Skip to main content

View Diary: Even NRA heroes support tightening background checks (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  suppresses demand for corporate wares (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bkamr, justiceputnam, Oh Mary Oh
    You would think the group would stomach popular things like tightening background checks in order to look more reasonable while they're battling against all the other proposals, but nope.

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

    by annieli on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:04:58 PM PST

    •  It makes me wonder if the gun manufacturers (6+ / 0-)

      have done a marketing analysis and determined that they would lose a significant part of the customer base ... if we had comprehensive background checks.

      What other reason could the NRA have for this common sense regulation ... that they used to support, before they became the propaganding puppet for arms industry?

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:23:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  background checks (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bkamr, historys mysteries, Oh Mary Oh

        are a form of regulation and as we know the GOP and its NRA supporters hate regulation of most things.  There's probably demand data from the first Ban-era, which is why the GOP regime let it lapse. They're happy with the broadest market possible and it's about consumption of the maximum number of firearms at any one time since some of the regulations limits over certain time periods the number that can be purchased (noting that 20% of legal firearms owners own 65% of all guns) Many FFL - holders would resent the new and additional paperwork, even if it's streamlined like it should be, or example, one of the TV reality shows on guns shows transfers of five to ten guns at a time.

        Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

        by annieli on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:37:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  However, the NRA used to be supportive of (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, cocinero, notrouble, Oh Mary Oh

          the checks and the majority of their current members support them.  The switch seems to coincide with the gorsth in influence by the arms industry.  

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 05:12:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It is unlikely that enhancements to background (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bkamr

        checks would have much impact on the manufacturers.  Currently everyone who buys from an FFL dealer is required to pass a background check.  There are a few rotten dealers, such as the one just outside of Chicago, but by and large they follow the laws.  On top of the federal laws, there are state requirements which do vary.  Some states, such as NC, require a special permit to purchase a handgun but allow long gun sales to use the federal NICS system.

        Most criminal transactions are through black markets face to face and strawman purchases.  Unless someone is engaged in gun running, buying them legally and then selling them on the black market, most of these sales won't even reflect back to the manufacturer and even if they did, the front man would be passing the background check.

        •  Do they track the number of guns someone (0+ / 0-)

          is buying?

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:55:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Theoretically no. I have my doubts however (0+ / 0-)

            I have heard from people who have an FFL and run stores report being audited and being asked to verify records that go back well more than a year.  This is supposed to be on a system that keeps track of sales and is purged after three months.  When questioned on how they had records that were supposed to be purged, the answer given was that they are supposed to SAY that the records are purged after three months.  Sure.  

            So in practice, it looks like someone does keep this information, but doesn't want anyone to know that they are doing so.  This makes it look like they are doing so for illicit purposes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site