Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA's opposition to universal background check shows just how unreasonable it plans to be (227 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There should be some way to track a gun (21+ / 0-)

    from manufacture to it's newest owner. If you sell a gun, or give a gun, or have a gun stolen, you're responsible until the gun is re-registered or reported stolen. Full liability. And there should be matching background checks for every time that gun changes hands.

    LaPierre may have been allowed at the table, but neither Sen. Leahy nor Sen. Durbin let him get away with his BS.

    •  We do it with cars (10+ / 0-)

      "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

      by blueoregon on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 01:00:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There were attempts (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, HappyinNM, antirove

      made to get things like that through congress.  There were also attempts made to get 'taggants' put into shells and cartridges so that forensic analysis would be able to trail ammunition back to its seller and source.  Both were derailed by the NRA and their pet politicians.

      Both would be relatively simple to do, and both would be beneficial, but neither could get through congress, as it is currently assembled.

      I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

      by trumpeter on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 02:23:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree. Another way to do it is to not require a (0+ / 0-)

      background check but hold the transferor criminally liable for any downstream crime comitted with his transferred firearm.

      You want to sell your pistol without a background check?  Fine.  If the buyer uses the firearm in a homicide, you are indicted for felony murder.

      Might solve the problem and keep all the pro-gun people backed into a corner.

    •  Ok but that is called registration, and most all (0+ / 0-)

      gun owners are completely against it.  We already have 310 million weapons that won't rust away anytime soon and the majority of those are unregistered.  Again how do we enforce this?

      Law abiding citizens, well some of them anyway, will abide by it.  Criminals won't....and the criminals are the people we are going after, right?

      •  You just fell into the same trap LaPierre did (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        S F Hippie

        in the hearing yesterday. Every transfer of a gun requires a background check. If the gun is tracked, and you sell a gun to someone without getting a background check, you're liable for whatever damage that person does. So, if proper records are kept, criminals won't be able to get guns. If they steal them, the owner has to report the theft, or be liable.

        Also, I'd rather not register my car, but the State views that differently. Just because gun owners don't want to be bothered with registering their guns doesn't mean that the government can't require them to do so.

        Also, just because some people choose to use their guns for target practice doesn't negate the fact that they are primarily for killing. Dangerous (additive) drugs are heavily regulated. Why shouldn't guns be?

        •  Constitutional right for one. Cars and drugs (0+ / 0-)

          don't appear in the Bill of Rights.  You have no guaranteed right to own a car or drugs and thus not applicable.

          You are under the impression that registration of all guns will be included, if universal background checks become a reality.  They are two separate issues, and registration will be a hard battle politically to ever get passed, perhaps even harder than AWB.

            For one, there are 310 million firearms on the streets now....or basically one for every man, woman and child in the country...with a few to spare.  The majority of those have no registration of any kind.  They will most likely be grandfathered in, even if registration makes it through Congress.

          Second of all, transferring liability of a crime from someone who didn't commit that crime will be an even harder battle and again a separate issue.

          Third, this statement:

          So, if proper records are kept, criminals won't be able to get guns.
          How do you conclude this?  Again, criminals will just buy one of the 310 million weapons already out there or even newly stolen ones in each other's backyard for cash.

           Do you think Joe the criminal will ask for the driver' s license of Jack the criminal...even though Jack is handing him a grand in cold cash....just because we made a new scary law.  No, he will just sell it to him, as they have always, always done.... and who would ever know?  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site