Skip to main content

View Diary: Washington Post Editorial Board Calls Senators Who Blocked Gun Bill Cowards (15 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Background checks are invasive and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    likely ineffective. More effective would be to ban the manufacture, importation and sale of assaultive weapons and the ammunition that goes with them. But, that would crimp the style of corporate enterprise, to which our legislators have delegated the task of keeping the populace in line with threats. Wouldn't want to defang the viper, would we?

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:40:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If it's invasive and likely ineffective, what's (0+ / 0-)

      the harm then in trying it?  Because it might inconvenience people by having them pay (in Colorado $12 or so) and wait an extra 5-10 minutes to start fondling their new joy-toy?

      The current background check system is what is ineffective, as the loopholes are so large they only catch a small fraction of the people that are supposed to be caught by it.  The people who aren't likely to pass know that so they go to the gun shows and Internet and other places where they can buy guns without records.  

      The way that the background checks would be effective is to expand it to cover all gun sales (notice I'm saying "sales", in case people start saying "grandpa has to be able to give a gun to a favored grandson", as though that's a common means of transferring arms in this country).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site