmen — would change that. Some gun rights groups make a “slippery slope” argument that background checks could lead to a federal gun registry, but that’s simply not part of any of the plans being considered in Congress. The FBI is required to destroy any records generated by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System — which was created as a result of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993. The law strictly prohibits the “registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions” of those who pass the background check. Since 2004, Congress has inserted language in annual spending bills requiring the FBI to destroy firearm transfer records within 24 hours of approval. Although Obama has proposed a universal background check system, nothing in his plan would result in the establishment of a federal firearm registry.

Also, whereas I'm guessing you don't much care for President Obama as you continuously refer to him as "Obozo", he is our sitting President. I'm not particularly thrilled with what he's done/not done during his Presidency, but I wasn't thrilled with some of what his predecessor did/didn't do either. And I'm none too pleased with some of what our Congressional members have done/not done in the past 12+ years. Still, as much as I may dislike some of what our federally elected officials have or have not done while in office, I personally think resorting to derogatory name-twisting tarnishes any debate message.

Ned Mandingo

This article is pure propaganda and anyone who believes it is a fool
The NRA has influence because they represent their members. A large part of America. This article is originally from chicago, a city with some of the most illegal restrictive gun laws in the country. They also are high on the list in murders and violent crime. How is their gun laws working out for them.
FBI statistics indicate that after a state legalizes a concealed carry law violent crimes go down greatly.
"Assault weapons" is a term used in propaganda to grab your attention. Semi automatic rifles are statistically used in very little murders and banning them would not save any lives.
They would be useful for citizens to use to protect our country from enemy's foreign or domestic. That is the reason for this propaganda war on the second amendment.

Ned Mandingo

Adam Lanza was denied firearm purchases sever times in the weeks before the sandy hook murders. That's why he had to steal the guns he used. And he used hand guns not semi automatic rifles, it's a fact. Look at the autopsy reports, handgun bullets.
Hitler took the guns, Stalin tok the guns, chairman Mao took the guns. All dictators take the citizens guns.

Pterocarya frax...

Oh come on Ned...Lanza never was denied purchases. He didn't steal any guns. He didn't murder any kids.

In fact, Adam Lanza never existed! The proof is right there at your fave website:

http://planet.infowars.com/polit...

Ned Mandingo

Get the truth at infowars.com

The Big Dog's back

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Profane, obscene, sexual or derogatory language.

gene44870

I dont know why they are so worried about these gun laws . Let me explain
1 If I am in a gang or I am a drug dealer , I am not going to give permits a thought , I am not going to apply for a permit to get a gun I am just going steal a gun that someone has in there home .like a law bidding resident that works hard for his money and that has a gun to protect himself and his family from people like me
2 as long as the NRA is fighting for the right to bare arms and goverments need money to get another term I am going to have a gun
Its as plain as and simple as that , And no I am not a drug dealer or a law breaker . I am a law bidding resident .
What we need to do is get rid of these so call pea bargains and change the laws in refrence to the death penalty and then use them laws
Get these thugs off the streets and make sure they are not let out to repeat there crimes against law bidding residents such as myself ,
Thats the only way we can get through to these thugs and let them know we arent going to let them run over us , by selling drugs to our young children and rob us of what we have worked hard for
Times are hard and they dont have to be as hard if we take these thugs off the streets and make sure they dont get out to repeat there crimes against us

Pages