world

Obama to act next week on gun background checks

104 Comments
By KEVIN FREKING

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

104 Comments
Login to comment

Good call, POTUS !

4 ( +8 / -4 )

The president has consistently expressed frustration after mass shootings, saying it shouldn’t be so easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.

vs.

The National Rifle Association opposes expanded background check systems.

And once again in contrast . . .

Where Guns Used In Crimes Come From Christopher Ingraham - The Washington Post - Tuesday, December 29, 2015

"In 2014, over 3,200 firearms originally purchased in Georgia where used to commit crimes in other states, making it the biggest exporter of crime guns in the U.S. Texas, Virginia and Florida weren't far behind with over 2,500 crime guns each. Arizona and Pennsylvania were each the source of over 2,000 guns used in crimes elsewhere."

So this idea everyone should be armed and background checks are an imposition on some freedom, who came up with that? The NRA. What a surprise. The gun salesmen are always annoyed at something:

"States with stricter gun laws, like New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and California, on the other hand, export relatively few crime guns on a per-capita basis."

"But Congress has explicitly made it difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to answer these questions. A budget rider known as the Tiahrt Amendment, passed in 2004, makes it unlawful for ATF's detailed gun trace data -- which contains information on individual purchasers, guns and retailers -- from being used for any purpose other than crime investigation. That means it's off-limits for researchers who could use that information to learn more about where crime guns come from."

So, is it really about some imaginary right that endangers everyone else? Or, is it anything to sell a gun at any cost to the society?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

The scope of the background checks is ever expanding...

Unpaid parking tickets, minor medical conditions like unexplained headaches.

Before you know it, a police review of your facebook account will be necessary. And if you don't have a facebook account you'll be deemed "anti-social" and a potential threat.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

Before you know it, a police review of your facebook account will be necessary. And if you don't have a facebook account you'll be deemed "anti-social" and a potential threat.

Sounds like a good way to keep the guns out of the hands of the people.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

What portion of the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment does the "Constitutional scholar" not understand?

-10 ( +7 / -17 )

Meanwhile, new legislation in Texas 2016 "open carry" laws come into effect.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

What portion of the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment does the "Constitutional scholar" not understand?

What part of 'militia' do you not understand?

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Anyone who is against closing background check loopholes has a brain issue. There's absolutely no reason to fight to keep them.

What portion of the "shall not be infringed"

Hey, if Texas can say that driving 12 hours to an abortion clinic isn't an undue burden, can't we say the same thing about gun purchases? Let's pass so many restrictions on gun shops that 95% of them are forced to go out of business, and to top it off we'll claim we're doing it for the safety of gun buyers.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

The only part of the Constitution I ever hear the gun crowd mention is the one they claim allows them to have a personal arsenal and create private armies to fight their government. Gun huggers come across as the most anti-American of all the various anti-American groups. It's not surprising they commit so many terroristic acts.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

advocacy groups say some of the people who sell firearms at gun shows are not federally licensed, increasing the chance of sales to customers prohibited by law from purchasing a gun.

How many crips and bloods go those gun shows? None, cause they can get one in any of their low-income communities. Especially Chicago, where there are strict gun laws but shootings are rapant.

Obama's lame background checks will accomplish nothing.

-5 ( +6 / -12 )

How many crips and bloods go those gun shows?

So let's leave the gaping loophole open.....just because.

2 ( +7 / -6 )

Every time the Divider-in-Chief opens his mouth on this issue, a million more guns go flying off the shelves.

Go,Obama, go . . . .

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

What part of 'militia' do you not understand?

"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat bacon shall not be infringed."

Who has the right to eat bacon, the people or the well balanced breakfast?

Liberals apparently didn't learn how to diagram a sentence in elementary school. Sad!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

What portion of the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment does the "Constitutional scholar" not understand?

Hmm. Seems like certain members of the "well regulated militia" are getting their panties in a twist again. It is true that gun sales have skyrocketed since Obama's rise; it is also true that the number of gun owners has fallen - that is, a greater number of weapons are owned by a fewer number of people. Did you read about the mother who, just last night, shot dead her twenty-something daughter, mistaking her for a burglar? Hilarious! The number of such stories is almost unlimited, proving that these people will eventually take care of themselves. In the meantime, a majority of Americans must suffer for a minority's infantilism.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

The organization’s Institute for Legislative Action says studies have shown that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, the black market or family and friends.

Just like how they buy and sell illegal narcotics in those low-income communities. Obama's so-called enhanced background checks won't be stopping the drive-by's. Especially in Chicago.

Did you read about the mother who, just last night, shot dead her twenty-something daughter, mistaking her for a burglar? Hilarious!

Yeah, I read that. It happened in Florida. & no it wasn't funny Laguna. I saw accidental discharges and involuntary manslaughter occur in both military and private sector. It goes with the turf. Hey, sh** happens. I'll wear that shoe all day long.

Wish the "Black Lives Matter" movement could wear the shoe regarding drug, gang and gun violence plaguing their communities decade after decade. Worse, lawful abiding gun owners are being scrutinized and not the actual "thugs" who are perpetrating those "gun" crimes.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Obama's so-called enhanced background checks won't be stopping the drive-by's

So let's leave the gaping loophole open.....just because.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Did you read about the mother who, just last night, shot dead her twenty-something daughter, mistaking her for a burglar?

Natural selection.

-1 ( +4 / -4 )

In Texas they may openly carry a holstered firearm.

LoL, imagine places like the Bronkx, Chicago south-side, LA's south central or NO's 9th ward. That's a scary thought. Places like those are already hotbeds for criminal activity.

So let's leave the gaping loophole open

I support the background checks. As much as I support enhancing federal charges (in addition to local/state) for crinals convicted of crimes in which a gun was used during the commission of that crime.

The background checks wont do much. The thugs in those ghettos will find a way to get a gun. Like Nicolas Cage said in Lord of War: "If there's a will, there's a gun."

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Did you read about the mother who, just last night, shot dead her twenty-something daughter, mistaking her for a burglar? Hilarious!

Regardless of what side of the fence you're on, how is that hilarious.

2 ( +3 / -2 )

I saw accidental discharges and involuntary manslaughter occur in both military and private sector. It goes with the turf. Hey, sh** happens.

Sh** never just spontaneously happens - for every effect, there is a cause. Almost 700 Americans are killed accidentally with guns every year. Half are under the age of 25, and Americans aged 5 to 14 are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries. So, yeah, it does go with the turf - and an increasing number of Americans are realizing what foolish turf it is and are ditching their guns.

The Supreme Court still suffers the hangover from when the GOP dominated the presidency. That era will likely conclude over the next decade, with retiring conservatives replaced by more progressive judges. I hope to see a reversion to the more traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment in my lifetime.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

A better initiative would have been to push for greater funding for the US Attorneys Offices to actually prosecute ALL federal gun crimes. Right now the focus for prosecution on the federal level are so-called Armed Career Criminals - folks caught with guns or ammunition after being previously convicted of at least three prior violent crime or drug trafficking felonies. The ACC mandatory minimum sentencing of 15 years in prison is an effective tool in removing violent offenders from the community:

https://www.atf.gov/news/press-releases

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sh** never just spontaneously happens - for every effect, there is a cause. Almost 700 Americans are killed accidentally with guns every year.

. . . (yawn) lets ban private passenger vehicles too. Motorcycles too . . . S*** does just happen. I have been around firearms since I was 17 yrs old. I'm glad & lucky I've never been involved in an accident.

Regardless of what side of the fence you're on, how is that hilarious.

Its not hilarious at all. Laguna prob thinks what Tashfeen Malik and her hubby did was "cute" too. The carnage of the concertgoers in PARIS on 11/13 must've been, "Comedy Central."

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

I figured the car argument would eventually be unveiled, as if cars and guns are in the slightest bit comparable. Quick quiz: if either are used as intended, what is the result? Just Googled "idiots w" and Google helpfully completed my query: "ith guns" - it is apparently a popular search in America.

In 2012, there were 259 justifiable homicides by gun, while in the same year, there were 548 fatal unintentional shootings. And that was a typical year. Gun owners, year in and year out, have proven to kill themselves or others at a rate twice that of the intended purpose of the weapon. Imagine if the car you bought only had a 33% chance of getting you to your destination alive - a sane person would consider different arrangements. Yet people keep keeping guns. That is why it is hilarious: despite the concrete tragedy the family must endure, the abstract stupidity can't help but make a rational person laugh.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

America and their guns. And the Canadians (hey, that's me!) have our maple syrup and hockey sticks!

2 ( +3 / -2 )

Imagine if the car you bought only had a 33% chance of getting you to your destination alive - a sane person would consider different arrangements.

Great point. Heck, if didn't have the brass-pass I wouldn't "buzz drive" so often.

That is why it is hilarious

Ohh, I see. I thought you were laffing @ the fact that a mother "shot" her daughter on accident. I should've known you wouldn't post such a sick sense of humor by calling it hilarious. . .. . but sometimes the gun debate gets heated and statements are misunderstood.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Ohh, I see. I thought you were laffing @ the fact that a mother "shot" her daughter on accident.

She didn't shoot her by accident, she shot her deliberately.

She just failed to verify who she was actually shooting. It is always a risk when people take it on themselves to kill someone they suppose to be an intruder that they'll get someone they'd rather not have shot - an elderly person with dementia who has wandered onto the property; a child; someone with mental issues; a friend or relative; a delivery worker.

"Shoot first, ask questions later" comes with consequences, and really isn't a responsibility the average citizen is capable of handling.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

She didn't shoot her by accident, she shot her deliberately.

Ur right she shot her "deliberately" just like the concertgoers (11/13, PARIS) who got mowed-down by AK47 gunfire.

Um . . . twas a case of mistaken identity. But hey, "s*** happens." I'll wear that shoe forever.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Ur right she shot her "deliberately" just like the concertgoers (11/13, PARIS) who got mowed-down by AK47 gunfire.

That's an imbecilic comparison. There's obviously a difference between a deliberate act of mass murder by a group of terrorists and an act of supreme recklessness by an individual homeowner.

The fact that there is a difference doesn't get around the moral difficulty raised by someone intentionally killing what they assume is another person when they don't know who that person is, and don't have sufficient information to rule out that person being someone they should not be killing.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

WC626: The background checks wont do much.

But surely you won't fight to keep a gaping loophole open, right?

5 ( +7 / -4 )

Not American but I remember is as the 2nd constitutional right, might remember further ones like free speech, free relugion free from illegal searches.

Not bad for an non-american hey Wc626, aren't supposed to be onw

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And nor do I. Educated, law abiding, prior-military service republicans, who are armed & pro gun, do not commit (and are not committing) the major gun crimes in america.

-7 ( +2 / -8 )

In the earlier 2012 study, 33 percent of a sample of 1,388 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans had committed at least one act of non-combat-related violence or aggression toward others in the community in the past year. About 11 percent had engaged in severe violence, using a gun or knife or sexual violence against another person.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/veterans-ptsd-crime-report_n_1951338.html

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Heh- 11%? Lets exclude the severe violence, knives and sexual violence and go staright to "guns".

Basically, you got nothing. What about the law abiding gun owners? Educated republicans with careers . . . .they lawful Texans who are out and about "armed" legally (in their state) as I speak?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Eddie Ray Routh was an educated, prior-military service Republican who was armed and pro gun - and law abiding, until the moment he was not.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Cars vs. guns? OK, let's compare their future. Cars will drive themselves to near perfection when they drive themselves. Deaths will be close to zero unless the actual driver takes over. Guns will get more dangerous as time goes by. Bullets as well as shooting tech. goes electronic.

Also, the more someone (or some gun) is approved/registered/etc. the less chance of a gun crime. People who are approved for carrying seldom commit crimes. You can actually own a machine gun if you go through the proper procedures with the tax stamp etc. and I have yet to hear of one used in a mass shooting in the US. Personally I'm for some sort of stricter registration for semi autos (but not as strict as would be needed for a fully auto). It seems most mass shootings are done with semi autos.

Gun murders are down. But the number of white Republican men shooting themselves is high (that is if they don't drink themselves into oblivion, which is also in the news these days). It's funny. Obama has been the best thing to gun sales these years. But when white Republican men buy them due to the fear of Obama declaring tyranny on the US they end up shooting themselves out of a sudden spike of depression.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Yey, just about time, Mr. President.

We need to move forward for change without TX and all Red states. TX is not a part of United States anyway as far as I am concerned. Look at the US healthcare ranking stats just released, they have been insisting to go with change, now they are dropping health care rankings nearly to the bottom. They think they are different from us.

I have studied enough on Amend #2 as a scholar while there have been more than 3 mass shootings in my state Colorado. We are very fed up with killings. Gun control is a common sense.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@StrangerLand

What part of 'militia' do you not understand?

Gun's are not what is "well regulated", the militia is. It is easy to make this mistake - I made the same assumption myself. Re-read the 2nd amendment. I understand that Obama and the Left are frustrated by the Constitution but the answer is not more twisting of words or unilateral executive actions (leading to impulsive gun sales). That just causes more polarization and alienation from the government. The Left needs to make the case to the American people to amend the Constitution. Why they refuse to even consider doing so is mind-boggling. I can only assume that they prefer to ignore the ultimate law of the land whenever it stands in the way of their desire to micro-manage the lives of the people. Obama and the Left want the Australian model of gun confiscation. That will require a Constitutional amendment. By making no amendment effort it only shows that the Left is more interested in a contrived and divisive political issue rather than saving lives.

@SuperLib

So let's leave the gaping loophole open.....just because.

Only a tiny percentage of gun sales are a result of the 'gun show loophole'. The vast majority of gun show sales are by retailers and background checks are done for these. It is only in the relatively small cases where a private individual sells his person firearm to another person where the background check is not required. I believe even these private sales should also require a check but even so they have virtually zero impact on gun violence. Gang-bangers in Democrat controlled cities do not drive out to conservative states and go to gun shows to buy weapons from private individuals in order to evade gun laws.

The San Bernardino terrorists guns were purchased by a man with mental issues who was allowed to avoid discovery of his medical issues. Everyone with a serious mental health diagnosis should have their status available to gun background checks. But any such regulations must be made by the Legislative branch of government and not by another one of Obama's imperial decrees.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

"The Left needs to make the case to the American people to amend the Constitution."

"Why they refuse to even consider doing so is mind-boggling."

"I can only assume that they prefer to ignore the ultimate law of the land whenever it stands in the way of their desire to micro-manage the lives of the people." - comments

The NRA has perfected this type of "argument", it speaks to everything except Public Safety. If an American gun nut wants more guns, the Second Amendment is his friend.

Used as shield for all reasonable controls on deadly weapons of mass destruction, the Second Amendment should be first recognized for what it is. An Amendment, as in, a correction to the document.

As it stands, and used to enforce reckless gun laws, it is a correction that needs correcting. In the mean time will the States, her Citizens and Legislators simply allow the abattoir of the NRA to continue?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Why wait til next week? How about tomorrow?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Total waste of taxpayers money. Like all 'reform' legislation, this benefits ONLY industries involved, as with healthcare and education... the problems remain in uncontrolled related industry.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Personally, I'm fine with a well-regulated militia. However, I don't see that multiple gun sales to crazy people lends itself to well regulated anything. Grannies with 200 guns in the basement, those with criminal backgrounds, those who don't know how to use and store a gun safely, those who must buy that gun right now, etc. etc. cannot join my militia, and I really suggest that you don't let them join yours.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Remember, if they are not a member of a militia, they are not entitled to guns -- US Constitution, 2nd Amendment.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The SUPPLY of guns in America must be curtailed, that is the only solution that will have rock solid results in the fullness of time. Go after the firearms manufacturers, no matter how long it takes to bring them to their knees.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"Gun's are not what is "well regulated", the militia is" Interesting viewpoint if you look at the actual gun holder being "regulated". The point is "regulated" gun holders (people who apply for permits) rarely commit gun crimes. And if every person had to be "regulated" in order to handle a gun in any way (even simply ownership in ones house without the gun leaving the private property) it would mean the problem would still exists of depressed white Republican men shooting themselves out of impulse, which is a problem I would rather have for society, compared to a shooting up a theater and hurting other people by "unregulated" shooters like at Sandy Hook. Hurting yourself out of impulse seems to be the white Republican male way these days- as well as drinking oneself to death. Sad, but at least it does not involve a movie theater, a school with innocent children. In this case I am all for a "well regulated" militia.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@kcjapan

As it stands, and used to enforce reckless gun laws, it is a correction that needs correcting. In the mean time will the States, her Citizens and Legislators simply allow the abattoir of the NRA to continue?

Your comments simply reinforces my point. The Left prefers to divide the country over the Constitution instead of amending (correcting in your words) in order to address an issue that is important to large segments of the population. Attacking the NRA is more of the same as they are a private group just like many on the Left who all have the right to petition the government. The reason the NRA has so much influence is because they have a great deal of support among average citizens. That frustrates the Left so they resort to executive orders to get their way when they cannot convince people to see the issue the way they do.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

So regulated "militia" (people who want to own guns) as well as the guns themselves being regulated = less gun murders. (Gun suicides among white Republican gun owners up?- well, that's another story) Proof is in the numbers. Go ahead and get the gun you want that is legally available. The more deadly the gun the more scrutiny needed. Those semi autos might need to be monitored by the government just like machine guns are. There is a lot of serious talk about that.

There are many who think the NRA itself are left because there is the belief that the NRA doesn't push for open gun rights enough. These people think they should have the right to have the same weaponry as the authorities and military. Because of this the NRA is looked upon by many as a Liberal entity that does NOT protect the constitutional rights of Americans. The NRA frustrates the "Right"

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Hurting yourself out of impulse seems to be the white Republican male way these days- as well as drinking oneself to death.

I haven't heard of any real studies by real researchers that have divided shooting incidents by party. The stories I have read that attempt to do this have been proven to be inaccurate. Nevertheless, weren't Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, Randy Weaver, and James Huberty Republicans?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The left's tactic of making a boogeyman out of the NRA has always come across as pathetic. In a sea of corporate and special interest lobbying, the NRA is very very small compared to even gun control groups, such as those funded by Bloomberg's deep pockets. And the NRA at least can boost having support from a broad section of the electorate, compared to other lobbying groups that are often backed by just a couple individuals. Again, Bloomberg pulls out his checkbook and bankrolls all of these anti-gun groups, but the NRA is evil for supporting its members views?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Timothy McVeigh was a Republican since a Dem. was in the WH at that time. Giffords was also shot by a Republican as was Kennedy since they were Dems. To be fair Lincoln was shot by a Democrat. People from both sides commit gun crimes/mass murders. And don't forget the Republican pro-life shooters.

No, check the news. White people (often Republicans) feel so sorry for themselves these days and blame all their troubles on Obama instead of looking into mirror. They do one of two things to make their situations worse. They drink themselves to death (check the news, really) or buy a gun because they are afraid of Obama's henchmen. In the case of owning a gun and a spink of depression they end up shooting themselves.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Gang-bangers in Democrat controlled cities do not drive out to conservative states and go to gun shows to buy weapons from private individuals in order to evade gun laws.

Really? That very scenario seems to being what happens:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-17/news/ct-met-guns-gangs-20130217_1_levaine-tanksley-gun-laws-gun-trafficker

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The reason the NRA has so much influence is because they have a great deal of support among average citizens. - comments

A willful misrepresentation is always welcome from the NRA. Executive Orders are utilized more and more frequently, (see George W. Bush), when Public Safety is threatened. At least, that's supposed to be a condition for their use, one assumes.

Now, it was reported that background checks are universally recognized as the simplest tools for preventing guns from reaching the wrong hands.

Apparently the only thing the NRA is supposed to care about is how many get sold, not to whom they are sold.

It is shocking how the deaths of twenty tiny children and six of their heroic teachers were slaughtered for the same background check requirement that would have revealed the psychiatric condition of their murderer.

So, it is hardly an academic problem. Give the NRA credit. Not many simple petitioners of Government can protect their product, weapons of mass destruction, as well.

Apparently the grieving parents of the children and teachers of Newtown were drown out by the simple petitioning of the NRA. (what a farcical statement)

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

What part of 'militia' do you not understand?

Gun's are not what is "well regulated", the militia is.

And how many of the crazy gun nuts in America are part of a well regulated militia?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Illyas: The left's tactic of making a boogeyman out of the NRA has always come across as pathetic.

Um, have you seem the statements by the NRA? The end is coming, lawlessness, the US government is about to collapse, minorities are taking over cities....will you be able to defend yourself? I can pull some quotes for you if you'd like.

And the NRA at least can boost having support from a broad section of the electorate

What's odd to me is that something like 90% of the public supports expanded background checks and closing loopholes. Read any thread here and you'll hear gun supporters saying the same thing. Yet, the NRA successfully lobbies to kill legislation that does just that.

Who are they representing? Or perhaps gun supporters are just appearing to be reasonable when agreeing to closing loopholes when they know the NRA will just do the dirty work for them?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@Farmboy

Nevertheless, weren't Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, Randy Weaver, and James Huberty Republicans?

What evidence is there to back that statement up with?

@nishikat

No, check the news. White people (often Republicans) feel so sorry for themselves these days and blame all their troubles on Obama instead of looking into mirror.

Is this an attempt to make some kind of point or argument in favor of gun confiscation or something?

@kcjapan

A willful misrepresentation is always welcome from the NRA.

Are you trying to say that the NRA is not supported by millions of Americans?

Now, it was reported that background checks are universally recognized as the simplest tools for preventing guns from reaching the wrong hands.

Very few people get their hands on a weapon through legal means without a background check. So how would the San Bernadino terrorist act have been avoided given that the guns were purchased legally but illegally given by the purchaser to the terrorists? The Left has no answer for that do they? So the solution is to ban law abiding people from owning a gun as if that would have anything to do with keeping people from getting them illegally.

I get it - the Left wants to ban guns in America. They will not come out and say it directly and they will not work towards amending the Constitution because it will affect their electoral fortunes. They got nothing but demagoguery leading to polarization in the country and more executive law making out of Obama.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Very few people get their hands on a weapon through legal means without a background check.

OK...

So how would the San Bernadino terrorist act have been avoided given that the guns were purchased legally but illegally given by the purchaser to the terrorists? The Left has no answer for that do they?

It seems you have an answer -

So the solution is to ban law abiding people from owning a gun as if that would have anything to do with keeping people from getting them illegally.

If criminals or potential criminals get their guns from 'law-abiding' folk who purchased the guns legally, then shutting down that route would help stem the flow of guns into criminal hands, surely?

Make gun possession illegal, and all them 'law-abiding' owners suddenly become law-breakers.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"Is this an attempt to make some kind of point or argument in favor of gun confiscation or something?" No, but I'm sorry this group of people are so depressed to the point of drinking themselves to death or shooting themselves. But if they start going out and hurting other people with their guns, then that would be a good call to confiscate since that could affect me or someone I know.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I get it - the Left wants to ban guns in America. - comments

Wow! Background checks = gun banning !!

Someone phone the clinic. They've got a laptop on the loose.

No, no now, a background check could be a backdoor to banning.

The ole' BCBDB! That LEFT! Always conniving.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

And how many of the crazy gun nuts in America are part of a well regulated militia?

Militias like the Hell's Angels, Banditos, Bloods, and Crips are well-armed and well-trained, but for some reason the gun huggers never mention them as their brethern.

Here are some of the other gun banger militias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gangs_in_the_United_States

3 ( +3 / -1 )

@cleo If criminals or potential criminals get their guns from 'law-abiding' folk who purchased the guns legally, then shutting down that route would help stem the flow of guns into criminal hands, surely? Make gun possession illegal, and all them 'law-abiding' owners suddenly become law-breakers.

Thank you for at least being honest. Many on your side of the argument seem to believe that universal background checks will have some effect on the number of deaths caused by guns. The problem is that making guns illegal will require a Constitutional amendment.

@kcjapan

Wow! Background checks = gun banning !!

No, background checks are fine. But there are already background checks and those checks failed to stop the San Bernardino terrorists and they also fail to prevent the vast majority of shooting deaths. Given these facts what is your solution other than Obama's Australia method? At least Cleo is honest about it. What Obama is suggesting is not permitted by the nations Constitution.

The ole' BCBDB! That LEFT! Always conniving.

Don't you think Obama would ban private ownership of guns if he could? He cannot of course but he isn't above executive orders and other bureaucratic means to move towards his goal.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Don't you think Obama would ban private ownership of guns if he could?

Obama is a hypocrite. If he's so serious about disarming America, then he should start with his own personal security team: Take away their firearms first, extra-round magazines too, silencers, red lasers . . . the whole 9 yrds.

Heh- "Disarm" the marine sentries too. The ones guarding his personal helicopter- Marine One.

Give them all "non-lethal" alternatives like pepper spray, asps and tasers. NOT!!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Don't you think Obama would ban private ownership of guns if he could? He cannot of course but he isn't above executive orders and other bureaucratic means to move towards his goal - comments

Really?

Contemplate some 112 guns per 100 people in the States. The idea an armed and unarmed force would simply come by to pick-up bang-bang for recycling?

Now, that is another good example of the training and faith sold as an NRA membership.

The certainty that any imaginary threat is real enough to shoot at, as long as it sells guns.

Only those so deep, in their state of rapture, in an NRA heaven can see those visions.

"Me and Bang-Bang, BFF!"

Just too precious.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What evidence is there to back that statement up with?

Wolfpack,

Well, I saw all of those at some time in an article disputing that they were all Democrats. However, just to be sure, I just looked up the first one, and under "Associations" on the Wikipedia article about McVeigh:

"...his only known associations were as a registered Republican while in Buffalo, New York in the 1980s, and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the Army, and there is no evidence that he ever belonged to any extremist groups"

My main point is that people hoping to categorize shooters according to party are going to have a hard time of it, as there are crazy or otherwise violent people with guns in every party. They may have a different story: political, religious, or just plain nuts, but the result is the same - dead folks who didn't need to die.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Make gun possession illegal, and all them 'law-abiding' owners suddenly become law-breakers.

Only on paper. In the hearts and minds, the law abiding owners would never surrender them EVEN if they suddenly become "illegal."

What's the ATF going to do? Go from coast-to-coast and top to bottom with search warrants for every residence across america asking people to "surrender" their firearms? NOT !!

For starters, Law Enforcement (both active & retired) and prior-military service american citizens would never surrender their own "private" arsenal of firearms.

With this example, who will the enforcers be? A rogue element of anti-gun liberals? NOT !!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"If he's so serious about disarming America" What's the reason? What's his personal gain? Does he plan on establishing a dictatorship in order to extend his presidency indefinitely?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Wc626: What's the ATF going to do? Go from coast-to-coast and top to bottom with search warrants for every residence across america asking people to "surrender" their firearms? NOT !! For starters, Law Enforcement (both active & retired) and prior-military service american citizens would never surrender their own "private" arsenal of firearms. With this example, who will the enforcers be? A rogue element of anti-gun liberals? NOT !!

Oh I've been saying this to gun supporters for years, yet they are still going out hoarding guns and ammo because they really believe the crazy scenario you described above is actually on the verge of happening.

Pretty creepy, huh?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Pretty creepy, huh? - comments

Since the whole NRA script is based on lies?

No, hoarding guns for Armageddon is right up their alley.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

How do the white paranoid gun group sleep at night. They think at any moment Obama (or another Democrat) is going to come knocking at your door with a court order to take your guns away. No wonder they are drinking themselves to death..or shooting themselves out of bouts of depression.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Don't you think Obama would ban private ownership of guns if he could?

You seem to think he does.

You are hysterical.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"They think at any moment Obama (or another Democrat) is going to come knocking at your door with a court order to take your guns away." - said in the voice of a Dickens' Sprit of Christmas Past, ooooooh! Spooky!*

So far, the NRA claimed both it is impossible to "confiscate" all guns AND this is the reason everyone should buy a gun.

You cain't argee with Hill-Billy logic. TRUMP 2016!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You cain't argee with Hill-Billy logic.

Call it what you may. Btw, the NRA doesn't force anyone purchase a firearm. Membership is voluntary too.

So far, the NRA claimed both it is impossible to "confiscate" all guns

It's fact, not a matter of opinion. Authorities will not be able nor capable to confiscate all guns coast-to-coast, top to bottom.

who will the enforcers be? A rogue element of anti-gun liberals?

Clearly NOT the liberals. The ATF, state, city and local Law Enforcement agencies (who most are pro gun) wouldn't do it. What would the commander-in-chief do then? Call on the US' biggest employer for assistance- The Department of Defense??

Again, NOT going to happen!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"Again, NOT going to happen!"

What are you going to do when Obama turns the US military on its own citizens with everything it has? You will need something more powerful than a Glock.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Again, NOT going to happen!" - comments

Isn't this, then, the point?

The cry-baby NRA shrieks 'confiscation'! And sells more guns.

We get it.

And, the Congress is held powerless to act on Public Safety issues, by the NRA.

We get it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What are you going to do when Obama turns the US military on its own citizens with everything it has?

Have you ever served in the US Military? These active duty and reservist do not support obama? Obama won't even put boots on the ground in ME. What makes you think he'll deploy them on US soil?

Just because obama "used his Executive Pen" (again) recently signing the new "martial law bill" doesn't mean crap. Posse Comitatus! They're out to get "you", not me.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"obama "used his Executive Pen" (again) recently signing the new "martial law bill" doesn't mean crap. Posse Comitatus! They're out to get "you", not me." - comments

We get it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"These active duty and reservist do not support obama?" This is saying that Terry Lakin is a real hero then.

"Obama won't even put boots on the ground..." Osama Bin Laden? Looks like troops got put on the ground just fine there.

You are worried about tyranny under Obama? But then say the military won't follow Obama's orders? Please clarify.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Obama won't even put boots on the ground..." Osama Bin Laden?

Dude- that's ancient history.

You are worried about tyranny under Obama?

Yeah. I didn't vote for change in the 1st place. 8 yrs. Enough is enough.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

How is Obama going to create tyranny if the military never listens to his orders? I don't get it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I don't get it.

I don't expect you to nishikat. The tyranny of the "deal" with iran. Snubbing an old ally like Isreal. The tyranny of allowing islamic refugees into the US when 31 governors say no. . . . re-establishing ties with cuba etc. . . they guy only cares about himself.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

You are the one who says that Obama wants to order the US troops to attack its cities to kill non Muslim citizens and make the US a major Islamic state (which comes from your belief that Obama was born in Kenya)

Governors have no power for that. In years to come there will be millions more Muslims and you have to live with that (along with what you believe to be a Muslim president)

It's not tyranny. You are confusing what you think are illegal acts with things you are personally not happy about. That's politics. What are you going to do if Hillary is elected? I bet you are losing a lot of sleep over this. It must drive you to drinking.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Governors have no power for that.

Because whether those governors are (D) or (R), obama is a tyrant with his executive orders' pen signing marathon. Sheesh !! The guy is really pissed that republican control both houses isn't he?

You are the one who says that Obama wants to order the US troops to attack its cities to kill non Muslim citizens and make the US a major Islamic state

I never said that! Btw, obama's daddy was from Kenya. I never said "he" was from Kenya, Africa.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Yeah. I didn't vote for change in the 1st place." - comments

Well, well, well, lookit you!

I didn't vote AND guns are my thing. Second Amendment! Righteous!

Mind bending. The Horror, the horror.

Is that it then? Thanks for that.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"I never said that!" Trump even says this. Anyone who doesn't believe Trump is a Liberal. He also thinks all Mexicans are rapists.

If Obama is a criminal and has committed many felonies as you said then how come he is not under arrest?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Obama has taken on every big issue that faces the US and has proactively improved or tried to improve each of them. Sadly, thousands of nutcases and tens of thousands of future nutcases probably already have guns there, but if he can make it more difficult for the next generation of potential nutcases to get their hands on weapons and, as he says, even stop one mass shooting, then it's worth doing.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

no reason to be owning these weapons to begin with.

USA could use the Swiss local militia model. Would cut out the crazies and the NRA (same thing). Then USA'ers would be able to stop complaining about "government" like it's not something they vote for

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Violent crime in the U.S. continues to be centered on the criminal use of handguns in poor neighborhoods. That is why the focus by the media on the NRA and so-called assault weapons misses the point and reinforces the perception by many law abiding gun owners that the Administration is wrongly focused on them and not on actual criminals.

One thing I wonder is why the foreign critics of American gun culture don't pressure their own domestic gun manufacturers to stop exporting so many guns to the U.S.. Using the cigarette analogy, aren't the companies that are profiting from the carnage - Glock, Taurus, Sig Sauer, Beretta, Heckler & Koch, FN Herstal, etc, the REAL problem?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Some day soon, insane the militia types will all gather in one place and start shooting people.

Gun nuts are anti-American scum.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Gun nuts are anti-American scum. ...yet Amerika glorifies snipers.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The SUPPLY of guns in America must be curtailed, that is the only solution that will have rock solid results in the fullness of time. Go after the firearms manufacturers, no matter how long it takes to bring them to their knees.

Yes. I've said this so many times.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama isn't really interested in reducing gun violence. The one sure way he could reduce "gun violence" is with tough sentences for those caught with illegally possessed firearms, those who intentionally make 'straw purchases' of firearms and those who commit crimes with firearms.

However, his main purpose is to villianize law abiding gun owners who belong to the NRA because they represent millions of registered voters.

Locking up drug dealers and gangbangers during the 'war on drugs' reduced the murder rate significantly, so tough sentencing works. It should be apparent to everyone at this site but foreigners and the clinically insane that Obama is just playing more of his 'demonize and divide' political games. . . .

1 ( +4 / -3 )

" his main purpose is to villianize law abiding gun owners who belong to the NRA because they represent millions of registered voters."

But there are many who hate the NRA for being "Liberal" because the NRA doesn't push for the legalization of military grade weaponry for the common citizen. "...shall not be infringed" It sounds like an infringement if you can purchase an M-16 as easily as a .38". Isn't the NRA such a "Liberal" organization for that?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Obama has been the best gun salesman since he took office in 2009. Here are a couple sources:

https://www.quora.com/How-has-the-quantity-of-annual-gun-sales-changed-since-President-Obama-took-office

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/gun-sales-obama_n_2671167.html

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Nothing like a black president to get the racists buying more guns!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Strangerland - Nothing like a black president to get the racists buying more guns!

Correct me if I'm wrong but black Americans buy guns. Gay Americans buy guns. Red, yellow, white, and brown Americans buy guns. Atheists buy guns. All God's children (Muslim, Christian, Jew, Wiccan) buy guns. In America. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

The fact that Obama is of mixed race has no bearing on the increase in firearm sales in the U.S.. It's Obama's repeated attempts to ban firearms that has driven new, and old, firearm sales to record numbers.

The voters have spoken, most gun-banning legislators weren't re-elected.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Correct me if I'm wrong but black Americans buy guns. Gay Americans buy guns. Red, yellow, white, and brown Americans buy guns. Atheists buy guns. All God's children (Muslim, Christian, Jew, Wiccan) buy guns.

Never claimed otherwise. Although I disagree that all "god's children" buy guns, only the nutters.

The fact that Obama is of mixed race has no bearing on the increase in firearm sales in the U.S.

You're kidding yourself if you think it doesn't have a bearing.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"his main purpose is to villianize law abiding gun owners who belong to the NRA because they represent millions of registered voters" - comments

This is called either a "persecution complex" or "patriot-martyr complex".

Both very treatable.

Somehow the NRA is now protector and servant of millions of law abiding gun owners who just happen to like buying guns at gun shows because Uncle Sam doesn't need to know about the three felony assault charges.

Simple, law abiding gun owners who, after Newtown's twenty dead children and six heroic teachers were slaughtered, demanded Congress take no action on background checks.

How honorable the simple, law abiding gun owners are. Transcendent.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

OK, gun-lovers don't think more background checks will change anything.

But if they have a clean record then they can still buy guns, so why not give it a try?

I can't believe I'm defending Obama, but I think his point is that the situation is desperate, and if expanding background checks can prevent even one more mass shooting, then it's a positive. I don't see any great solutions from the NRA.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Finally, acting as a President. If only he didn't wait to do this in his last term. If only........

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Tahoochi - I can't believe I'm defending Obama, but I think his point is that the situation is desperate, and if expanding background checks can prevent even one more mass shooting, then it's a positive. I don't see any great solutions from the NRA.

The NRA is not, and has never been, a legislative body. The voters have spoken. The voters have elected representatives that represent the voters. Obama hasn't been able to force the Democrat Parties gun registration/confiscation bills thru Congress because he doesn't have the votes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Funny isn't it, this idea that an old document that had no way of having any foresight is set in concrete.

Good job it isn't because things change, those ideas while some of them admirable, others are simply a sign of the time they were in. This right to bear arms was for a different time, different weapons, different enemies and a time where the republic may need help to defend itself from the outside, not the well armed state it is now.

I also find it funny how people act as if the constitution is above everything, like almost magical, and the federal government is some kind of evil , yet without government to enforce, and in some cases interprate, the ideals it's a meaningless piece of paper.

Anyway, selling something that makes it extraordinarily easy to kill someone, damn right it needs a background check and safe storage.. I would even say regular compulsory training.

On rights and votes and so on... Sure he hasn't had the numbers to do it another way but governance isn't simply a case of majority rules, the rights and protection of all people have to be considered to have an equal playing field, even if that may mean the occasional tiny inconvenience for others.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

NZ2011 - Funny isn't it, this idea that an old document that had no way of having any foresight is set in concrete.

.....On rights and votes and so on... Sure he hasn't had the numbers to do it another way but governance isn't simply a case of majority rules, the rights and protection of all people have to be considered to have an equal playing field, even if that may mean the occasional tiny inconvenience for others.

Neither the U.S. Constitution or the U.S. Bill of (individual) Rights are set in concrete. If someone has the votes, they can change the wording of either or both. If someone doesn't have the votes, all they can do is demand that the U.S. Constitution and BOR's be ignored.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

ANY portion, or even the entire document, of the U.S. Constitution may be changed or deleted. Yes, DELETED. The bar you have to clear to do so is (understandably) significantly higher than the one for creating laws under the Constitution, and as states have been added to the Union the ability to change the U.S. Constitution has become more difficult, but it's not an impossible task.

To delete, change, or add to the U.S. Constitution, there are two paths that can be taken: the Congressional path or the State Legislature path. In both paths, 75% of the House and Senate (for Congress) OR 75% of the state legislatures must vote for the deletion/change/add to be made. Back when there were only 13 States, this was much easier to accomplish than now, when you have to get 38 states out of 50 to agree to the change.

After a successful vote to change things, THEN the actual text of the deletion/change/add has to be hashed-out. Once the wording is finalized, it goes back for another vote - again requiring at least 75% approval by either Congress or the State Legislatures before the Constitution has been successfully modified.

The only portion of the Constitution I'm aware of that has ever been deleted was the part that was added as the 18th Amendment (the "Prohibition Amendment"). It was deleted by the 21st Amendment. Getting passed-out drunk is a right granted by our Constitution! :-)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

To delete, change, or add to the U.S. Constitution, there are two paths that can be taken: the Congressional path or the State Legislature path. In both paths, 75% of the House and Senate (for Congress) OR 75% of the state legislatures must vote for the deletion/change/add to be made

Please cool it with the nerdy jargon. Are you silly? Who's going to confiscate the guns? The ATF? Local, State law enforcement? The National guard? A rogue mob of anti-gun Libs (who btw prob have no clue how to asses/point/aim/fire/hit a threat) with firearms? - NOT

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Please cool it with the nerdy jargon. Are you silly? Who's going to confiscate the guns? The ATF? Local, State law enforcement? The National guard? A rogue mob of anti-gun Libs (who btw prob have no clue how to asses/point/aim/fire/hit a threat) with firearms? - NOT

All of the above with the exception of the rogue mob. The Second Amendment doesn't need to be deleted outright, but it DOES need to be brought into the 21st Century. Wordplay all you want, but Congress DOES need to be able to regulate the possession of certain firearms. It's actually already been allowed to do so but everyone at the NRA just pretends that there are no laws on the books prohibiting all citizens from owning fully functional Browning .50 caliber machine guns.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I love guns as much as the next Call of Duty player but we need these better background checks because... Reasons and stuff.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites