LJWorld.com weblogs Statehouse Live

Roberts, Moran vote against expanded background checks in gun sales

Advertisement

U.S. Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, both Kansas Republicans, voted against gun legislation that would have expanded background checks and other restrictions.

The measure, put together by U.S. Sens. Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, was in response to the Newtown, Conn., massacre and other mass slayings.

The proposal to expand background checks to sales at guns shows and online received a majority of votes in the Senate — 54-46 — but failed Wednesday to get the required 60 votes needed to advance.

Of the bill, Roberts said, "I believe that Senators Toomey and Manchin came to the table with a sincere proposal, however, I have serious concerns with their legislation, including the expansion of the background check system and government intrusion on private firearm transfers.

"A background check can provide a key line of defense against gun violence, but it must be done in a way that does not infringe upon Second Amendment rights."

The National Rifle Association thanked legislators for defeating the background check expansion, saying it would have criminalized transactions between friends — a charge that supporters of the bill said was untrue.

Roberts said he supported an alternative bill that he said would improve the efficiency and accuracy of the background check system.

Moran did not immediately respond to a request for comment about his vote on expanding background checks.

Comments

Jean1183 2 years ago

Just sent them both a "Thank You" email.

chootspa 2 years ago

Because you like making it easy for criminals to own guns?

John Hamm 2 years ago

Not a valid argument. Criminals will "own" guns no matter how many worthless laws are in effect. Most can't legally "own' them under current restrictions.

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

Yes it is a valid argument Oonly. The new regulations will not affect law abiding individuals ability to get guns, if you're not a felon and you don't have a mental disease you can still own a darn gun. All this will do is make it harder for criminals with little to no effect on law abiding citizens.

It may well be illegal for felons to own guns but it's impossible to pinpoint every felon that owns a gun and then take them away. An effective way to at least "limit" the number of guns in the hands of criminals is to make it harder for CRIMINALS to get them.

chootspa 2 years ago

I don't doubt a determined criminal will get a gun, but the least we can do is require more effort than a few mouse clicks to get that gun.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

You can mouse click all day long, but you'd still have to fill out the required paperwork, lie, and not be caught in that lie by the "Feds" to be able to get receive a gun you'd purchased online (with mouse clicks). Guns will only be sent to a registered Federal Firearm Licensed dealers. They are required to have the buyer fill out the paperwork and phone it in to the "Feds" before turning over the firearm.

chootspa 2 years ago

Actually, you just find a private owner listing their gun on a website that specifies "in person transfer only," and click-click gun purchase. No paperwork. You might have to drive to meet them somewhere, but that's it.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

That's not buying online. You have to go buy the gun. The "mouse clicks" purchase bit IS a bit misleading. Personal sales without a background check ARE still legal. I was talking about dealer sales and trying to dispel the notion that "mouse clicks" alone would land a gun on your doorstep. You have to perform a face-to-face transaction beyond the "mouse clicks".

Kate Rogge 2 years ago

I called their offices just now to protest their votes and to say I think they are despicable cowards whose allegiance is to the NRA and the neoconservative groups who own them. Contemptible.

In_God_we_trust 2 years ago

Our Senators voted in line with their oath of office, supporting the Constitution. They are to be commended.

boltzmann 2 years ago

So the constitution guarantees that we should make it as easy as possible for criminals to get guns. Where is that?

In_God_we_trust 2 years ago

If they have broken the law and are criminals, what is keeping the police from bringing charges and arresting them already? It has nothing to do with the average person being able to exercise his rights to buy a gun and self protection.

oldvet 2 years ago

We would also like to thank Senators Mark Pryor (D, Arkansas), Max Baucus (D, Montana), Mark Begich (D, Alaska), and Heidi Heitkamp (D, North Dakota), who made this bi-partisan victory possible.

elliottaw 2 years ago

more reason to vote the bums out, 90% of the US wanted these yet these fools choose to take the money from the NRA instead of doing their job

John Hamm 2 years ago

Might want to verify BO's assertions before quoting them. I suggest you check the numbers (and trends) here.... http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

What are you linking to Oonly, it seems to very much support the 90% number?

optimist 2 years ago

This 90% stat is a joke. The president keeps presenting it as a fact but it is far from it. Unless you can provide some evidence of the poll then it just sounds silly. Without the question asked being presented critical thinkers have no way to evaluate its accuracy or relevance. I have seen stats that reflect a significant number of people in favor of background checks but that referred to back ground checks in general. I was opposed to this bill but strongly favor the current background check system and would even favor stronger reporting requirements. The misnomer in this bill is that the law would require even private sales conducted at gun shows to have a background check. Are you going to provide your social security number, date of birth and other pertinent information to a complete stranger without a physical business presence in order for them to conduct a background check? I certainly wouldn't. Secondly it requires background checks on online sales. All online firearms sellers are firearms dealers and in order to sell a gun to the public must ship the gun to an authorized FFL holder to complete a background check (at an additional fee). This is the case in 100% of these transactions already. So, why another law requiring something that existing law already requires? Well simple, it is a round about way of regulating sales of firearms sales where private firearms are listed for sale using an online resource. This does nothing to prevent the transfer of firearms to criminals but only adds a barrier to law abiding citizens. Then you must ask yourself; when criminals continue to get access to firearms through private sales, that wouldn't have been stopped by either of these laws, the only solution the Government will come up with is that every firearm must be registered with the government. This will allow the Government to track the transfer of all firearms in order for the government to ensure the law is being followed. Then still only the law abiding citizen will register their guns or they will become criminals. Criminals will not register them and if the demand for guns amongst criminals increases beyond the supply of unregistered guns then criminals will be forced to steal firearms from law abiding citizens. Consequently law abiding citizens will be put at risk and then the Government solution will be to ban all guns so that nobody has them. Because all guns owned by law abiding citizens are registered, the government will know where to go to pick them up if the citizen doesn’t turn them in. Then only the criminals will have guns. If you think gun confiscation won't happen here you are crazy. It has happened in Australia, Britain and Canada which most would consider as close to a free democracies as exists compared to the US. This law was the snowball to start the avalanche and I am glad that some saw it for what it was despite many in favor of it touting its common sense and imaginary public support.

chootspa 2 years ago

• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

• CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

That took about two seconds of Googling. Did your fingers break after the rest of whatever it was that you typed?

optimist 2 years ago

These are your questions? Really weak. Did they get their call list from the Brady Campaign? Most people aren't informed enough to know that "all" refers to the transfer of a firearm from father to a son, friend to friend and more. When this is explained the number decreases significantly to less than 50%. While I might even be open to background checks in these instances when you consider the ONLY way to regulate these exchanges is to register all firearms there is no support for that amongst the majority of American's. Not going to happen!

chootspa 2 years ago

You would do well to not believe everything the NRA tells you. The M-T amendment that our two clowns from Kansas helped defeat would have specifically exempted sales between relatives. "Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks"

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

jhawkinsf 2 years ago

Didn't vote for either of them in the past and will continue not voting for them.

Bob Forer 2 years ago

Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots out there that vote based on the letter after the candidates names. Wish more people voted based on the actual positions of the candidates. Too many yellow dog republicans in Kansas.

Alexander Smith 2 years ago

Idiots is not the word. What are the freaks trying to hide? Infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights?? WTF! A background check DOES NOT in any way infringe the 2nd Amendment rights. If someone is a criminal or has mental issues that makes them a possible danger if they are allowed to have guns is a right that is outside the 2nd Amendment and overrides it.

Background checks MUST be done on private sales. A gun is not some trinket you pick up at a flea market, its a deadly weapon. A person who sells a gun to a person, and that person then turns around and uses the gun to kill someone in a robbery MUST be held accountable. It’s a failure of that gun seller to uphold his American spirit of helping to protect fellow Americans.

Heck, if a person sells some beer to another person with out checking a ID, that person then goes out and kills someone by driving drunk, THEN finding out that the person was a minor. The person selling the beer will be charged and most likely go to jail.

WHY NOT ON GUNS! Roberts and his idiotic moron anti-gun law are NOT American in anyway. They are out to HIDE illegal gun sails, they don’t care about the children that were killed in Newtown, all they care about is their TOYS. I bet you anything that Robert and his buddies have illegal guns sitting in their homes and they don’t want the laws because they know they will lose their toys.

ROBERTS and friends.. you are the ANTI-AMERICAN spirit. Screw you all and your safety, I got my guns.

OH one last thing, Gun Laws DO NOT violate the 2nd Amendment UNLESS. 1.) All guns are banned 2.) Laws make it economically or process very difficult to get one/high probability that the check will fail. OH another thing, the Government DOES have the right to regulate what firearms are deemed safe in the hands of the public… if they didn’t everyone would have a M16, SAW, or 50 cal in their front yard. Yes these are military weapons…. BUT they are firearms.

MarcoPogo 2 years ago

Wow, it's time for an old fashioned "I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I?" thread.

Janella Williams 2 years ago

Great comeback! How long did it take to come up with that? I imagine hours.

KSManimal 2 years ago

"Heck, if a person sells some beer to another person with out checking a ID, that person then goes out and kills someone by driving drunk, THEN finding out that the person was a minor. The person selling the beer will be charged and most likely go to jail."

It's already illegal to sell guns to minors. What's your point?

littlexav 2 years ago

This bill didn't affect private sales - that's the NRA's number-one lie. This bill would only have affected commercial sales. But the gun-lobby lies and the far-right outcry in response sealed the amendment's fate before it even had a chance. Welcome to post-Citizen's United democracy in America.

Brock Masters 2 years ago

What commercial sales are exempt from background checks now? It did indeed affect private sales.

jayhawklawrence 2 years ago

So if I sell my car to someone and they kill somebody with it I go to jail?

You're dangerous.

pace 2 years ago

If you sell yor gun to some loony and he turns around and kills you and your family you won't go to jail but it would be ironic.

orbiter 2 years ago

Thank GOD people can buy guns on the internet and at gun shows without having a background check performed on them! Wait a minute, what?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

You can, currently, buy from individuals (non-dealers) without a background check.

Ben Lockwood 2 years ago

To these senators, and to Wayne LaPierre, and to all the senators who voted against this:

.I hope the last thing you see when you go to sleep is the terrified faces of 1st graders. I hope you wake up in a cold sweat, dreaming about paramedics vomiting as 20 dead children roll past on stretchers. I hope you feel the burning hate of parents who will never kiss their babies again. When you are remembered, you will be known as the weakest, the spineless, and the heartless. When you are old, and your life is an act of rememberance and you will look into your childrens and grandchildrens faces, you will see every bullethole you helped facilitate. Every bloodstained dollar you keep should be a reminder of what you have done. I hope you feel sick.

EarthaKitt 2 years ago

Gosh. Not sure that could be said any better.

Gail Grant 2 years ago

I think I just found the perfect letter to send them personally. Thank you

KSManimal 2 years ago

Expanded background checks would have done NOTHING to stop the shooting you're referring to. Those weapons were stolen, not purchased, by the perpetrator.

In_God_we_trust 2 years ago

Inappropriate emotionalism, blaming the wrong ones. Adam Lanza is the one to blame, not Congress or gun owners. Such venom and hate. Congress upheld the Constitution, why don't you?

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

That's a great way to distract from what was really going on. Newtown served as a catalyst that got us to discuss gun violence in our country. Remember it wasn't only Newtown pushing this it was Gabby Gifford and Mayor's Against Illegal Guns (both organizations that are not Newtown related). The point is to stop "all" gun deaths not just mass shootings. That's why this law was multifaceted and involved more than just background checks (assault weapons ban and high capacity magazines).

optimist 2 years ago

The people that should be ashamed are those that use the deaths of those children as props to perpetuate a sick, infatuated fear of an inanimate object. I'll buy my gun shoes and I'll be it never walks out of my home to commit murder. There is not a single aspect of this law that would have prevented this sick young man from doing what he did. I understand the ease in which an emotional response comes to an event of this nature. This was true evil, motivated by something most of us can't even comprehend. We should not let fear interfere with rational thought. I am in favor of any change in the law that would actually prevent people with mental illness from accessing a firearm, a car, a hammer or any other tool, that most of us own and use every day without threat to others, for purposes of murdering our fellow citizens. I don't know the answer but there is no evidence that gun restrictions, bans or this law restricting the transfer of firearms would effect any change. I’m not even sure how much we can do to restrict the mentally ill from accessing firearms if we continue to pass laws to protect their privacy and freedom at great risk to our community.

Bob Forer 2 years ago

Of course they did. Both of them receive big campaign contributions from the NRA. Its all about raising money to get re-elected. Democracy has nothing to do with it.

DrQuack 2 years ago

I like you, Synchophant. You put into words exactly what is happening. How unfortunate for the residents of this state. But.....who in the heck keeps re-electing these guys?

chicago95 2 years ago

I, too, find Senators Roberts and Moran's votes reprehensible. But demonizing elected officials is a misdirected and useless response. We know "who the heck keeps re-electing these guys." It's our friends and neighbors. The abject failure of community forums such as this, which do nothing to change anyone's minds but rather harden us into primitive tribal allegeances, provides daily evidence of the breakdown of our civic fabric. We need to rebuild from the bottom up. Stop demonizing straw men and start a serious conversation with one another. Find values that you might hold in common. As long as we subscribe to a system of one man(woman)-one-vote, we must earn one another's trust.

Lynn Grant 2 years ago

Look for BIG campaign contributions from the NRA & the tea partiers for Roberts & Moran. and the 52 other senators who voted against this bill. They can feather their nests on the graves of innocents.

Liberty275 2 years ago

I told you people this junk legislation was going nowhere. Hands off the constitution.

elliottaw 2 years ago

make sure you say this same thing if someone you know is gunned down

Liberty275 2 years ago

My uncle was "gunned down" dead. My father was shot but survived.

Wait for it...

I told you people this junk legislation was going nowhere. Hands off the constitution.

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

Liberty, why is this "junk legislation" and how does it affect the constitution. I have to assume that you oppose any and all background checks for firearm purchases?

Taking this position to it's logical extreme then, you of course support absolutely no regulation of any of the "rights" in the constitution. Ergo child porn should be legalized as free speech, libel and slander should be legalized as free speech, calling in bomb threats (without a bomb) should be legal, Any and all contracts should be legal because there is a "contract clause" in the constitution, I could go on but I think you get my point.

Liberty275 2 years ago

"why is this "junk legislation""

It's a redundant law designed specifically to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise a constitutional right.

"you of course support absolutely no regulation of any of the "rights" in the constitution"

To a very large degree. As long as another person's rights are not violated, no regulation of rights should exist. All of your examples violate the rights of other people. Owning an AR15 with a 30 round magazine does not violate another's rights.

"I could go on but I think you get my point."

You don't have one.

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

Owning an AR 15 assault rifle does not violate anyone elses rights, you are correct and that doesn't have to be illegal under the framework that you and I are discussing. However, a felon owning that same gun and using it to murder other individuals quickly DOES violate the rights of others. Closing a loophole that allows that person to violate others rights IS a reasonable regulation of a right found in the constitution. I'm actually very much on board with not regulating in areas that are PURELY in the realm of the individual and have no effect on others (seatbelt laws come to mind). This however is not one of those areas.

And this makes it harder for law abiding citizens how? Citizens undergo this background check at licensed gun dealers 60% of the time, you're willing to defend the ability of someone with a criminal record to purchase a gun without any background check just so that law abiding citizens don't have to undergo one the other 40% of the time?

Oh, and it's not a "redundant law" it's by definition not "redundant" if it covers a different transaction. Redundant in this context would be if the fed's decided to apply background checks to licensed gun dealers.

KSManimal 2 years ago

tiger,

Can you name ONE mass shooting that would have been prevented by universal background checks?

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

KSManimal that IS not the point. The mass shootings are the catalyst that this country needs to think about gun regulations. In this case it was Newtown. A majority of gun deaths each year are NOT through mass shootings, they're through suicides. It's sad that it takes the images of 20 children to get us to discuss gun control but unfortunately it does. Regulation that keeps guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals will reduce gun violence in this country. There are studies that show that for suicides for instance, if you put up even a single roadblock to the suicide the individual will not go through with it. Ergo, if an individual cannot obtain a gun because they have a history of mental illness they may not kill themselves. And before you say well they'd just find another way, that's actually not true, often if they can't get their hands on a gun they don't end up killing themselves. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

I'm sure that criminals get very creative and sneaky when attempting to acquire firearms. If it's possible to fix that, then we should. Were there other restrictions, that led to the failure of this legislation?

Andrew Reeves 2 years ago

"It's a redundant law designed specifically to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise a constitutional right."

(ahem!...cough!...voter i.d. law....cough!)

Liberty275 2 years ago

Voting is not federal right. It's probably in the Kansas Constitution though. Lots of state's have tighter gun control laws than others, just like some state's have voter ID laws. The difference is that the states can take away your right to vote, but not your right to own a firearm.

Ricola!

boltzmann 2 years ago

Actually, the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments to the Constitution specifically state that a right to vote exists.

Liberty275 2 years ago

I suggest you read them again. They guarantee equality and no poll taxes in order to vote, not the right to vote.

chootspa 2 years ago

Did the shooter buy the gun at a gun show or over the Internet in spite of a criminal history that would make them ineligible for such a purchase, or was it given to them by the Viet Cong?

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

Chootspa I wasn't implying that the background check would have stopped this precise gun death. My point was that no right is entirely inviolate and each and every "right" granted us in the constitution or by law can be regulated in reasonable ways. There is a TON of gray area between taking away the right to own a gun in its entirety and requiring background checks for anyone who wants to purchase a gun.

chootspa 2 years ago

We're on the same page. It used to be a technological nightmare to run background checks with every purchase. Now I can buy a hotdog from some food truck with a credit card and have an emailed receipt before I even put the mustard on it. I have heard absolutely no credible reasons not to run background checks on every purchase.

Liberty275 2 years ago

" over the Internet in spite of a criminal history"

If he did, then the felon has broken a law and should go to jail. The Vietcong shot at my brother with heavy ordinance (he was a combat engineer clearing hilltops). My father and uncle were shot with a deer rifle. Given that it was 40 years ago, it was probably bolt action.

chootspa 2 years ago

Given that it was 40 years ago, it also probably wasn't from a gun bought over the Internet. You're also much older than I'd assumed. The way you whine about moving to Florida, it sounded like a far off dream. But you could bless us by retiring any minute now from the sounds of it. Maybe they'll have built Glenn Beck's libertarian paradise for you by then.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years ago

And yet again we are presented with the vile, bubbling, seething hatred that our elected tea-bag terrorist republican representatives harbour against the lawfully--elected Democratic President of the United States.

A very necessary set of regulations (remember the Second Amendment says "well-regulated) are voted down to further add to the disrespect of our citizens and victims of the many harriffic tragedies of gun violence.

And a republican giverner who openly crafts "legislation" that opposes Federal law.

Our representatives are noting short of criminal in their intent to oppose everything that the president offers, byt yet the "citizens" of Kansas stand for this.

John Hamm 2 years ago

Yes, because the citizens of Kansas stand with the Constitution. Something your "lawfully elected" President seems to have forgotten.

oldvet 2 years ago

I guess that many Kansans were the target of candidate obama... "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them..."

optimist 2 years ago

I hear NY's borders are still open. You could always live there with like minded people.

cowboy 2 years ago

As part of the sequester we should cut the pay of senators and congressmen / women to a poverty level range where they can qualify for food stamps , medicaid and would not be so prone to sell out the citizenry to hold onto a plum job and an income built from graft during public service. Make them part time employees and force them to have a real job in the off season.

We regulate knives and everyone has all the knives they can use or would need , why not guns?

Some of the items these senators rejected were having additives in gun powder so it can be traced to point of origin , bulk buys of guns that can then be sold off record into urban gangs , large magazines , and background checks for all gun purchases. None of these elements challenge and second amendment right. Any one who thinks they do should seriously seek professional help as you are a bonafide paranoid.

I wrote our useless senators also , my words were not kind nor supportive.

elliottaw 2 years ago

can't the 27th Amendments makes cutting their pay pretty much illegal unless they vote for it

littlexav 2 years ago

We do that to our state-level senators and representatives; doesn't seem to work.

cowboy 2 years ago

Quite ironic that the lady who shamed the senate yesterday and was removed from the gallery was the lady who stopped the lunatic who shot Gabby Giffords in Tucson by preventing him from reloading another large magazine and killing more people.

The hero patriot was removed from the senate while the rats stayed put.

koman 2 years ago

Funny thing, all of you saying you wrote or called these idiots or their offices are wasting your time. Even if you vote for them, they do not care about you. At all. Period and end of discussion. They care about getting money to run ads that make simpletons get out and vote for them. I have to hand it to the repubaggers, they have a great history of using social issues to scare folks with diminished brain function to vote against their own economic best interests.

appleaday 2 years ago

And the NRA doesn't really even care about it's members, a majority of which support background checks. The NRA is funded by the gun industry who profit by selling more guns, more guns, more guns.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

The restrictive legislation led to more guns and ammunition being sold than you can possibly imagine. The same thing happened with the Clinton assault weapons ban. This world is messed up and cannot be fixed in the short term. We continue to be the slaves of corporations, and too many like it that way...as long as they have big brother in their pocket or at their ear and in hand as their "text" of freedom is misspelled...their call dropped...its message mutated into a simpleminded trick sold to lost souls and the comfortable herd. Enjoy those fruits doled out by our masters. Argue about the inane as they block the last few roads out of our demise.

oldvet 2 years ago

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste." Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff to obama

Maggie Morrissey 2 years ago

Your Second Amendment right comes right after my children's and their children's right to live, MY right to live. Families have the right to have a reasonable expectation that they can go to a safe place to receive an education. You people keep yapping on about your Second Amendment right and never stop to think when our Fore Fathers wrote our Amendments, it was based on a "firearm" that took 5 minutes to stuff full of gunpowder and one chance to get a shot off and the target better have been right in front of you!!! It is a bunch of BS to say you have the right to own firearms, automatic, semi-automatic, stuffed with a magazine and four more in your pockets, that can take out 26 people, the majority 6 and 7 years old in less than 5 minutes. If you want to keep a loaded pistol under your damn pillow, be my guest! I just hope you don't shoot your kid, your kid shoots another kid, or you fire off and kill the drunken neighbor kid with it!

Liberty275 2 years ago

"yapping on about your Second Amendment right and never stop to think when our Fore Fathers wrote our Amendments, it was based on a "firearm" that took 5 minutes "

How long did it take to press a copy of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" in 1776?

Ineffective strategy fail.

"Your Second Amendment right comes right after my children's and their children's right to live, MY right to live."

Those rights do not exist in the constitution. At best you have a right to due process before being executed.

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

So by your standards all murders with guns followed proper due process? I don't get your argument. We do have a right to not be executed without due process and when a madman walks into a school and executes 20 children they did not get due process. Whose right wins out, the madman's right to own the gun or the child's right to due process before he executes them?

Liberty275 2 years ago

"So by your standards all murders with guns followed proper due process?"

By my standards, the constitution is a framework and a restraint against government. Citizens are not restrained by the Constitution. Murder is a violation of statutes, not the Constitution.

optimist 2 years ago

Due process is a function of law that the people, represented by Government must afford all citizens accused of a crime. A single madman commiting murder is not depriving anyone of due process any more than a criminal stealing a person's firearm is ingringing on ones 2nd amendment rights. I think the reason you don't get the argument probably says more about your capacity than that of Liberty275.

jafs 2 years ago

We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And that governments are instituted to protect these rights.

Something like that.

Liberty275 2 years ago

"We hold these truths to be self evident"

The DOI is not law.

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

Are you seriously arguing that the right to own a gun trumps the right not to be murdered because the constitution doesn't expressly say individuals have a right to not be murdered?

optimist 2 years ago

That's what you took from that? I realize more and more each day why it is so difficult to have a rational debate with those that think the way that you do.

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

read the original post by Liberty, Optimist. in reference to someone who argued that the second amendment right ends when it endangers their children and their right to live, Liberty said "Those rights do not exist in the constitution. At best you have a right to due process before being executed." So yes Liberty is arguing that because the right not to be killed is not in the constitution, the right to own a gun trumps it.

Liberty275 2 years ago

Thank you for helping him. I'd only add that while a person doesn't have the right to not be killed, it is against state and sometimes federal law everywhere in the US to murder a person. Statutes are subordinate to the Constitution.

It's simple really. A law can be found unconstitutional, but the constitution cannot be found unlawful.

jafs 2 years ago

Technically true, perhaps.

But it's clear that they intend for government to protect those rights, and thus our government is intended to protect one's right to life.

Liberty275 2 years ago

"thus our government is intended to protect one's right to life."

Jafs, I thought you were pro-abortion. All this "right-to-life" talk is going to bring the wrath of Cait down on you. My advice - duck!

Seriously though, kindly point out anywhere in the constitution that hints that the government "is intended to protect one's right to life". I say it is intended to not kill people without due process and not to protect life. You can make a better argument than that. I can.

Under the 14th amendment, it is unconstitutional to allow some people to purchase firearms without a background check while requiring it of others. That forces the government to choose no background checks, or background checks every time a weapon changes hands. They have a constitutional mandate to "well-regulate" the militia (everyone possessing a firearm) therefore it is illegal for them to allow unregulated ownership. They have no choice but to universally check.

If you guys thought a little out of the box instead of just repeating the garbage you find on huffpo, du or randomleftistblog.com you would be more fun.

jafs 2 years ago

I've already explained why it's obvious to me that our government is intended to protect our right to life.

When you set out certain rights that you consider inalienable, and then state that governments are instituted to protect those rights, it's completely clear that the government you create from that point on is designed to do just that.

Your point is also correct, that the government isn't allowed to take lives without due process. There's an interesting question - if one's right to life is inalienable, then how can the government ever kill anybody? Good argument against the death penalty.

I like your argument for universal background checks.

Since I've never looked at any of those sites, your last paragraph doesn't apply to me.

optimist 2 years ago

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Jason Johnson 2 years ago

If the 2nd Amendment fails, the rest will quickly follow.

Also, don't be so obtuse. Our Founding Fathers wanted us to have equal firepower of our government. They just fought for Independence for Christ's sake! They fought against Tyranny! So you're saying they would say "OK now that we're free, you all have nothing to fear! Our government will never turn against you! We'll go ahead and have better weapons than you."

It's why the military was made to fight external threats, and why police with lesser firepower, were obliged for internal law enforcement.

optimist 2 years ago

Given their objection to what they say is the Governments acting against their interests you would think they would get this. Apparently the President's Santa Clause approach to governance provides just enough appeasement to keep them from doing anything about it.

Biscayne 2 years ago

I Thanked them also, they have my vote.

Brock Masters 2 years ago

Thank you Harry Reid for voting against this bill.

newmedia 2 years ago

Guess if old Harry had kept his Red state dems in line we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Just goes to show whatever their political stripe winning reelection trumps all else.

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

Almost correct, if all red state Dem's had voted for background checks it still would have failed 59-41.

ChuckFInster 2 years ago

I would venture to guess the criminal element will disregard any and all laws for gun control anyway. Chicago having the strictest gun control laws is more deadly then Afganistan.

kernal 2 years ago

Chucky, did you ever stop to consider that's because a person can easily buy a gun online and at gun shows with no background check since there is no Federal requirement for a background check? All a person in Chicago has to do is go to a gun show outside of Chicago, or any other IL community with restrictive gun laws, to purchase anything from a pistol to an assault rifle. Criminals get them the same way. If our Congress hadn't voted against the Federal bill, it's probable there would eventually be less gun violence in the Chicago area.

Brock Masters 2 years ago

Why don't you post a link to a gun for sale on the Internet that doesn't require a background check if it is so easy and common? It isn't. Does it happen? Sure, because private sales are exempt but the vast majority of Internet sales require a background check.

kernal 2 years ago

I don't think LJW would appreciate my posting a link to a gun for sale online, fred. If you'd like to do that, go ahead. There is a story at http://www.nytimes.com but the link is broken. You can do a search on site by the title: "undercover inquiry leads gun shows to tighten checks". You might find it somewhat interesting.

Brock Masters 2 years ago

Why would I want to do it? Stupid suggestion

Reid Hollander 2 years ago

In Illinois, background checks are required at gun shows. Every gun owner in Chicago has been through 3 background checks, the FOID, the CFP, and the FFL all require their own background check. So no guns purchased at Illinois gun shows are used by criminals. You know. Because of background checks.

Don't forget about person to person transfer. In California, all sales, even person to person sales require that the transfer be completed through a FFL, with a 4473 form and background check. Thus gun violence is nonexistent in Los Angeles.

Oh I forgot that as part of the CFP application, they take and pass a firearm safety course. So we can at least be sure that all those criminals are safe.

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

So if it is happening in many places already, why shouldn't it be happening in other places too? If the law abiding gun purchaser had to pay a little extra, shouldn't he be mad at the lawbreakers who make such background checks necessary, not the person who has lost a loved one to that criminal and as a result wants a better background system check?

Brock Masters 2 years ago

The article is about a site that did facilitate person to person transactions.

Go out on the Internet today and post a link to a gun sale not requiring a background check. As I said, they are there, but they are not prevalent.

ChuckFInster 2 years ago

Here ya go

www.inquisitr.com/...killed-in-chicago-than-in-afghanistan

ChuckFInster 2 years ago

Use your google-fu I bet ya can get it

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

OK: there are 2,707,120 Chicagoans, and 500 were killed, for a rate of .1847 homicides per 100,000 residents. There were roughly 100,000 US troops and 310 killed in action, for a rate of 3.1 killed per 100,000 soldiers.

Give me the streets of Chicago any day, please.

wood451 2 years ago

I'm glad the bill did not pass.

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

very simple question for you, why?

Jason Johnson 2 years ago

I'll go ahead and answer that:

Because there already are background checks done when you purchase firearms. If you buy from a dealer at a gun show, they're required to call you in as well. Same with online purchases. They ship to an FFL, and that FFL calls you in.

rockchalker52 2 years ago

@chuckfinster - let it be pointed out, again, the areas with nearby proximity to Chicago, those with lax gun control, are the primary suppliers of the weapons used illegally in Chicago.

@fred_mertz - it is my understanding that Harry Reid's vote was procedural & that it has something to do with a strategy for passing this bill which he actually favors. I admit I don't understand that. I'm not even sure that is accurate, but that's what some talking head was saying yesterday. Very confusing.

@everybody else - I struggle with this concept myself, but, to paraphrase a very wise person, the moment in which an issue makes you feel anger is the moment in which you stop advocating for the truth and start advocating only for yourself. Less anger on both sides of this issue would go a long ways towards a resolution.

Brock Masters 2 years ago

Harry wasn't going to even let the bill come to the floor initially so I don't buy that it was procedural.

ChuckFInster 2 years ago

Not just Chicago

gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/illinois-gun-laws

verity 2 years ago

Harry Reid changed his vote after it became apparent that it was not going to pass so that he could reintroduce the bill. That is the same reason Marci Francisco has voted the way she did on a number of issues. It is a procedural issue which doesn't get much press and it seems that most of us don't really understand.

How about an article on that, LJW?

Lynn Grant 2 years ago

Liberty275, the Declaration of Independence, the precursor to the Constitution, talks about the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, LIFE being first. The constitution is the means to ensure these rights to Americans. Criminals will continue to have access to guns, that's a fact. The ones who would have been prevented from owning guns could have been the mentally ill, the ones who have committed the atrocities on our society like Newtown, Aurora, Columbine........... I agree with Yeoman2--this another of the right wing's inability to accept Barack Obama as President. They would prefer not to work for the people they represent in order to make the President look ineffective. And, yes, I believe that much has to do with the color of his skin!

Brock Masters 2 years ago

Gabby Gifford's shooter bought his guns legally with a background check. Background checks won't stop the mentally ill from buying guns until we find a way to get them into the database. I am all for making doctors and other mental health professionals report their patients so they can't buy guns.

KSManimal 2 years ago

Actually, he did NOT buy legally with a background check. He was a heavy drug user, thus he must have lied on the questions about drug use. Doing so is illegal. Hence, he did not buy his guns legally.

Now, before people jump in with "we need better background checks"....be ready to describe any sort of check that would be impermeable to liars lying on such questions.

oldvet 2 years ago

Fred, I'm with you on this one. All mental health care providers should be required to submit their records on any person they treat to an FBI database so that the dangerous can be prevented from buying or possessing guns. Failure to do so should make them liable to criminal and civil liability if a patient commits a crime with a gun.

Liberty275 2 years ago

"the Declaration of Independence"

The Declaration of Independence is a cherished document, but it is not law.

Liberty275 2 years ago

"the precursor to the Constitution"

The Articles of Confederation were the precursor to The Constitution.

optimist 2 years ago

There it is, finally! I was afraid nobody would pull out the race card. This is why rational discussions cannot be had with those that think like you, because most of us don't immediately jump to race. I vehemently disagree with the duly elected President of the United States on the issue of gun control in general and this law specifically. I disagreed with President Clinton when he pushed through a highly unpopular ban on certain types of firearms. Was that race too? I disagreed with President Bush on many things, including many aspects of the Patriot Act, if not the entire thing. Was that racist? I simply don't get it, you expect us to respect your viewpoint but you show absolutely no respect for the viewpoint of others. Being closed minded and unwilling to believe that others may simply come from a perspective that is different than yours is likely the reason for your frustration at your failure to persuade.

somebodynew 2 years ago

Well, if you think about it, I guess this didn't matter at all, here in Kansas. After all, our Great Legislative minds made it a Felony to enforce Federal gun laws. !!! So it wouldn't have applied here. Maybe Sam could have explained that if the President could have made his trip here (and invited Sam) ????

Gail Grant 2 years ago

LJworld, can you please post their email so we could "thank them" for protecting our kids?

Brock Masters 2 years ago

You really don't know how to find their email?

Jason Johnson 2 years ago

p>google.com will help you out there

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

OK, I really don't want to listen to those talk shows, so commenters who are against tightening the background checks as proposed in this legislation, tell me in as clear, specific language as you can, how this legislation infringes so much on the second amendment right to bear arms that it should be voted down. My understanding is that it does NOT create a national registry, rather it specifically prohibits it.

It seems that the loopholes in the current system are so egregious that despite 2 million applications being turned down, it's still easy for folks with a history of mental illness/violence/abuse can still get a gun. I simply don't see how that serves anyone, whether they have a gun or not.

So check your sarcasm and slogans at the door and explain what is so offensive about this legislation that tightens up the requirements such that folks who have a questionable history will have a much harder time and those who have a legitimate history can still get a gun?

Because if it is just a matter of cost, that doesn't cut it with me. If we as a country are willing to spend so much on border security, Homeland Security, etc. the cost of a more comprehensive and effective background search seems like a prudent investment to ensure that our Second Amendments rights are not taken advantage of by the criminal elements in our society.

Brock Masters 2 years ago

Because we don't believe the government when they say it won't create a registry. Many promises were made about the ACA, about what it did and didn't do that turned out to be lies. Much hinged on the federal government not paying for abortions but HHS found ways to include abortions via their ability to adopt rules.

Locally, we were told the sales tax increase was temporary but look they are trying to make it permanent. So people have reason to mistrust the government when they promise something.

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

wow, you have no clue what you're talking about. Federal dollars will not in any way shape or form pay for abortion. Insurers who cover abortion actually have to find a way administratively to ensure that any advance payments of the premiums from the federal government don't go to the portion of the individual premium attributed to abortion.

Also Fred, the fight over the gun registry should take place at the time that the gun registry is being created. The registry is not being created, if it is proposed then we can have the discussion over whether we should kill the registry at that time.

Just for thoroughness, here is a link to the regulation put out by HHS that specifically indicates that NO federal funding can pay for abortions. I know we're getting off on a tangent here but if you're going to use the argument that the government constantly lies to us and we cannot trust them then pick an actual lie.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=cb931d07eeeefb126b05ed9c88498130&ty=HTML&h=L&r=SECTION&n=45y1.0.1.2.72.3.27.15

Brock Masters 2 years ago

I do have a clue and there was an attempt that was thwarted through the rule making poweres to allow abortions through the ACA or at least that was the perception.

And no the time to stop the gun registry is now. After the federal government gets the power to do it then it will be too late.

Do you believe the government doesn't lie to us? Really you believed Bush never lied, you believe Brownback doesn't lie?

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

That's not what I'm saying Fred. What I'm saying is that the national gun registry would take some sort of legislative act by congress or regulatory act by the federal government. That is the time to fight the registry. Using the registry as a fear tactic to garner opposition to a law that specifically outlaws the very registry being used to scare people is NOT the time to have the debate.

Yes, the government is capable of lying. But, using the fact that the government lies to kill a reasonable bill (despite that the registry has never existed in the history of our country even after the Brady Bill was passed) is NOT a justifiable reason to kill the bill.

Brock Masters 2 years ago

My point is that you have to be very careful about the power you give the federal government because even if the law does not specify a gun registry they can create one by rule or EO once they get the universal background check. They need the data and the universal background check is the tool to get it.

oldvet 2 years ago

Let's see... I have an abortion to pay for that cost $500, and I have rent to pay that costs $700... but I only have $700 in my checkbook. Now the government gives me $500, with the restriction that I can't use it to pay for the abortion. Now I have $1200 in my checkbook, so I can write a $700 check for the rent and a $500 check for the abortion, as long as I say that the government money went for the rent and not the abortion. That probably makes sense to you.

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

what is the government check coming from sir. If you're referring to money from the ACA the individual doesn't get the money it goes directly to the insurer, so that makes no sense. If you're referring to welfare or unemployment benefits there is no restriction on how individuals use that income.

Liberty275 2 years ago

"how this legislation infringes so much on the second amendment right to bear arms"

What other constitutional rights are we to be charged for exercising? Will we be charged by the word? A dime a paragraph? How about $10/juror? Got no money? Got no jury. How much equality will $100 buy me?

John Hamm 2 years ago

And while all the Liberals rant because our elected officials listened to us and realized the Constitution wasn't a "dead" document as the Liberal Propaganda Machine leads them to believe I close with, Wasn't it Barrack Obama (legally elected [as one poster said] President of the United States and Attorney General Eric Holder who supplied approximately 2000 firearms (assault weapons in Liberal terms) to drug cartels in Mexico? Answer - yes! And only 700~ of these weapons have been recovered? Answer - yes! And these weapons are responsible for the murder of an American Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry? Answer - yes! And these weapons are responsible for the murder of 150 Mexican nationals? Answer - yes! Now why is it so important to The Leader to take away American guns whilst providing Mexican drug cartels with weapons and hiding behind the claim of Executive Privilege?

TinmanKC 2 years ago

After yesterday's vote, just sent a check to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Bruce Bertsch 2 years ago

I want one person to logically and rationally explain why increased background checks is a bad thing...just one. Why should I be able to go to a gun show and without even showing an ID purchase a weapon? Why shouldn't gun show purchases be subject to a real background check? Background checks have nothing whatsoever to do with the Second amendment. I want to know why those who stand with the cowards in the Senate do so? Both of the Senators from Kansas are cowards, pure and simple. They would rather kowtow to the NRA than represent the wishes of their state. Every time a person is killed with a weapon that was purchased legally without a background check, these cowards should have to explain to the remaining family why they voted the way they did. It is a disgrace.

KSManimal 2 years ago

It's a bad thing because it is one more sliver sliced off the Bill of Rights (...voter ID, anyone?). I'm not saying we should never do such things....just that when we do, we need to be damn certain that we are actually going to solve the problem we're trying to solve. So......can you name ONE mass shooting that would have been prevented by universal background checks?

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

If a mass murderer was stopped by a background check, then a mass murder would not have happened, so you can choose the number of mass murders stopped by background checks any where you want. How about 1532? How about 3? How about 1.5 million? Pick a number....any number.

If 2 million folks were turned away from acquiring a gun using the current Swiss cheese system, how many murders were prevented? How many more would be prevented if some of those biggest holes were plugged?

There needs to be more research on the best ways to prevent gun violence, but the NRA has blocked funding such studies with federal dollars. What's with that? Why would you want to block getting a better understanding of a complex social phenomena unless you thought it might threaten the number of guns you could sell?

Liberty275 2 years ago

We already have background checks. Given the history of the left making some guns unavailable for silly cosmetic reasons, it is time to put our feet down and push back against every gun law the left wants. Basically, you don't get additional background checks because the left railroaded America with the "assault weapons" ban.

We don't trust the left enough to allow them to enact more laws regarding gun ownership. They took their mile, now they don't get an inch.

More practically, as far as I know, only private sellers are exempt from doing background checks and they don't have the means, nor should they be privy to other people's private information. While they can sell the firearm through a licensed dealer that can do a background check, that reduces the amount they can receive for the firearm, reducing the weapon's value.

I stand with the cowards.

Jason Johnson 2 years ago

I already have to show my ID and get a background check at a gun show, each and every time I've bought guns at them. Who's been telling you these lies?

Steve Bunch 2 years ago

Driver's license, vehicle insurance, and vehicle registration are seriously eroding my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We need to abolish these things forthwith.

Liberty275 2 years ago

You can own a car and drive it on private property without a licence, insurance or registration. You only need those to drive on public streets.

Liberty275 2 years ago

You can own a car and drive it on private property without a licence, insurance or registration. You only need those to drive on public streets.

Bob Burton 2 years ago

Expanding the background checks would be a good thing if the people that failed the checks were arrested. But that does not happen as there is only a handful of people that failed the checks that have ended in court. So if they are not gona to enforce the law, why should we let them waste more money checking more people. The thing that needs to be fixed is the mental health records part of the background check. Oh, please see ATF&E form # 4473.

Andrew Dufour 2 years ago

The people don't have to be arrested for the background check to work. If the individual doesn't get the gun then the check did its job. It's just like when an individual is carded when buying alcohol or tobacco, they don't have to be arrested for the system to work.

Nikonman 2 years ago

Does anyone have any idea how many guns (all types) are in the USA at present, not counting those owned by police or the military services? I suspect the number is so high that gun control is futile. The only way to fix this is to confiscate all guns from everyone, shut down the gun companies,gun shows, retailers and make all guns illegal under any circumstance. Also shut down all ammunition plants except for those making ammunition specifically for the police & military services. All the other support companies (parts, etc.) would just fade away. And we also know this is not going to happen, right?

verity 2 years ago

It is my understanding that this was a vote on the filibuster, which is why it takes 60% to pass. Most of the amendments would have passed had it been an up or down simple majority vote. So technically it was a vote on whether the bills should even be voted on. That fact is not getting much press.

As far as the filibuster is concerned, I seem to remember that Harry Reid had a chance to change/weaken the filibuster rules at the beginning of this congressional session and he chose not to.

carp 2 years ago

Why is America so violent? Why are people shooting, stabbing, beating, and stealing from each other? We're so focused on the inanimate gun, knife, or club instead the reasons a person would use them on their fellow human. Time for our government to start addressing "root" causes instead of spending so much on after the fact issues.

In_God_we_trust 2 years ago

It's because their heart is not right with God. They (and many posters on this thread) need a personal relationship with God, and His Spirit will lead them in right thoughts.

Liberty275 2 years ago

I don't believe in gods, yet I cannot even watch violent movies.

I don't need an imaginary friend telling me that violence is disgusting and something I shouldn't be.

verity 2 years ago

Moran received $3,000 from the NRA in the 2012 election cycle.

Huelskamp $2,150

Jenkins $2,000

Pompeo $2,000

Yoder $4,000

These figures are from the "Open Secrets" website. The figures for our Reps are on the low end of the amounts received by many other U.S. representatives. Token maybe, because the competition wasn't that intense?

It appears that Pat Roberts didn't receive any contributions from them or at least not large ones. However the list of his contributers is very interesting. Koch Industries is right at the top.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005285&cycle=2012

rockchalker52 2 years ago

There is no intent to create a government gun registry. The government doesn't care about that. If case you haven't noticed, the US military is the best in the world. Should some fantastical event occur wherein a coup directs it to dominate the citizenry, nobody's gonna check some data base to see who owns what kind of firepower. They're just gonna smash you & your 'Red Dawn' fantasies.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

The government would love a gun AND attitude registry. Wouldn't you? It would make it easier to destroy those who oppose you.

Centerville 2 years ago

The media blew this one. As soon as there was a school shooting, they turned it into a culture war. For them, it had nothing to do with Adam Lanza, it was a chance to scapegoat their favorite scapegoats. Rather than consider school security, they tried to demonize the NRA for suggesting it. And then the NRA fired back with that marvelous ad! And then the media had a collective, but hilarious, meltdown.

Jason Johnson 2 years ago

When there's a bombing, we blame the bomber. When there's a drunk-driving accident, we blame the driver. So why, when there's a shooting, do we blame the gun?

Jason Johnson 2 years ago

And bombs aren't? Not quite sure where you're from, but where I'm from, bombs have no purpose but to kill or maim.

Liberty275 2 years ago

Guns are machines for turning chemical energy into kinetic energy. Humans are the instruments of death.

Jason Johnson 2 years ago

Ya know, I may disagree with you on a lot of things, but I think I just might have to agree with you on this. :)

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

There are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH bigger problems to address...IMMEDIATELY!

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

You can't be serious.

Overpopulation, nuclear proliferation, corporate (NRA?) ownership of government, SUPER PACs...come to even my sleepy mind. These have caused, and will continue to cause, FAR more horror and evil, than the tiny number of despicable lunatics with guns.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

Your premise seems ridiculous to me but continue with your tackling easier/cheaper problems before the big ones. I seriously wish you well with that. I do see that it's working very well for big corporations/government. WE HAVE become a much easier/cheaper problem to address, the more we worry about bits of sensationalized gore more than our deteriorated water supply, and other important problems...which will apparently never be addressed.

Hang your clothes. Fix your car...or just start walking towards our brave new world camp :)

I don't think we should bother talking about this anymore. It seems to me that we each believe the other is a bigger part of the problem. I don't see that changing.

Frankly, I think we're doomed. The revolution will not be televised. If it is, it will be used to sell product and control thought.

Andrew Reeves 2 years ago

(let's re-visit a certain argument having to do with the recent i.d. law for voting)

"You need an i.d. for everything! I need to show mine to cash a check, drive, etc.... I find it perfectly acceptable to need one to vote" Can't we use the same discussion for background checks? "I need to pass a background check to rent a house, get a loan, get a job, etc... I find it perfectly acceptable to pass one to buy a gun" ???

How come it's ok to require an i.d. to vote but not pass a background check for acquiring a firearm? Isn't it the same idea?

hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s) n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. 2. An act or instance of such falseness.

jayhawklawrence 2 years ago

Obama demonstrated for me the worst possible leadership on this issue.

The demise of this bill was predictable from the moment he decided to politicize it like an election campaign.

We are seeing both parties unable to take the high road on anything.

There was at one time some room to improve gun safety in a way would achieve a reasonable compromise.

Not now. Not for awhile.

ChuckFInster 2 years ago

The best part is now O'bama wants to blame Americans for not keeping preassure on congress to pass gun control. Gotta admit he's slick.

yourworstnightmare 2 years ago

Democrats need to stop pushing this issue. Progress will be made only when the GOP are either voted out of office or decide to act ethically and sponsor gun control legislation themselves.

Either way, it might take a few more mass shootings for these things to happen.

Our politics are far too divisive right now for the democrats alone to make any progress on this issue.

I guess we will see if this affects republicans at the polls come the mid terms.

In_God_we_trust 2 years ago

Gun control is unethical, and unconstitutional. It is against the very basis of this country's foundation.

thelonious 2 years ago

You are exactly right, only way to progress is to elect Democrats and get rid of the GOP - the GOP used to include moderates who were sensible about many things, but no more - GOP is now essentially the Tea Party, so need to vote them out of office. Come on, moderate GOP voters, join me, I "switched" about 20 years ago - there is no shame in it, I'd probably still call myself Republican today if the party was still actually Republican, insted of Tea Party stupid!

jayhawklawrence 2 years ago

Read your link and found a gun hater who criticizes the people of Kansas who treasure the freedoms that our guaranteed to us in the Constitution.

The same writer considers us to be completely incapable of logic.

I will keep my freedom and my gun, thank you very much.

In_God_we_trust 2 years ago

I bet some of those people in Boston without firearms, were wishing they had some firearms at home for family defense and protection while waiting for the police to capture the suspects.

I couldn't believe how the police in Boston were allowed to shoot machine-gun style, the first suspect in a residential area. What ever happened to sharp precision shooting, to capture the suspect for future information?

Armored_One 2 years ago

So, if this is ALL about Constitutionality, why have we, as a group, tolerated interpretations of the First Amendment but refuse to interpret the Second Amendment in any fashion other than the exact wording, without the option of it being expanded?

verity 2 years ago

First of all, I and many others question the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment. But that aside, I, too, would like an answer to that question.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.