The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

I happen to believe that mandatory background checks for ALL gun sales are not only the 'max,' but indeed a desirable goal. And may even be THE overall goal for gun advocates - I personally believe that this would do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals than any 'ban' on assualt weapons or clips would.

Cycloptichorn

I personally think background checks are the key, but I'm not convinced that my view is mainstream (on any side of the gun control argument).

It certainly is the option that receives the highest levels of public support.

Cycloptichorn

I think Obama voters/supporters should be disqualified from ever owning a firearm, any firearm.

This is to you and Beth . . .

A convicted felon was found to be in possession of eighteen firearms and 40,000 rounds of ammunition.

Background checks ain't gettin' it.

I agree with Set. One of the things they'll probably do is pass some sort of half-assed law about background checks for prospective gun buyers and it'll be a meaningless piece of legislation. The NRA will make only a perfunctory objection because they, too, know it doesn't mean diddly-squat.

Congress will possibly also outlaw some more types of so-called assault weapons and that's meaningless as well. Fully automatic weapons are illegal now. You can't buy a sub-machine gun without a special Federal permit. Legally, that is. But any do-it-yourself gunsmith knows how to file down the sear in the firing mechanism of a semi-automatic to make it fully automatic. Besides, the school shootings and the Batman massacre in Colorado weren't carried out with automatic weapons. Most gun control advocates don't really understand the terminology. They don't know what the term "assault weapon" means so they get in uproar over arms that are no more (or less) deadly than standard hunting rifles.

Everything that's being debated in Congress right now and everything that's being so loudly advocated by President Obama amounts to nothing more than a cosmetic cover-up to give the impression that they're concerned and doing something.

Just give it enough time and the whole furor will die down.

It will take generations of very strict enforcement of existing law, and a major effort to stop private sales, as well as to clean up the oceans of illegal firearms and ammunition out there. I agree with LA, this is just cosmetic bullshit.

Why would it be meaningless to require a background check for all gun sales??

In any case, if the system unduly burdens lawful gun buyers, the NRA's objection will not be merely perfunctory. When election day comes, they will devour Congressmen like a swarm of locusts devours a farmer's crops.

But if the system does not unduly burden lawful gun buyers, the NRA will support the law.





Not from my perspective. I make no distinction between "Congress banning assault weapons" and "Congress murdering my family".





It takes more than that. You also need to add special parts. And you need to know the exact spot (which is not marked) to add the parts, or you just end up ruining the gun. And it needs to be done by a competent gunsmith.

Too bad parents outnumber NRA members.

Do they do background checks in the US already? otherwise I'm not sure what the point of posting that was

oralloy says:

In the last election, the NRA poured money into the campaigns of eight senators. Seven lost. They were just about as successful as Karl Rove. The country ignored them both. Stand up to the bullies and they melt away. Though I must say your comparison of the NRA to a swarm of locusts is spot on. Extremely destructive both. Time to get out the pesticide.

They do, except for private sales between individuals. The presumption was that I could give (or sell) a gun to a family member or close friend without the inconvenience of complying with federal law. It also allows for the private sale of guns at shows between individuals and collectors lightening up or improving their collections at gun shows. Whether those sellers are legitimate collectors or undeclared businessmen seems to be a matter of contention. Maybe the standards of those collectors need to be more closely examined. I haven't been to a gun show in decades, and wouldn't know who was declared dealer or collector in any case.

Personally, I wouldn't buy from an unknown source. Guns can have surprising histories, and I wouldn't want my new pet to turn out to have been either stolen, or involved in a traceable crime.

I should add that there are serious reporting failures of mental illnesses that are not showing up on background checks because the records are just not available.

I think that the political will among the American electorate to make at least some cosmetic changes in gun control laws is perhaps higher than it was after the Reagan/Brady incident. I predict that a ban on assault weapons along the lines of what Clinton signed off on will resurface. The Second Amendment is unlikely to be changed, but I'm not sure that it's the real problem in the first place. If Obama can do something to address the real problem, idiots and psychos who are able to get their hands on firearms of any sort, that will be one hell of an achievement. There are so many unregistered weapons out there already.

Nah. No big deal.

That's hardly going to prevent the NRA from annihilating any Congressmen in a rural district who they choose to target.

Currently, background checks are only required of actual gun stores. Any private citizen can sell their used guns without any background checks.

The original thinking on this was that if the general public were given access to the background check system, all privacy would disappear. People could order a background check on anyone just by pretending there was a private gun sale happening.

At gun shows, you can find both regular guns stores and private citizens selling guns. And just as happens away from gun shows, the stores have to do background checks, while the private citizens do not.

"Money and Senators" is irrelevant to the issue of "Representatives and voters".

Every Congressmen in a rural district who crosses the NRA will be voted out of office. It will not involve any money. It will only involve the NRA advising their members which candidate is the best on guns.


Also, there is a bit of a difference between "an election year when NRA voters have not seen a real threat to their rights in over a decade" and "an election year that was preceded by a high profile assault against the Constitutional rights of all gun owners".

NRA voters may have been snoozing in 2012. But they are wide awake now. And if there are any grave violations of their rights, they will be very wide awake in 2014.


And while senators may be a bit harder to topple in a statewide election than congressmen who are limited to rural districts, you might want to pay a bit of attention to the Democrats in the Senate. They seem to fear the NRA a bit more than you do (possibly because they are the ones who'd end up voted out of office).

The Senate Democrats have no plans to pass any ban on assault weapons, and they are not even going to try very hard on magazine limits.

And while they are going to try to pass expanded background checks, they are almost certainly going to take the NRA's concerns into consideration when they draft the legislation.

Guns are routinely sold by individuals, and no, there are no background checks in such situations. It's the elephant in the room as far as this discussion goes.

A headline I just read:

Armed School Security Guard Clark Arnold Leaves Gun Unattended In Student Bathroom

That headline in my last post underscores that the human factor and weapons are inseparable. You cannot improve on people, but you can control what they use to kill, ultimately. What it will take is both time and steadfast resolve. Even if the laws are tightened somewhat this year, politics may dictate that it gets reversed by the next administration. Only an aware public can see this does not happen.