Skip to main content

A former legislative aide to Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York says a group of four senators that Schumer is part of is close to a deal on legislation that would require background checks for almost all gun purchases regardless of whether they are from licensed dealers or private parties. But one of those four senators, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, says a deal isn't close. According to Bloomberg:
“They’re close,” said Jim Kessler, a former legislative director to Schumer. “It’s like climbing the summit of Mount Everest, the oxygen gets pretty thin up there,” said Kessler, now senior vice president for policy at Third Way, a Democrat- aligned policy group in Washington.
According to Roll Call, Coburn isn't on board with that as he made clear in an appearance on Fox News Sunday.:
“I don’t think we’re that close to a deal, and there absolutely will not be record-keeping on legitimate, law-abiding gun owners in this country,” the Oklahoma Republican said. “And if they want to eliminate the benefits of actually trying to prevent the sales to people who are mentally ill, and the criminals, all they have to do is create a record-keeping, and that will kill this bill.”
But then negotiations are often said to be at an impasse one day and resolved the next. The Senate group had sought to introduce legislation this week because the window of opportunity for getting a background check law passed could fade the further away the 12/14 Newtown massacre recedes from public attention. Universal background checks are supported in poll after poll in a range from 83 percent to 92 percent of Americans, including gun owners.

In addition to Schumer and Coburn, two others are in the ad hoc group trying to find common ground on background checks. They are Sen. Joe Manchin III, a conservative Democrat from West Virginia and a member of the National Rifle Association, and Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois. Schumer himself concedes that the negotiations have been “challenging, as you’d expect on an issue as complicated as guns.”

The sticking point, as Coburn states, is that gun rights advocates see the expansion of background checks as a means to set up a firearms registry that will eventually be used to confiscate guns. That's the argument that NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre reiterated Saturday before a crowd of about 1,200 in Salt Lake City.

"It’s aimed at registering your guns," LaPierre said. "And when another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns."
Some gun-control advocates have argued that the current restrictions on record-keeping associated with background checks makes them less effective. The FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System is required by law to destroy within 24 hours all records on buyers who pass the checks. That limit used to be 90 days but the gun lobby got it changed on the same grounds as LaPierre, Coburn and others are arguing now.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:25 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (20+ / 0-)

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:25:18 AM PST

  •  What a douchenozzle. (10+ / 0-)
    "It’s aimed at registering your guns," LaPierre said. "And when another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns."
    I oppose registration and can CLEARLY see that universal background checks have nothing to do with registration. FEAR FEAR FEAR WHITE WHITE WHITE SCARY SCARY SCARY LAPIERRE FTW!!!!(!!!(!!(!!) !!!!!!11111_)!!!

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:28:48 AM PST

  •  are either Democrats or Republicans (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, noway2

    Willing to do what it takes to pass it?

    •  Hope so. More Dems that Repubs needed obv. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999, cocinero

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:36:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No (0+ / 0-)

      this is theatre for the extremists.

      Obama could give a shit about this.. he's doing it to cater to one of the nuttier wings of the democratic party and raise contributions.

      LaPierre and most of the gop dont give a shit. Same thing opposite side.

      This is the PBA debate and the minimum wage debate all over again.

      It's all theatre. Note what website is jumping on the theatre bandwagon and blasting all the horns... and they KNOW the real deal.

      A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

      by cdreid on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:37:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This sounds like Rope a Dope common to corporate (4+ / 0-)

    See also-No decision has been reached

    When in fact a decision has been made it's just that selling a unpalatable idea is a challenge.

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:37:51 AM PST

  •  American Priorities: Guns yes, marijuana no. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RadGal70, S F Hippie, a2nite, Faito

    America is just fucked until its sorts out this upside-down set of priorities.

    Something HAS to be done to jack-up gun safety and we have Repubs and a handful of Dems thwarting it as much as it can be thwarted.

    Marijuana isn't hurting people, isn't whacking your friends and neighbors, and isn't KILLING ANYBODY, but man, you;d think marijuana was leaving bodies piled up in the streets the way we spend tens of billions of dollars to harass innocent people who have never hurt you.

    But thousands are dying from gun violence: please keep buying guns, and let's have the cops bending over backwards to make sure assholes can shop at Publix with their AR-15 but I run the risk of ruination for smoking a bong at home, hurting nobody.

    Good show, America.

    Good show.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:39:29 AM PST

    •  Would you say that you like Marijuana? (0+ / 0-)

      XD sorry couldn't resist. Good or bad, seems like more progress being made on the marijuana front. I keep waiting for the news stories about all those 14 year old kids becoming heroin addicts because marijuana is a 'gateway drug'.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:43:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am highlighting an area of massive stupidity (5+ / 0-)

        We can have GUNS but we cannot have pot. So amazingly stupid.

        We can have guns - which kill LOTS of people, but cops will kill you with guns for pot which doesn't kill anybody.

        it's a fucked up situation that has to be unfucked but the politicians LOVE this fuckery and so it stays as it is.

        Fucked.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:46:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  All sorts of gun banners here whine about not (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, noway2, happymisanthropy

          having the political power to accomplish the ban they want  - they have to envy the $20-some-billion dollars law enforcement and the government waste on marijauna prohibition each year.

          All that money just totally wasted. Nothing accomplished.

          Gun Banners should desire to have a fraction of that sort of clout.

          America's committment to Stupid is just breathtaking.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:49:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OT (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy

            Would love see a group diary on keeping big companies' grubby hands out of the marijuana market as it continues to liberalize. I've always feared mj cigs with 50% filler.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:52:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not going to happen (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, cdreid

              America is about profit, it's about fucking the little people so some goddamned big box multi-national corporation can come in and run roughshod over everybody else and move on.

              Micro-groweries and coffee shops will be a huge growth niche as America pulls its head out of its ass on marijuana and lets people enjoy it and makes cops go do something productive

              Those people who are making a fortune now with marijuana being ILLEGAL and wanting it to remain ILLEGAL so they can make big bucks while I run the risk of unemployment and jail: fuck them. I hope they get their clocks cleaned for being so goddammnd petty and whiny and greedy and selfish. I hope they have to get real jobs once marijuana is legal.

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:35:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You buy marijuana by the 'cig'? (0+ / 0-)

              What country do you live in?

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:36:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've never bought it. Just theorizing what it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                happymisanthropy

                might look like enmasse.

                I see what you did there.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:44:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  it was spoken as spoken as one who had no clue (0+ / 0-)

                  what is going on.

                  The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                  by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:47:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wow, was that really necessary? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    xxdr zombiexx, happymisanthropy

                    What's the matter with you today? I'm by no means trying to imply anything but a recognizance of corporate abuse of the purity of products, once they get involved.

                    I see what you did there.

                    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:22:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  that was not supposed to sound so much like (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      GoGoGoEverton

                      A complaintive comment since you told me you dont have ourchase experience. Your first commet about cigs is what i am referring to but just sayin versus trying to give you a hard time about it which i am not at this time.

                      Just notin'.

                      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                      by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:36:45 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I mean, I really cut you some slack because I (0+ / 0-)

                      didn't want to harsh you out, so I asked the question, just in case I was the one missing real-world experience.

                      Saying marijuana cigs pretty much identifies you as 'less than experienced with the topic".

                      If I wanted to be harsh....I woulda.

                      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                      by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:38:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Embellished with a theoritical fear (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    xxdr zombiexx

                    that you "always" had?

                    Was that just posing for the cameras?

                    I've always feared mj cigs with 50% filler.
                    Or was it an intentional hook. Since after you challenged it, it turned from a fear you always had into a theoretical idea.

                    Just sayin'

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004

                    by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:23:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Big Pot (3+ / 0-)

              would probably secretly spike their MJ cigarettes' nicotine content.

        •  To un-see (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, LilithGardener

          Over the past year, I have seen some stupid that makes me numb.  Right wing comments about rape, abortion and contraception were pretty amazing.  Then we heard some foreign policy stupid: Bengazi was the worst tragedy since 9-11.  There is always some climate change stupid to fall back on.  Fiscal and economic stupid comes fast and furious.  We have the debt ceiling (for some reason) and a fiscal cliff and sequestration.  Republicans have a talent for coughing up one hairball after another on all these topics.

          But guns bring out a special quality in Republicans.  The ability to un-see the obvious con of gun manufacturers who fund the NRA and their shills wouldn't be so bad except for all the carnage.  

          Maybe that is the stupidity behind remarks on climate change: Republicans un-see the obvious because the big time polluters are their funders.  Republicans un-see the obvious on abortion, rape and contraception because right wing religious groups who traditionally want to dominate women organize for them.  Republican un-see the obvious on fiscal issues (you want a first class military?  You need first class taxes.) because of the 1%ers--their base.

        •  But but (0+ / 0-)

          Guns mean FREEDOM, guns mean liberty over our big bad tyrannical gubmint, but weed means zombiefied teens murdering their Jesus loving parents!  

    •  But they better not light up tobacco (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, cdreid

      in the grocery store.  THAT will get them a big fat fine.

    •  Never saw a gun get up (0+ / 0-)

      and decide to shoot someone. Not once.

      Also since when did you call anyone who disagrees with you an asshole ??

      A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

      by cdreid on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:38:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wayne LaPierre, the NRA and the GOP (6+ / 0-)

    support violent attacks on American families.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:40:34 AM PST

  •  Of course we need registration (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, Iberian, 88kathy, WakeUpNeo

    This prohibition on keeping records is one of the main reason our gun laws are nearly useless. Just like the prohibition on research, and gun industry immunity from lawsuits. It's like having a clause in our gun laws saying, "enforcement of these laws is illegal".

    •  Coburn sez, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GoGoGoEverton, RadGal70, S F Hippie

      absolutely no record keeping on legitimate law abiding gun owners. He makes a good point. We're talking about guns. It's not like we're talking about cars, real estate, boats, or lobbyists; all of which must be registered.

      The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it."

      by Hillbilly Dem on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:48:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do expand on this claim please: (4+ / 0-)
      This prohibition on keeping records is one of the main reason our gun laws are nearly useless.
      How?

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:54:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let me count the ways: (6+ / 0-)

        These are 23 Executive Actions pertaining to gun violence protections recently signed by President Obama... to make gun registration more effective so that current laws can be enforced.

        1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

        2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance
        Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

        3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

        4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

        5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

        6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

        7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

        8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

        9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

        10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

        11. Nominate an ATF director.

        12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

        13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

        14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

        15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

        16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

        17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

        18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

        19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

        20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

        21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

        22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

        23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.



        Denial is a drug.

        by Pluto on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:11:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is one of my focal points (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pluto, Meteor Blades
          4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
          There are a lot of cracks. I recently looked for laws that separate alcohol and gun ownership/use.

          My understanding is that of 2010, only about half the states had laws prohibiting sale of a gun to someone intoxicated.

          Even fewer states had laws prohibiting sale of a gun to someone under the influence of alcohol.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004

          by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:38:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What about carrying a gun (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            ...while intoxicated? I imagine that would be a felony.



            Denial is a drug.

            by Pluto on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:43:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is in some states, unless you are (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pluto, LilithGardener

              defending your home while drunk.

              “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

              by jeff in nyc on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:47:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know and hope some will weigh in (0+ / 0-)

              who does know.

              I know one federal law covers retired law enforcement officers carrying a hand gun.

              They are exempt from some gun regulations but are prohibited from carrying a gun while under the influence, or while intoxicated.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004

              by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:11:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It varies by state. It also depends on whether (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, Pluto, FrankRose

                the person is carrying concealed or openly.  For example, my state, NC, prohibits concealed carry (in public is implied) with any amount of alcohol present, but this restriction does not apply to open carry.  Other states have limits similar to DUI, typically 0.08% and others prohibit alcohol consumption while carrying outside of the home all together.  

                This is an example of what makes regulation difficult; it is a combination of state and federal law and sometimes with local laws thrown in the mix.  The federal govt also recognizes that much of the authority should go to the states which is in part why they are reticent to enact laws.

                Generally, most people do not believe in and will not carry while intoxicated.  Some still will and have been prosecuted for doing so.  There was a case about an Ohio politician not too long ago as an example.  

                •  Thank you Noway2 (0+ / 0-)

                  I think there are some things we can do at the state level to make things safer, even if efforts at the Federal level fail.

                  I imagine some states have tightened the alcohol part of their laws even if they have opened rights for concealed carry.

                  One of my concerns is that selective enforcement, already a problem with current laws, creates another layer of opportunity for feeding people into the private prison system based on race, ethnicity, or economic status.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004

                  by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:30:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Here's a link to the recent discussion about (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pluto

              two authoritative sources.

              My current understanding is that the patchwork of state laws are so variable and Federal Law so opaque that there are a lot of assumptions made by both RKBA advocates and gun safety advocates that seem "obviously true" but are in fact, not at all true.

              I hope our current outrage and anguish will shine a light on

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004

              by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:21:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Wow. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, Pluto, jeff in nyc

            Just, wow.

            Remember Homer S getting a gun?  The episode was the "Cartridge Family".

            http://www.youtube.com/...

            Homer: When I held that gun in my hand, I felt a surge of power... like God must feel when he's holding a gun.

            •  Bear in mind that may be old news - I don't (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pluto

              know how many states have tightened the alcohol part of their laws since 2010.

              It's quite possible while the media was whipping up hysteria about concealed carry permits, that states have stepped up efforts to separate lawful alcohol use and lawful RKBA.

              Propaganda - Inducing fear on the gun safety side.

              Public reaction: What!? Concealed permit holder can take their gun into a bar?!  That can't be right!!!! We should ban guns in bars!! Those gun nuts are crazy!

              But, if they also at the same time, made it against the law to carry while under the influence, then that's already a big improvement in public safety.

              We don't seem to hear much about recent changes that have separated lawful behavior (drinking, even drinking a lot) and firearm ownership/use.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004

              by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:37:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I only research the murder-suicide (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener

                ...aspect of violent crime, which is about 85 percent in the home and about 90 percent handgun related. It happens all day everyday in the US.

                Perhaps 40 to 50 percent of such incidents include alcohol.



                Denial is a drug.

                by Pluto on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:51:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm guessing that alcohol or other impairment (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pluto

                  is a big factor in accidental shootings too.

                  Best ref I found so far is form 2010, Collaboration at UPenn.

                  Alcohol is a factor in 20% of accidental deaths by firearms.
                  Alcohol is a factor in 25% of vehicle accidental deaths.

                  Prevention of drunk driving, and prosecution when it occurs is one of the 20th centuries public health achievements.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004

                  by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:57:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  5 days! But I'm mad now! n/t (0+ / 0-)

              “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

              by jeff in nyc on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:58:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  So you want (0+ / 0-)

      the .gov and cops and im sure in your fantasy world .. anyone  who wants to know that i have guns in my house? You know those things that are worth about 200 bucks a pound or more..

      Why exactly do you feel the need to have my guns registered?? What would that accomplish exactly

      A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

      by cdreid on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:41:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is such a bunch of (6+ / 0-)

    BS.

    It makes more sense to do checks on the people who want to own guns, than it does to make every person who sees a therapist wind up on some kind of list of mentally ill people. That idea makes me sick to my stomach - we have enough problems with the [lack of] care of the mentally ill in this country without creating some kind of list of "crazy people"' that you know damn well will wind up in all kinds of hands.

    I don't know how they plan on keeping guns out of the hands of "criminals" other than through background checks. Unless they think there's some kind of magic sign that only republicans can see (cough*cough skin color) that is a dead giveaway that someone's a criminal....??

    Most of these mass murderers were "law-abiding gun owners" before they shot up dozens of innocent people.

    I'm particularly disgusted with things today. This doesn't help. Republicans truly are assholes.

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:43:41 AM PST

    •  "Responsible gun owners" (6+ / 1-)

      up to the moment they shoot their spouse, kids, neighbor, the person who cut them off in traffic, the boss who fired them, the co-worker who pissed them off or the kid who bullied them, member of a religious sect of which they disapprove, total strangers at a shopping mall or movie theater, etc. etc. etc.

      •  As eviidenced by the recent Minnesota BCA report (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension released a report for the the past 10 years coving those with carry permits. In 5 incidents the weapons were used for legitimate self defense. In 124 incidents the carry permit holder used them in a crime.
        http://www.startribune.com/...

        Some people have short memories

        by lenzy1000 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:53:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's odd, since every other study conducted on (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, noway2, FrankRose

          this topic has found that less than 1 percent of permit carriers ever commit a crime with a gun.

          How many total permits were there in this 10 year span of time?  If you calculate that number by the 124 and I am certain you will find the same statistical correlation to a very low incident rate with permit holders.  Then when you compare that to the average rate of crime in the general population, you will find an even lower incident rate.

          The 5 case number for self defense should also be examined further.  As a permit holder, I hope to never have to use my gun in self defense.  I know it has kept harm at bay, in my case, as I have a violent ex husband who decided to stop stalking me once he was aware that I carried.

          However, I have never known anyone who has ever had to use their weapon in self defense, and I am glad that number is so low.  However, a low number in that regard is nothing sinister and actually proves that permit holders in a 10 year period of time....are not "shooting up the freeways in road rage" or "shooting up the malls over a rude sales clerk" or any of the other memes you hear floating around.

  •  We see the damage guns do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    where is the damage that pot has done?

    It just dawned on me.... If we would ALLOW gun confiscation, that would create a HUGE new demand for new guns!

    Because unless guns are just simply banned across the board, confiscation would not necessarily mean a total ban. We'll collect the guns you have now.

    Go buy some more and we'll be back soon.

    With 300 million guns to begin with and the fact that guns are generally heavy-duty and don't break, lasting for generations, at somepoint the market will be saturated and people just don't buy guns like cars: they don't 'wear out" like cars.

    So confiscation can open up whole new streams of revenue.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:44:56 AM PST

  •  Anyone still believe an AWB or magazine limit bill (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton, LordMike, Tom Seaview

    can pass and get signed into law on the federal level?

    The universal background check has the strongest public support and even it may not pass.  

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:46:04 AM PST

  •  They deserve a vote! (6+ / 0-)

    Go ahead and put a background check bill to a vote. Let's see how many senators are willing to vote against the wishes of 90% of their constituents in order to keep Wayne LaPierre's NRA  happy.

  •  Cry-Babies they are. Don't take my baby away (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RadGal70, a2nite, Glen The Plumber

    my precious little guns, I love them, need to cuddle them and feed them.

    Just disgusting.

    •  That is just (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, FrankRose

      bizarre.

      Theres a rifle 10 feet from me in a case. Havent shot it lately. Unlike gun controllers i dont have a fetish about it. I shoot it sometimes because it's fun. I dont think about it otherwise.. you guys are the ones with the sexual fetish on guns.

      A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

      by cdreid on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:51:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  terrorism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RadGal70

    After 9/11, bushco got many strange laws passed giving the president new policing powers, can any of them be used against assault weapons?  Time for Obama to treat guns the way Bush treated terror, assault weapons are more appropriate for al Qaeda than for a deer hunter.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:51:52 AM PST

    •  Is that snark? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Faito, happymisanthropy

      I hope so, because if you are serious, that would be a great strategy to stoke paranoia and give cover for even more NRA propaganda.

      Are you serious? Or was that snark?

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004 - http://youtu.be/4Syme_-lUTA

      by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:01:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  serious (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RadGal70, S F Hippie

        I think this is an issue that demands action--we have so watered down gun control--have let the NRA go from protecting hunters to protecting assault weapons for possibly needed overthrow of socialist government-- Why should we not protect the populace at the expense of making gun crazies paranoid?  Why are we more afraid of Chuck Norris than protective of kindergarten children?

        Apres Bush, le deluge.

        by melvynny on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:15:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  F & F (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          melvynny, S F Hippie, LilithGardener

          Thank you - I know you'll be vilified for this, but I agree totally.  It's disgusting that we are all subjected to the whims of a small number of extremists.  And I will say again, there is no reason a person who owns guns should be afraid of truly universal background checks and registration of all guns.   NO ONE WANTS YOUR GUNS - we just don't want to see you carrying them in public.  

        •  And one of the key reasons I won't get behind (6+ / 0-)

          measures endorsed by several members of this group is because of statements like yours above:

          protecting assault weapons for possibly needed overthrow of socialist government-- Why should we not protect the populace at the expense of making gun crazies paranoid?
          I have a real problem with supporting any gun measure being extolled by someone who expresses this view of citizens who choose to exercise a right that they disagree with.
          •  "right?" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RadGal70

            Where does the constitution give a citizen the "right" to have an assault weapon?  Should he also have the right to have a jet fighter?  How about a hand grenade?

            Apres Bush, le deluge.

            by melvynny on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:46:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Now your just adding ignorance to the list (6+ / 0-)

              The Constitution does not give rights.  The rights exist and the Constitution places limits upon the government.  As I am sure your aware, it is the 2nd amendment contained in the Bill of Rights that deals with arms, i.e. small arms, guns, such as those that would be carried by an infantry.  This includes "assault weapons" which is an industry made up term that is applied to common semiautomatic rifles and generally denotes cosmetic characteristics but not things like jet fighters or hand grenades which would more appropriately be classified as ordnance and explosives.

              •  NOPE (0+ / 0-)

                All laws are limits of freedom.  Interpretations can be expansive--and the Supreme Court theoretically protects and limits those laws.  Somewhere along the line, affects need to be addressed--to timidly protect the masses is to pervert the power of government.  To ignore consequences is to be unworthy of power.  To cow tow to special interests is to be a whore--and that's where we are today.
                The NRA--and FOXNEWS--claim high powered weapons are needed to protect us FROM the government-- if that isn't terrorism--what is it?  

                Apres Bush, le deluge.

                by melvynny on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:21:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The claim that high powered weapons (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Texas Lefty, FrankRose, andalusi

                  are needed to protect us FROM the govt is a lie that is being used to persuade those who can't or won't think critically into a particular action.

                  I am far more concerned about the lack of govt than I am about needing to protect myself from the govt.  I see far more need to be able to defend myself, including with a high power rifle, should the govt fall or even temporarily lose control than I see needing to stand against the govt. In deed, such things have happened in this country's past.

                  The Constitution, the highest law of the land, is a set of limits placed upon the govt.  In particular it specifies the conditions upon which govt may limit or interfere with people's rights.  Rights are not granted by the govt or by the Constitution which was in answer to your question of what gives the right to posses a gun; one already has that right and the govt is not supposed to be ale to take that right away.

                  I support all of the rights as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, which includes things like marriage equality, abortion rights, and the right to posses guns.

                  The D's and the R's have both cherry picked which of that subset they wish to support.  While more of my views may align with the D's I am not willing to give up any of those, including the right to have and use guns, in compromise for any of the others.

                  •  God (0+ / 0-)

                    Is the constitution divine?  Is the Bill of Rights?  Are Africans 3/5ths of a man?  Was it worthwhile to fight to abolish slavery?  Is it wrong to protect the masses from assault weapons--and right to save the right to own weapons not even dreamed of 200 years ago?  Do you believe we should protect the many from the few?  Do you endorse the right of Americans to form private militias to overthrow the government?  

                    Do you believe the Supreme Court was correct to deny the right to yell "fire" in a theater?  The assault weapon is the "fire," free speech is more important than the right to bear arms.

                    Apres Bush, le deluge.

                    by melvynny on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:22:41 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Uh, no. (4+ / 0-)

                      Last time I checked, you could yell fire all you want in a theater.

                      Then, after the fact (of you harming people), you would get brought up on charges.

                      So, I can own an 'assault weapon' and if I never harm anyone with it, I never get charged. If I protect someone with it (like yelling fire when there is a fire) I would still not get charged.

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:25:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  nope (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        RadGal70

                         How many people do you need to kill for your protection?  Who gets to decide when using an assault weapon is wrong--at the moment of rapid fire?  Can you give me an example of when such a weapon would be necessary?  And how likely is such an event?

                        Apres Bush, le deluge.

                        by melvynny on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:39:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I've not had to kill anyone yet. (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          noway2, cdreid, happymisanthropy, andalusi

                          I hope the trend continues.

                          Though I would like to point out that you shoot to stop, not to kill. Killing can be a side effect.

                          The jury decides if you're wrong with your claim of self defense or not. Whether that's using a .22LR revolver or a semi-auto Thompson.

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:52:45 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  The issue and question isn't about using (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          cdreid, andalusi

                          assault weapons or not.  Furthermore your statement about rapid fire indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of how such weapons work and this gives you less legitimacy in attempting to regulate them.  An "assault weapon", e.g. non NFA semiautomatic rifles like an AK47 or AR15 fire no faster than any other semiautomatic gun such as a common handgun.  All of them are one trigger pull, one bullet.  Furthermore, the rounds fired by these weapons aren't even the most powerful that civilians have access to.  Standard hunting rifles would fit that description.   Now, do I believe that fully automatic weapons should be restricted?  No, I don't.  In the hands of a law abiding citizen it should not be restricted.  I do not accept the idea of restricting access to these, of which there is currently millions in circulation, on the basis that a few deranged individuals chose to use them to commit a mass atrocity.  

                          With regards to your other questions, hopefully one will never need to kill anybody for protection and most people never will.  One is only justified in killing another in defense when faced with an otherwise unavoidable threat of death, grave bodily harm, or sexual assault.  When faced with such a situation, there is no reason why an individual should not be able to choose an assault weapon if that is what they both have at hand and / or are comfortable with.  In fact, many people, especially those in LE or the military may be significantly more proficient with these types of weapons due to their resemblance with duty weapons.

                    •  KV has done a pretty good job of answering (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cdreid

                      some of these questions.  I will address some of the others.  

                      Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights are divine documents that descended from the sky on stone tablets.  They are the work of men, men who possessed the wisdom to provide an amendment process.  That process provides the ability for society to enact change when there is sufficient support for it.  This was done with the ratification of things like the 13th Amendment (speaking to your 3/5th of a man).  

                      I also believe that the argument that the 2nd Amendment was meant to be time specific, i.e. limiting people to muskets and flint locks is incorrect.  This view has been adopted and upheld by the courts.  

                      I am not entirely certain what you are driving at with your protect the many from the few.  To me it sounds an awful lot like preemptively restrict the rights of the few to assuage the fears of some.  No, I do not agree with this.  Nor do I believe that the police, i.e. the State has a duty or obligation outside of a few extreme circumstances to protect an individual.

                      Forming militias to overthrow the government is a sticky topic.  While I do believe that part of intent behind the 2nd was to provide a reset switch of last resort on the govt, I also think that it wasn't the intent of the founders that such a switch would be necessary.  To this end, the system has many levels of safety valve built in, such the rights expressed under the 1st-A.  

                      Lastly, no I don't believe that any amendment is more important than, superior to, or takes greater precedence than any of the others.   Nor do I support things like the Patriot Act and NDAA, which I see as blatant violations of due process that were enacted in knee jerk fashion following an emotional crisis and I certainly don't think gun control should be allowed to follow a similar path.

                      •  agree (0+ / 0-)

                        I agree with your last paragraph--the rest, not so much.  Assault weapons are built to kill many people quickly, no civilian should have that power--even the police need to have this restricted, to a lesser extent.

                        Apres Bush, le deluge.

                        by melvynny on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:48:54 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Assault rifles are built for the military. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          noway2, cdreid, andalusi

                          And they're meant for human combat.

                          "Assault weapons" is a bullshit term that describes scary looking rifles that don't have the same capability as their military counterparts. They aren't made to kill people faster or with more efficiency; if they were, they wouldn't be using an intermediately powered cartridge.

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:51:18 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  reason (0+ / 0-)

                            What percentage of the population is mentally unstable?  What percentage of that population can be provoked into violence?  What percentage of the population is oppressed?  Is affected by bigotry--hatred?  How many are paranoid?  How many jump to the wrong conclusions?  How many have road rage?  Do you want to be around all these people while they are fully armed--with sufficient ammo to kill scores of people?
                            My plan to get gun control laws is to play into the hands of the bigots.  A movement should be started to supply AK-47s to African Americans and Spanish speaking people.  They would then stroll down Phoenix, or LA, or NYC, proudly displaying their favorite hunting instrument.  Wouldn't want to be a cop there, but, you wouldn't mind.

                            Apres Bush, le deluge.

                            by melvynny on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:04:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm a supporter of minorities arming themselves. (0+ / 0-)

                            See Pink Pistols.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:13:56 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  I have one particular (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KVoimakas

                          assault weapon.. that was made to kill rabbits.

                          Has a magazine. Black stock. Semi auto. Even picanninny rails. I guess it Could kill a human if i emptied a clip into them and hten maybe beat them in the head with it for a while.

                          Your ignorance is astonishing.

                          A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                          by cdreid on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:56:37 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Read jefferson (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  noway2

                  Your education is very sadly lacking. You seem to know nothing about the constitution, the law or even the philosophies this country was founded under.

                  And now youre calling any organisation who disagreeswith you a terrorist organisation. Where have we heard that before

                  A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                  by cdreid on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:53:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I know it's hyperbole (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              But just thought you might want to know that you can legally own a jet fighter or a hand grenade as a private citizen in the US. You just need the money to afford it, and in the case of the grenade, to go through the proper legal channels.

              The jet fighter can't be a plane still in service and you don't get the weapons, mind you. As for athe grenade, that is a destructive device under the NFA, which means you would have to a pay a $200 tax (as well as the thousands the grenade itself would cost) and wait a long time for the paperwork to be processed. That's if local law enforcement signs off on your paperwork, which they probably won't, so this is really a right in theory rather than practice.

  •  Does the buyer need to provide Government Issued (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, Faito, RadGal70

    Photo ID, just as Republicans asked for voting?

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:55:46 AM PST

  •  if the RW thinks Democrats = Communists, then (0+ / 0-)

    (more and better) Democrats may need to be registered before gubs do

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ Now with more SNAP: Saturday hate mail-a-palooza End of a series

    by annieli on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:57:10 AM PST

  •  Because registering cars has made it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, RadGal70

    easy for the government to come and take all of them.

    "But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence." - President Clinton

    by anonevent on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:58:07 AM PST

  •  If sensible gun legislation cannot be passed it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, a2nite, Faito

    may be time to show coroner photos of the victims in the same way the RTR folks show pictures of zygotes and fetuses.  Let the first responders share the nightmares they currently bear alone.  

    Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

    by judyms9 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:58:08 AM PST

    •  I would leave that up to the next of kin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Faito

      - otherwise it's another intrusion on the family and friends who have to sort out their loss in the public glare.

      Anyone from outside should ask for permission - and still I can see how that could really back fire.

      Horrible tactics from the other side is not something to mirror.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004 - http://youtu.be/4Syme_-lUTA

      by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:10:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So let's be like Republicans? (0+ / 0-)

      "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

      by Texas Lefty on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:39:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is certainly the case at Daily Kos. (4+ / 0-)
    ...gun rights advocates see the expansion of background checks as a means to set up a firearms registry that will eventually be used to confiscate guns.
    Tremendous paranoia surrounding this issue. For example, if someone is treated for substance abuse, or bipolar disorder, or a domestic dispute, this data can be cross referenced.

    Could those be grounds for removing guns?



    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:05:17 AM PST

  •  10th US Circuit Court (6+ / 0-)

    rules that there is no right to carry a concealed gun in public : http://www.businessinsider.com/...

    This whole world's wild at heart and weird on top....Lula

    by anninla on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:09:10 AM PST

  •  So conspiracy theory nonsense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Faito

    trumps sound legislation says sitting US Senator.

    gack

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:16:17 AM PST

  •  No records = Total abdication of responsibility (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, LilithGardener, Meteor Blades

    Some records (and I stipulate that those records - deer, bear, turkey, etc. "tags" as an example - are derivative of firearm possession) are meticulously kept for certain gun owners: hunters.

    It's very difficult to build a case against a serial straw purchaser if no records are kept. I've tried to be open to a range of compromises on weapon safety, but some sort of tracking beyond "instant background check" is my personal line in the sand. I'm open to some non-governmental entity being the trusted custodian of such records if that's what it takes, even the NRA itself. But they would refuse the responsibility because it would force them to contract the universe of potential future weapons purchasers. And maintaining the "upside" of future gun purchases is their "Job 1."

    As with Financial Regulation, self-regulation of the weapons trade will not work. Government must be the "bad guy" that takes this particular "punch bowl" away from the party.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:25:09 AM PST

  •  THE PROBLEM AS I SEE IT (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2, Faito, cdreid

    OK. I have guns and have even been a member of the NRA when I was little so you can class me as a gun owner.

    Probably the #1 thing you could do with guns to prevent real crime is to make them like a car.

    You have a title you sign over and when it goes from person to person the person has to have a background check.

    If a person goes insane or is rendered somehow incapable or violent then the gov't knows what and how many guns he has and can take them till he's considered sane or forever.

    Done right this system would basically dry up the guns supply for felons and those who can now buy guns illegally thru private sales.

    ______________

    What is being considered if I understand correctly is that private gun sales would not be registered, but would have to go thru the instant check system where it does an instant check to make sure you are not prohibitied from purchasing guns.

    The thing is the way it is set up now, there is no record of the instant check, which you have to do at a dealer because in order to get it passed that was the way had to be.

    _______________

    So if a person lives in a state where guns are not registered, and there is no record of them every owning them anywhere, they can pretty much sell them to a third party even IF we would pass mandatory background check.

      Without gun registration nobody knows you own the guns and nobody can tell if you did the check or not since no records are kept on them.

       Now the feds have records on gun purchases after 1968, but they are hard to access by design and who knows how many of the guns sold since have changed hands over and over.

      So a instant background check without the guns actually being able to be registered is not enforcable.

    _______________

    OK so right now I think National Gun Registration is pretty much a NO GO.

    First the NRA has been going around for 40 years saying registration means confiscation.

    Second in other countries and in some states in the US that have registries they HAVE been used to confiscate guns so the fear is not groundless.

    Then we have people here who say that gun owners are paranoid, that nobody wants to take their guns, but then we have posts saying ban all guns and we also have assault weapons bans in progress so there is NO TRUST on the gun owners side.

    ______________

    The way I see it we need to have guns just like a car, with registration and checks even on sales between individuals.

    I think HELLER was a first step. It said that the second amendment was an INDIVIDUAL right.

    However I think an assault weapons ban would have to go before the Supremes and be struck down for us to get anywhere close to people feeling comfortable with registration.

    Demographically gun owners are enough of a block that I don't think we will see national gun registration till they can be fully convinced that somehow it won't lead to confiscation.  We will either need further definition on the scope of Heller or a new amendment or law to make it possible.
    _
    ______________

    •  But there is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      no convincing many, many gun owners (of the paranoid right wing variety who fear BHO's black helis and who think there is a Right of Insurrection implied by the 2nd Amendment) that registration will not lead to confiscation.  

      These same people in many cases crow about how wonderful and safe Switzerland is, despite its many guns, although these same people would never, ever agree to the type of basic gun control legislation that country has on the books.

      •  That country (0+ / 0-)

        requires gun ownership.

        If you require US gun ownership noone would have a problem with registration. But you wont.

        Strawmen are for lazy minds.

        A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

        by cdreid on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:05:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Cause the only way they would know if you have (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Faito, sneakers563, LilithGardener

    a gun is if you register, nothing you said on the internet would ever be used to confiscate your guns.  

    No one noted your license plate when you parked your car to go to the gun rally.

    The credit card statement you use to buy ammo and guns will not be used.  

    Your subscription to NRA and gun magazines will never be used.

    guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

    by 88kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:39:09 AM PST

    •  It is a mystery to me - (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy

      that people who oppose a registry, open discuss exactly what fire arms they have. Some people seem to still think they are anonymous on the web.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2004

      by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:37:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  any dem that refuses (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber
    Hidden by:
    cdreid

    to get on board on this issue should immediately switch parties so we know who the supporters of mass murder really are and not hide behind the dem label.
    we already know the gop is more concerned with the gun industry making profits at the expense of human life aka anti life, pro gun, so lets point the sunshine on the dems with the same mindset.

    •  Interesting concept considering that gun rights (5+ / 0-)

      is not a politically left-right issue, though it is frequently made into one, but rather is an authoritarian vs libertarian issue.  There is no conflict between being Liberal and supporting gun rights.

      •  Meh. (0+ / 0-)

        Let's be honest.  The Republican Approach to gov't is Authoritarian Rule.  And the main opponents to meaningful gun control legislation are Republicans.  

        Republicans "govern" by imposing their authoritarian conservative philosophy on everybody.

        Many cons are anti-government, except for when they think the gov't can impose moral or social order (abortion, prayer in schools, medical marijuna, etc). Their limited-government ideas does not apply to national security, or foreign wars, or even the gov't messing with markets of course.

        One can support 'gun rights' without supporting the NRA's ridiculous positions on everything.

        •  Lets not confuse the political parties with (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid, Texas Lefty

          the concepts of left-right / libertarian-authoritarian because they don't equate.  The left-right scale applies more to economics while the libertarian-authoritarian scale applies more to social issues.  Republicans in general are right wing believing in entirely market based economies and but may be authoritarian or libertarian.   Democrats are to the left of Republicans, but aren't what I would call left wing economically.  They too can be authoritarian or libertarian depending on how much they think the state should be involved in regulating personal freedom.  

          Overall, I think most R's are right-wing authoritarian and most D's are left-wing authoritarian.  

          Gun rights are a very libertarian concept in that it is putting power and responsibility with the individual and putting the individual on parity with the state.  

          I myself, overall am a left-wing libertarian that on political quizzes scores semi moderate because I strong support some left and right wing views, e.g. I want socialized medicine while being opposed to illegal immigration.

      •  you make this more (0+ / 0-)

        complicated than it needs to be, a background check is just common sense regardless of political persuasion, just as making assault weapons and expanded clips illegal is a path to making slaughter like those recently less likely to be attempted or successful.
        i am as left wing as they come and i believe in gun rights but also in gun control, the right believe in nothing other than violence and mayhem which is their brand of political posturing, i find the label left wing libertarian to be a little bit of an oxymoron from a pure political position, imho.

    •  Ah, the only single-issue purity test. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, happymisanthropy

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:49:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why does Schumer bother to participate in a group (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    that includes Tom Coburn?  It's an odds-on bet to be a waste of time.

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:06:28 PM PST

  •  The last time this came up (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, noway2, KVoimakas

    the ATF admitted that they violated the law and hadnt deleted the records. And that it was somehow a huge deal.

    I can write an app for them in about 5 minutes since apparently theirs are so incompetant that will delete checks after the legal period they can hold them. I guess it's ok to violate the law if yorue a law enforcement agency.

    One problem with the so-called (which is a 99% bullshit claim) gunshow loophole isnt gunshows. It is  that if i sell my rifle to my brother in law who owns more guns than i do.. we're supposed to go to some FFL and pay whatever he wants to charge (25 or 50 bucks) to do so.

    Of course the real deal here is youre regulating and punishing law abiding  gun owners for your irrational fear of an object. The solution is if someone commits a violent crime they go to prison and dont come out. Period. But thats not touchyfeely enough. Better to attack the law abiding citizens.

    A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

    by cdreid on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 03:34:03 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site