world

U.S. Senate blocks gun background check legislation

74 Comments

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

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

74 Comments
Login to comment

“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” Obama said.

The California pastor Rick Warren's son had long suffered from clinically diagnosed mental illness and had been under treatment. He committed suicide last month with a gun he purchased online. How as a mentally ill individual able to purchase a gun online? Online gun buyers are exempt from background checks.

At least this guy used the gun on himself. Others will not be so thoughtful. Massacres will occur repeatedly, but do not be discouraged. It is simply what America deserves until it gets its act together. Shameful indeed.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Spineless and shameful - a disgrace to great nation. So 10% want the gun laws eased. That's truly terrifying.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

" Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Ben Franklin's words exude the wisdom Obama's lack.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Opportunity missed. Seems US will ever be wedded to the right to bear arms - even though it may be an outdated concept. As O'Holic says, this is seen as an Essential Liberty by the majority of Americans.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Let the U.S. liberal wailing, gnashing of teeth and head exploding begin. Maybe if sensible legislation were proposed, like how to remove the guns already in the hands of criminals, that would stand a real good chance of passing.

RR

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

@ Romeo - aren't exploding heads illegal?

If guns are shipped then they have to go between FFL dealers. If it's a private transaction then there isn't a check. So not all online sales are conducted without background checks. But, since the Veteran's Affairs director has stated that he won't comply with giving the names of people with mental threat issues to the NY background check system it's pretty much useless anyway - just another burden on the law abiding and the taxpayers with no real benefit. Government at it's worst.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Guns is a classic american culture!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Poor Obama... a man of vision and hope surrounded by grasping, panicking chimps.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Most of the guns used in crime in the States are ILLEGAL guns. The background check would solve some of the problems, but the main problem is the gun crime in urban areas, committed with illegal guns.

I bet that more people die in one day due to being killed with illegal guns than they do in a year being killed by legal guns.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

A day of shame for common sense and respect for the political system and for those greedy politicians who show no shame. Whats wrong in having a background check, banks do it all the time, mortgage lenders and numerous other businesses and institutions do it. With something so lethal as a gun, makes common sense to have a background check, and a national register of owners. In Japan even bicycles are on a national register, maybe they thought those could be lethal ridden by the wrong people. But I have a question, assault-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines,for what purpose does the average American have a need for these type of weapons ?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Seems to me that Americans are prepared to accept several mass slaughters a year, including the occasional slaying of children, as a price to pay to allow people to freely buy the weapons that cause these slaughters. What a strange country.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The roll call was also a victory for the nation’s most powerful gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, which opposed the plan as an ineffective infringement on gun rights. The proposal would have required background checks for all transactions at gun shows and online.

Whew, dodged a bullet there. I was worried that anyone wouldn't be able to get around a background check by buying online or at a gun show. Good to see that's still an option for anyone at any time for any reason.

In all seriousness, I'm hoping the momentum continues. I think voting against the measure is more of a black eye than it was in the past. Let's hope we can return to the table and get some moderate, sensible legislation on the books that both sides can agree on. I thought that maybe the premise that no one was trying to take guns away would be enough to get some people to come to the middle a little, but I was wrong.

Very disappointing day overall. I thought a 90%+ approval rating would push us into something new.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I bet that more people die in one day due to being killed with illegal guns than they do in a year being killed by legal guns.

Probie, a study I read a while back had surveyed some fellows incarcerated for gun-related crimes on how they had obtained their weapons. Roughly one-third answered they'd bought them from an acquaintance; another one-third, that they'd bought them on-line or at a gun show.

There are no illegal guns; there are people who illegally own a gun. There is nothing illegal about purchasing firearms online or on the street unless the buyers are felons at the time of purchase and thus prohibited from owning a gun. A seller can be prosecuted if he knowingly sells a gun to a felon or other person prohibited from owning a gun. Heads up on a big loophole here: YOU HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO CHECK if you sell on-line or in an alley.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Shame, America is cowering to the internal terrorists that hit Boston.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Seems to me that Americans are prepared to accept several mass slaughters a year, including the occasional slaying of children, as a price to pay to allow people to freely buy the weapons that cause these slaughters. What a strange country.

@Simondb - Has Japan stopped allowing people to freely buy knives due to all the stabbings? A strange country indeed...

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Bad legislation is worse than no legislation. Even at gun shows, purchases from FFLs require NICS.

@Laguna, that study you referred to wouldn't happen to be the same one from the early 90's that has been debunked repeatedly, would it?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

FYI, The 40 percent figure that Mr. Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, cite so frequently comes from

Department survey. A closer look at that 40 percent number reveals it includes 29 percent of gun owners who said they got their guns from family members or friends and acquaintances.

That leaves 11 percent of firearms obtained through unfamiliar people. Of these, 3 percent reported they got their firearms “through the mail,” a process that requires a background check from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Four percent said “other,” and 4 percent made their purchase at a gun show.

The “gun-show loophole” is an exaggeration designed to foster the false impression that this is how the bad guys acquire firearms. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show.

Gun shows aren’t the equivalent of the Wild West. The vast majority of vendors at the shows are fully licensed dealers who must run the FBI check at the time of sale.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

That's from a 1997 Justice Department survey.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

For anyone interested in reading the facts on criminals' use and acquisition of firearms, here's a link:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I was worried that anyone wouldn't be able to get around a background check by buying online or at a gun show.

"buying online" or at a gun show offers no loophole. There is no law that says for FFL dealers that they don't have to do a background check on a sale at a gun show or from online. The issue here are private sales and doing them over the internet or at a gun show offers no loophole to these transactions than if they were to do a private sale any other way. Honestly what loophole does a gun show offer to a private sale that would not exist if it happened at a police station's parking lot?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I see the NRA bribes are working...

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Lets outlaw rice cookers now that we found the Boston bombs were made using rice cookers. I think the senate did the right thing.. Obama will use any tragedy to take away your rights. Backround checks don't tap into psyciatrist records of individuals mental illnesses.. they are useless. Also if a felon tries to purchase a gun and a backround check stops him from doing it, nothing is done to the felon, who by the act of trying to buy a gun is committing another felony. The govt claims there is no manpower to do anything about it. Congradulations to congress for setting aside emotion and siding with reason and logic.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

"Powerful gun control lobby"? In the US I would appear a touch liberal, but in most of the world I would appear conservative on this issue. I am for background checks. I actually like the Swiss model the best-- They are doing something right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: The issue here are private sales and doing them over the internet or at a gun show offers no loophole to these transactions than if they were to do a private sale any other way. Honestly what loophole does a gun show offer to a private sale that would not exist if it happened at a police station's parking lot?

You need to clean that part up a bit. I like the paragraphs before that where you cherry pick specific situations were no loopholes exist. It gives the reader the sense that, well, no loopholes exist period. I understand that you want to appear fair so you begrudgingly admit that loopholes exist and you want to downplay that. That's the part you need to tighten up.

I'd stay away from generalizations like "doing them over the internet" because people might realize that sellers are pushing millions of guns on the street via the internet to unchecked buyers. The internet is big in some people's minds. Change it to "some guy" to really take it down a notch. Try something like this: "If some guy wants to sell his antique gun to a collector online it's really no different than meeting at a gun museum and selling it to him there directly." See how I did that? It takes the reader far away from the massive internet market.

And drop the last sentence. It just feels like you are stretching. Focus on the antiques and collectors and people will think it's a rare situation. Look at Surf's post....very simple and effective propaganda with far fewer words.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

sigh Okay, people. Just breathe and consider for a moment.

Citizens of the U.S.A. have a very long history of weapon ownership, in spite of the various shootings of one form or another, and seem to accept the violence as par for the course and part of the responsability of ownership. The majority of legal gun owners do not giggle at various school shootings and other massacres, but condemn them, indicating that they hold the person responsible, and not the weapon being used.

American distrust of over-reaching government has always been a defining feature of the American psyche and is not going away anytime soon. Given the level of nonsense going on in Washington which is now defined as Passing questionable Legislation on Friday evenings or the middle of the night, or using procedural tricks to prevent open viewing and debate of said legislation, a good majority of people are now aware that federal level of U.S government has become unweildly and myopic to anything outside of Washington D.C. or the average newscast. Given the general ham handedness with which legislation is implemented, trust between people and government is at a all time low. Thus people are arming themselves as they no longer trust the Federal Government to do the right thing.

over all, The gun control idea appears to have been little more than a tactic to drum up the base for the 2014 elections. As the President was denied a victory in that regard, he does not appear to be taking it very well...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Wow, never thought the dems had the backbone to do what's right. Glad to see some of them still recognize our freedom and the right to preseve it. What's more revealing is the fact that 16 democrats voted AGAINST the AWB provision speaks volumes about Obama's true political capital.

RR

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Senator Coburn (M.D) in my opinion has the right approach to this. I hope the good Doctor and elected Senator from Oklahoma proposed approach can now garner some attention after this to his amendment. Basically boils down to if you want to purchase a weapon from anyone you have to present proof to the seller that you've run yourself through the national background system and that you are not on the do not buy list. If your looking to buy a gun you access the NCIS database yourself and provide your information. It then it prints out a 30 day buyers permit showing that you've been cleared through the background check and you show it to the seller. No permit No Sell. If it is past the thirty days you have to apply for another one (I thought this was absolutely brilliant! The Senator is also taking into account any circumstances that change such as being arrested at a later date by a potential buyer or even flagged for medical reasons such as mental health issues at a later date but no actual permanent record keeping)

I would be all over this in full support if it can see the light of day after today's vote and can gain traction as the way to go for real sane tighter gun regulation in the future.

From his website:

“Groups on the left have prioritized record-keeping over safety while groups on the right are helping arm illegal aliens and criminals with their incoherent opposition to any solution that closes gaps in the law. I’m not intimidated by these groups, and neither should any elected official who is a Constitutional officer of the people. Unlike professional lobbyists and fundraisers, I have not just talked about Second Amendment rights, I have expanded them. If special interest groups want to defend a system that arms illegal aliens, pedophiles, spousal abusers, drug dealers, felons, mentally-dangerous persons and others on the ‘do not buy list,’ they are welcome to make that case with their members.”

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/rightnow?ContentRecord_id=8147edd4-7225-41ab-8780-749e076817c3&ContentType_id=b4672ca4-3752-49c3-bffc-fd099b51c966&Group_id=00380921-999d-40f6-a8e3-470468762340

0 ( +2 / -2 )

" Look at Surf's post....very simple and effective propaganda with far fewer words."

In la-la land facts are termed propaganda. Did you bother reading the linked source of the Justice Department data ?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I especially found this nugget amazingly ludicrous :

" sellers are pushing millions of guns on the street via the internet to unchecked buyers".

They're everywhere! They're everywhere!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What's more revealing is the fact that 16 democrats voted AGAINST the AWB provision speaks volumes about Obama's true political capital.

RR, you are a true political analyst genius! After the bill that the amendments would be attached to was voted down - and despite the fact that Obama is a lame duck - 30% of Dems decided to duck.

Ironically, it may come back to hurt them. The number of states in play politically is growing; the GOP cannot even take Texas for granted anymore. Colorado is an example; after the string of gun-related tragedies there, a pro-gun GOP candidate has no chance. North Carolina is another case; it is toss-up now, but its growing professional urban class will likely not tolerate this gun free-for-all for long.

It was a victory for the gun nuts and the GOP - but it was very, very likely a Pyrrhic victory. Another massacre or several will certainly occur before 2014; we'll see how the GOP defends themselves.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Saul Schimek, good post!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Basically boils down to if you want to purchase a weapon from anyone you have to present proof to the seller that you've run yourself through the national background system and that you are not on the do not buy list.

This is far better than what currently exists and the buyer's permit reinforces the critical concept that no American has an inherent, unmitigated right to purchase firearms.

The idea that the NCIS background check is the ultimate arbiter of permit issuance is the shortcoming. Every American who wishes to purchase firearms should be subject to risk assessment, and this assessment must be conducted on a periodic basis for those who have already purchased firearms. The private sector has already provided the expertise for this, via the insurance industry.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Thus people are arming themselves as they no longer trust the Federal Government to do the right thing.

Saul Schimek, good post!

Cool. Now people arming themselves against their government is considered a "good post." What, I wonder, will they do once they are armed? Fight against the black helicopters sent by the UN to deprive them of their rights?

The undercurrent of paranoia in the gun nut crowd is astounding. Really, it belongs in the current of paranoia that the right has ridden gleefully to this nadir in their existence: Obama's foreign birth, death panels, Benghazi! (what ever happened to that, by the way?), filibusters on drones taking out Americans - now to the list add that the government wants to create a national list of gun owners as a step towards confiscating all guns. This is despite the fact that the law specifically prohibits the government from maintaining records of gun purchases.

Cool, though. Some people are to intent on the voices in their heads to let reality get in the way. (Tin foil helps, according to some.) Still -

over all, The gun control idea appears to have been little more than a tactic to drum up the base for the 2014 elections. As the President was denied a victory in that regard, he does not appear to be taking it very well...

over all, The gun control idea appears to be catching on in a way that will swamp the NRA. Cattiness that Obama supports gun control only with an eye on elections? - Please, keep repeating that. Please keep repeating that guns and their associated violence are as inevitable as the seasons. Please keep repeating that the answer lies in withholding weapons from criminals and the mentally ill while at the same time withholding measures from the police to do precisely that. Really - eventually electoral results will catch up with vox popli - but in the meantime, have fun.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Sailwind, thanks for posting that info about the Coburn amendment. Though I've only read the Talking Points and not the entire text(yet), it sounds like a real, workable proposition, protecting the law-abiding citizens' rights while also addressing weaknesses in the present NICS.

Canada has a good system where a person gets PAL( Possession and Acquisition Licence) valid for five years(unless revoked) and ATT(for firearms on the Restricted list ). Although it's imperfect, it does offer some aspects that would or could improve and preserve US law-abiding gun owners' rights.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

" Now people arming themselves against their government is considered a "good post.""

What a preposterous assumption! Saul's post, taken in its ENTIRETY was good, not just the last phrase taken OUT OF CONTEXT.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The undercurrent of paranoia in the anti-gun nut crowd is astounding in its irrationality.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Lobbyists rule washington, not the politicians

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Those senators opposing stricter gun control to protect fellow Americans that include their own offspring will go on record for having defended their (outdated) principles, but at the same time for failing their duties to create a safer environment by keeping lethal weapons out of the hands of those with criminal intentions. Shame, shame on them. Future generation will know and remember.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

US politicians cannot afford efficient poll campaigns without the NRA financial support and fire power (sic!). In US this is called donation in other country corruption!

That's it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" This is far better than what currently exists and the buyer's permit reinforces the critical concept that no American has an inherent, unmitigated right to purchase firearms."

yabits, I can agree with the first part, but partially with the second. As you know, I fully support the Second Amendment right(unless negated by a violent crime felony conviction). I also recognize that the NICS system has shortcomings. The Coburn amendment seems to present some improvements that would protect law-abiders and bolster efforts to keep guns out of the hands of those whose right was forfeited. The reality of violent criminals getting access to firearms nefariously can not be underestimated, nor can it be honestly prevented by legislation, though all would hope it could be. It's no secret that gangsters get guns on the black market.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Those senators opposing stricter gun control to protect fellow Americans that include their own offspring will go on record for having defended their (outdated) principles, but at the same time for failing their duties to create a safer environment by keeping lethal weapons out of the hands of those with criminal intentions. Shame, shame on them. Future generation will know and remember.

Tell me precisely how expanded background check legislation will make anyone safer from anything in a nation where 80% of firearms used during crimes are either acquired through illegal channels such as robbery or black market deals or acquired from a family member or friend.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The undercurrent of paranoia in the gun nut crowd is astounding. Really, it belongs in the current of paranoia that the right has ridden gleefully to this nadir in their existence: Obama's foreign birth, death panels, Benghazi!

Many who voted "no" have proven themselves to be gutless cowards, including the Democrats. The young people (between voting age and 30) who have President Obama over 60% of the vote from that demographic represent the future. Many are demanding better than to be led by gutless cowards.

Senator McCain sees the writing on the wall. Things are not boding well for the Republican Party in general, and that's good.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

it sounds like a real, workable proposition, protecting the law-abiding citizens' rights while also addressing weaknesses in the present NICS.

Surf,

It's a good bill that would make good law. The Senator was thinking along the lines of broad policy I've been advocating for a long time. The common ground between the reasonable left and the reasonable right here is simple. both sides want want guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them in the first place. It's how you get there from the very start that is the key. If you come from the position that is going to require more Government control your going to get push back and push back hard. It actually amazes me that those on the left would even consider coming from that angle in proposed laws given the fact that the second amendment is really based on being the ultimate check for stopping a government from overreaching into the citizens lives. The angle that works for the approach is to embrace for what many feel is the real spirit of the second amendment right of the bat as Senator Coburn did. That spirit of being the master of the government and not subservient to it and keeping it in check. His bill is really more about self policing and not third party Government intrusion as the system is set up now. It embodies independence and that is where you win with the reasonable right. Get as less Government intrusion as you can into the buyer seller relationship but at the same time also provide the widest private citizen access to the NCIS data base so that people can know right from the start they've been through the background check and have actually over sighted themselves.

If President Obama really wanted to get this done he should be looking at Senator Coburn's way and embrace it since there is no way he is going to get it done through the way he has been going at it. He can't even keep his own Democrats on board with his way. If he embraced Senator Coburn's approach this would get passed tomorrow and that would include the yea votes of the Democrats that balked this time around..

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As you know, I fully support the Second Amendment right(unless negated by a violent crime felony conviction).

I suspect you would allow the keeping of an arsenal in a home situation like the Lanzas, based on the above, and that the kids blown apart in Newtown were just acceptable losses to Second Amendment rights.

Or what in the system would you propose to have affected that scenario?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You need to clean that part up a bit. I like the paragraphs before that where you cherry pick specific situations were no loopholes exist. It gives the reader the sense that, well, no loopholes exist period. I understand that you want to appear fair so you begrudgingly admit that loopholes exist and you want to downplay that. That's the part you need to tighten up.

Oh please! No where did I state that no loopholes exist period. I simply stated that online sales or gun shows for FFL dealers don't provide any type of loophole that allows them to not do a background check. I correctly stated that the issue here is Private Sales and private sales can take place at any location at any time. Calling the Private Sale loophole the gun show loophole is just simply misleading on what the real issue is here. Laguna and you are simply implying that all sales over the internet or at a gun show don't have a background check or that they are optional in all sales transactions regarding a firearm.

Begrudgingly admit? I have no problem admitting that loophole exists in fact I have argued in my past posts that that loophole needs to be closed and that all transfers/transactions regarding firearms and ammunition need to have a background check. I have argued in my past posts that when doing a background check that the background checks also have to be done on every one that is located at that permanent residence and if anyone at that residence is prohibited from owning a firearm than the sale will not go through.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is far better than what currently exists and the buyer's permit reinforces the critical concept that no American has an inherent, unmitigated right to purchase firearms.

It doesn't reinforce it, trust me, in my state of Minnesota we have a permit to purchase for handguns and it hasn't made any dent in the belief in Minnesotan's that they have an inherent unmitigated right purchase a firearm. It is considered more of a formality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@realdoll

Lets outlaw rice cookers now that we found the Boston bombs were made using rice cookers.

Strange argument...

if rice cookers would be used to kill 30000 people a year in the States you would be thinking about restrictions on rice cookers, believe me.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

President Obama: "Who are we here to represent?" Mr Obama, you are there to represent and defend all the people of the USA, the Constitution, including The Second Amendment, and the borders. You are not there to be a despot, imposing a left of centre way of life upon US citizens, by overriding and changing the Constitution. Only about half the population voted for you. You are there because of the Will of the People, by the Grace of God. "One Nation, under God" remember? I wish you well in your endeavours to lead the USA, and indeed, the world.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The common ground between the reasonable left and the reasonable right here is simple. both sides want want guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them in the first place.

If he embraced Senator Coburn's approach this would get passed tomorrow and that would include the yea votes of the Democrats that balked this time around..

It would be very interesting to speculate where the resistance to Senator Coburn's proposal would come from. Certainly not from the "reasonable left" as it would be assured of nearly 100% Democratic support. One can almost count on resistance building on the right as soon as President Obama endorsed the measure. Which begs a question: Why isn't the leadership among the minority party in the Senate pushing for this proposal? There's nothing whatsoever stopping them.

It doesn't reinforce it, trust me

No. I don't trust you. As soon as Senator Coburn's initiative became mandated for every state, those with the gun fetish would be opposed for the reason stated above: that a permit to buy is a de facto barrier to gun ownership by Americans. A system that's a "formality" sounds like one that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

^that's the point of the amendments, to change and update the constitution... such as Amendment 19 (passed in 1920) which prohibits any american citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex, i.e woman's sufferage.. the constitution, ratified in 1780?, certainly cannot be strictly applied to 2013.. which is why there are amendments, issues that have come up since the 1780's which the founding fathers could never have imagined.

they're not trying to remove the 2nd amendment, but change the process on how guns can be aquired.

but what difference does it make... it's all lost among the legal talk and the british can come back any time

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Has anyone here lobbied for a complete ban on guns?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Surf: Did you bother reading the linked source of the Justice Department data ?

That was part of a conversation that I was not involved with, so, no, I didn't read it until now.

The data is from over 15 years ago, long before the internet became a standard place to do business. It's hard to say the data is relevant to anything happening today. And here's what you guys don't get: The reason it's so easy for a criminal to get a gun on the streets or from family members is because there are 200-300 million of them. Put that number of anything on the streets and it's impossible to enforce, and gun supporters feel no sense of responsibility for that whatsoever, and they want even more out there. They themselves make the laws unenforceable, then they turn around and blame the government for not enforcing them.

There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have background checks for online sales from private parties. None at all. Even a majority of gun supporters agree with that, making you a minority within your own party, and your idea of placing no restrictions whatsoever places you in the severe minority. Saying it infringes on the right of law-abiding citizens is a red herring since they have a ton of options to get guns if they are law-abiding citizens. And the data shows there are plenty of sellers who are more than willing to sell to anyone despite the laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: I simply stated that online sales or gun shows for FFL dealers don't provide any type of loophole that allows them to not do a background check.

We are talking about situations where background checks do not exist, so telling me that there are other avenues where they do exist is meaningless to our conversation.

I correctly stated that the issue here is Private Sales and private sales can take place at any location at any time.

Not nearly to the same extent that that they can online, making your argument meaningless. The sheer logistics of buying online vs. buying in person makes that so.

Calling the Private Sale loophole the gun show loophole is just simply misleading on what the real issue is here.

Obviously when people talk about the gun show loophole they are taking about sellers who are not required to do background checks. Debating the semantics of the language is a strange way to devote your time and seems more like a distraction.

Laguna and you are simply implying that all sales over the internet or at a gun show don't have a background check or that they are optional in all sales transactions regarding a firearm.

At least he's not spending his time repeatedly listing situations where loopholes don't exist when the real issue is loopholes do exist.

Begrudgingly admit? I have no problem admitting that loophole exists in fact I have argued in my past posts that that loophole needs to be closed and that all transfers/transactions regarding firearms and ammunition need to have a background check.

Then please help the cause by making your views known to the Senators that voted against your position. So far I've seen no outrage from you over what just happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No. I don't trust you. As soon as Senator Coburn's initiative became mandated for every state, those with the gun fetish would be opposed for the reason stated above: that a permit to buy is a de facto barrier to gun ownership by Americans. A system that's a "formality" sounds like one that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

The idea that requiring a permit to purchase will cause people to start thinking of the right to bear arms as a privileged rather than a right is just not going to happen. Again in Minnesota the permit to purchase in Minnesota is considered more of a formality considering it is a shall issue permit, you just put in your name, address, SSN, where you have lived for the past several years and check the box that you are not prohibited from owning a firearm and send it in to the county sheriff or the local police department office. The permit to purchase is done so that the state's background check can take place on covering certain crimes or gang affiliations that the national background check would not have. The biggest flaw with permit to purchase and permit to carry in Minnesota is that when someone voluntarily goes in for mental health services, in other words not court ordered, and are determined to be a threat to others or themselves state law enforcement doesn't have access to those records due to state privacy laws.

The reason why those gun owners or gun lobbyist would be opposed is because to them it is a slipper slope or a stepping stone law, not because it would actually work as a deterrent to people who would not be prohibited from buying a gun. Look at drivers licensing in the US, it is more a formality more than anything in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The idea that requiring a permit to purchase will cause people to start thinking of the right to bear arms as a privileged rather than a right is just not going to happen.

Do try to read more carefully: Requiring a permit reinforces the concept that there is no inherent, unmitigated right to purchase a firearm. The verb and action "to purchase" is significantly different from that "to bear."

Again in Minnesota the permit to purchase in Minnesota is considered more of a formality considering it is a shall issue permit, you just...

You and Sailwind should discuss this. He is presenting Coburn's proposal as an effective means of making sure guns don't get into the wrong hands. It sounds as though you are disputing that claim.

The biggest flaw with permit to purchase and permit to carry in Minnesota is that when someone voluntarily goes in for mental health services, in other words not court ordered, and are determined to be a threat to others or themselves state law enforcement doesn't have access to those records due to state privacy laws.

Guns in the United States have become a public safety issue. If Columbine, Aurora, Newtown and other disasters don't get that message through, nothing will for some people. And it's going to be time for sane adults to take charge. I note that every time the question is raised as to what measures should have been taken in the Lanza case, every gun fetishist goes silent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do try to read more carefully: Requiring a permit reinforces the concept that there is no inherent, unmitigated right to purchase a firearm. The verb and action "to purchase" is significantly different from that "to bear."

My reading is just fine thank you, what I'm telling you is that concept will not get through to the point of cultural change on buying/bearing arms in general. The concept you are hoping to enforce or reinforce is that gun ownership is a privileged not a right and simply doing a permit to purchase will not change that.

Superlib:

Not nearly to the same extent that that they can online, making your argument meaningless. The sheer logistics of buying online vs. buying in person makes that so.

Buying a gun online still results in you buying in person because they, the seller, can't mail you the firearm. You have to meet in person. Online sales are nothing more than you answering a classified ad and then agreeing to meet at a location to do the transaction, they can't mail it to you.

Obviously when people talk about the gun show loophole they are taking about sellers who are not required to do background checks. Debating the semantics of the language is a strange way to devote your time and seems more like a distraction.

You really think the average non gun owner knows that? How much you want to bet that the average non gun owner believes that the gun show loophole means that all gun sales, including FFLs, do not require a background check. You really honestly believe that the average non gun owner knows that FFLs still have to do background checks at gun shows?

Debating semantics is all lawmaking is, that is all it is. When you are creating laws you have to get the semantics correct because if you don't you either get laws that are way to broad or you get laws that are absolutely filled with loopholes. For example if you create a law that says clips are restricted to 10 rounds guess what loophole has been created? The loophole is that Magazines are not restricted to 10 rounds.

At least he's not spending his time repeatedly listing situations where loopholes don't exist when the real issue is loopholes do exist.

Please do tell me where in my first post where I did not mention where the loophole exists. See I'm repeatedly listing both situations where the loophole exists and where it doesn't exist so that people can have accurate information so they can create good laws and use the correct semantics so you don't get laws that are either to broad or filled with loopholes.

Then please help the cause by making your views known to the Senators that voted against your position. So far I've seen no outrage from you over what just happened.

Both of my state senators at the federal level voted for the background check law and my state is basically set to pass that all gun sales have to have a background check. As someone who has a relative that is a politician I can tell you from first hand experience that complaints or outrage from someone who is not a constituent or voter for that politician will just simply get ignored by that politician.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You and Sailwind should discuss this. He is presenting Coburn's proposal as an effective means of making sure guns don't get into the wrong hands. It sounds as though you are disputing that claim.

I didn't say it would not be effective in making sure guns don't get into the wrong hands. What I'm saying is that your hope that it will result in a gradual change in cultural to where the people view gun ownership as a privilege and not right is not going to happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The concept you are hoping to enforce or reinforce is that gun ownership is a privileged not a right and simply doing a permit to purchase will not change that.

People who claim that driving is a privilege and not a right tend to cite the requirement of a driver's permit as the distinguishing factor. The concept that a gun may not be purchased without a permit reinforces the concept that it is not a right. "It" being purchasing.

your hope that it will result in a gradual change in cultural to where the people view gun ownership as a privilege and not right

I have expressed no such hope. I have limited my comments to the activity of purchasing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seeing people not from America talk about guns is hilarious. As a person who lives by Chicago I can tell you gun laws don't work. It's common for there to be 20+ shootings/murders a weekend. The funny thing is a VAST VAST majority of the guns are illegal and the people obtained them from breaking into houses and stealing them,then they get passed around like a blunt.Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation but is always top 5 for most murders. It's not the common citizen commiting these murders,but gang members. All gun laws do restrict people who follow the laws. If you look at all the murders it's just black/latino gang members wiping out other black/latino gang members. Then as soon as one mass shooting happens they parade that around for gun control,even though one weekend in Chicago has more murders than that one mass shooting.Another funny thing is when people say "well why do you need an AR-15 with 30 rounds?" Maybe to protect ourselves and our families from criminals with the same weapon. It's like the Fast & Furious operation which was set up by our government to give weapons to Mexico's cartels (which failed miserably).They sent high capacity weapons to cartels "to track them" but didn't. Then these weapons travel back up to America and kill our citizens. So why should I not have the same weapon that came here illegally by an illegal transaction done by our government?Don't bring a knife to a gun fight and don't bring a pistol to a rifle fight. What they want to do is strip us of our rights so we are forced to rely on them and then they can make the government bigger. They strip you little by little and the next thing you know USA is some Euro country with no rights and the government is constantly telling us what to do.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

numbies..... The gun laws might make it harder for those with criminal intent to get their hands on deadly weapons, but reducing poverty in the U.S. could stop criminal behavior before it starts. Poverty is more related with gun deaths than almost any other characteristic, including the percentage of students who carry weapons to school. Majority of murders aren't committed with assault weapons.

In places like Chicago or Oakland, the rate of gun deaths in the inner cities poorest neighborhoods was about ten times the rate compared to affluent neighborhoods. By growing up poor makes an individual person more likely to commit violence. They have low socioeconomic status, being on welfare, and living in bad neighborhood and high parental stress, since poverty has been shown to increase stress. But how could U.S. goverment reduce poverty in today's economic climate?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: You really think the average non gun owner knows that? How much you want to bet that the average non gun owner believes that the gun show loophole means that all gun sales, including FFLs, do not require a background check. You really honestly believe that the average non gun owner knows that FFLs still have to do background checks at gun shows?

It works both ways. How many non-gun owners knew they could easily buy from private parties right next to commercial sellers and skip the background check? I think exposing that problem is part of the reason why approval for universal background checks is so high right now. And considering the private online sales is a loophole on it's own we're once again debating whether some portion of sales require checks while ignoring the other avenues.

Debating semantics is all lawmaking is, that is all it is.

You and I aren't crafting laws. We're having a conversation where we both know we have a meeting of the minds.

For example if you create a law that says clips are restricted to 10 rounds guess what loophole has been created? The loophole is that Magazines are not restricted to 10 rounds.

Not a loophole, but a limit that applies to all clips greater than 10 rounds. A loophole would be banning all clips greater than 10 rounds but allowing them in private sales, online or otherwise.

I don't see how the argument is any different than this: Children can't buy pornography from stores, but they can get it freely on the internet. Give that fact, the laws banning sales to minors from stores is useless and won't make a dent in them having access to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib Apr. 19, 2013 - 06:39AM JST Not a loophole, but a limit that applies to all clips greater than 10 rounds. A loophole would be banning all clips greater than 10 rounds but allowing them in private sales, online or otherwise.

A 10-bullet limit on magazines might help to limit the number of people killed in mass shootings, but it probably wouldn’t do much to reduce total murders. Most are committed with handguns using magazines of 10 bullets or less.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But how could U.S. goverment reduce poverty in today's economic climate? They could start by not letting 11,000,000 broke @$$ illegals stay in the country.....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

A 10-bullet limit on magazines might help to limit the number of people killed in mass shootings, but it probably wouldn’t do much to reduce total murders.

That wouldn't work, changing a magazine to a fresh one with more bullets is a quick process. Heck I can field strip a Beretta M9 and put it back together in 26 seconds.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

numbies Apr. 19, 2013 - 07:11AM JST They could start by not letting 11,000,000 broke @$$ illegals stay in the country.....

How are you going to do that? U.S. agriculture industry is built on 80 percent of the field workers that are illegal immigrants, and crackdowns on undocumented workers have only led to rotting crops and lost revenue and destroying many U.S. agricultural companies. These agricultural companies want to hire legal workers and U.S. citizens, but that it's nearly impossible, given the relatively low wages and back-breaking work.

"Few citizens express interest, in large part because this is hard, tough work," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsak said this past week. "Our broken immigration system offers little hope for producers to do the right thing."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight and don't bring a pistol to a rifle fight.

Unless you're Clint Eastwood

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An important point I haven’t seen here yet is about the handgun manufacturing. There are two types IMO. You have the reputable and expensive handgun makers like S & W, Colt, Glock, etc. And then you have the McWeapons makers. They encircle large cities and sell mass amounts of cheap $100. guns. I’ve also read that pallets of these go missing all the time. If you ever watch the TV COPS, you will notice the gangbangers are usually NOT carrying a Colt 45, unless it’s a 40oz beer

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How many non-gun owners knew they could easily buy from private parties right next to commercial sellers and skip the background check?

Probably a tiny minority.

You and I aren't crafting laws. We're having a conversation where we both know we have a meeting of the minds.

No we are not but our representatives are and unfortunately for us they use the same terminology that you and laguna use.

Not a loophole, but a limit that applies to all clips greater than 10 rounds. A loophole would be banning all clips greater than 10 rounds but allowing them in private sales, online or otherwise.

Yes it is a loophole because a lot of people who are non gun owners think magazines and clips are interchangeable, they are not hence the loophole. AR-15s for example don't use clips they use magazines. Considering how many firearms sold today use magazines and not clips......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have background checks for online sales from private parties. None at all. Even a majority of gun supporters agree with that, making you a minority within your own party, and your idea of placing no restrictions whatsoever places you in the severe minority."

Personal attacks will get you nowhere with me, first of all. I support the Coburn amendment, as far as I've read, so your comment is incorrect. And what is my party, pray tell?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

by Erich Pratt , USA TODAY

Published: 04/17/2013 03:49pm

President Obama and his fellow Democrats don't feel that Americans need gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for self-defense.

To that, gun owners would say: "Mr. Obama, we don't have a Bill of Needs — we have a Bill of Rights." Misunderstanding this point endangers all our rights, including the Second Amendment. After all, real life is not like the latest action movie, where the bad guys shoot their guns endlessly (and miss), but the good guys fire off one or two rounds and hit their targets.

When Matthew Murray entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, intent on killing hundreds of people, it was Jeanne Assam (one of the worshipers there) who fired off 10 rounds before Murray was critically injured enough to halt the attack and end his own life.

Good thing there was only one attacker. If Assam had used a reduced-capacity magazine or there were multiple attackers, hundreds of innocent congregants would have been out of luck. As would have those New Orleans residents who, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, discharged more than two dozen rounds during one firefight, where they fended off a roving gang in the Algiers neighborhood.

When people's lives are on the line, why should President Obama be able to limit their ability to defend themselves with larger, standard capacity magazines? We wouldn't dare subject the police to a 10-round magazine limit — and with good reason. A study of the NYPD found that New York cops (in 2000) fired an average of 16 shots per incident when facing armed attackers. But police aren't the only ones who face multiple offenders. A study of self-defense cases over a five-year period revealed that citizen-defenders faced multiple attackers 36% of the time. Another study put the figure at over 50%.

The point is that in the real world we live in, there are violent gangs who get high on drugs and are resistant to pain when they attack. Banning the tens of millions of standard capacity magazines that are already in circulation won't keep them out of dangerous hands. But it will make good people less safe.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cool. Now people arming themselves against their government is considered a "good post." What, I wonder, will they do once they are armed? Fight against the black helicopters sent by the UN to deprive them of their rights?

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson

Were Jefferson alive today, he would be labeled a right-wing extremist by the left. Just goes to show how far this country has fallen. Statists have no concept of limited government.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Interesting stat I've just read and have every reason to believe: since the Boston attack, over a thousand Americans have been wounded or killed with firearms.

Land of the free ....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Were Jefferson alive today, he would be labeled a right-wing extremist by the left.

Jefferson would also be shocked by the influence that big corporations have the US Federal government and also with some of the overseas "wars" the US has been involved with in the name of "Freedom and Democracy"... nottoo happy with Patriot Act, either.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

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