A lot of people are saying that the congressmen (and women?) who voted against background checks are cowards, cowing down to NRA pressure. I don't believe they are cowards. I think you have to have a basic core of humanity first and some sense of of moral/ethical compass.
The liberal narrative is that they are cowards, that is what they do, whine when they lose and try and place blame instead of trying to come to a sensible agreement.
And, what's the "sensible" agreement? Doing exactly what the NRA wants, rather than what is rationale, ethically defensible, and the will of the American people? I believe the congressmen who have allowed themselves to be intimidated by the NRA over this will find themselves jobless soon.
If you want universal background checks don't try and slip in bans on certain firearms. You are mistaken on what the majority of Americans want, we want freedom, not an expansive overreaching government hell bent on making us less free! The NRA is not just some small group of people sitting around a table, we are large and we vote!
Those of us who believe in common sense and that creating across the board background checks infringes no one's rights are more pervasive and we also vote. Many of my family members are avid NRA members and they do NOT agree with the NRA on this. The NRA are there to line their own pockets and serve an agenda, those who can't see that are too blinded by fear or lack of genuine information.
Yes, they are there to support my constitutional rights, can't leave it to government.
Please suggest a solution then if background checks will do nothing.
They aren't there for your constitutional rights - they are there for their own monetary interests. They distort and twist the constitution and use fear tactics and outright lies and propaganda for their agenda - an agenda that is solely about making gun manufacturers richer. Every time they start their shenanigans about guns being taken away blah blah blah - people run and gobble up all the guns. NRA are masters of propaganda and fear. They are profiteers plain and simple - who cares if more people get killed so long as they get to keep lining their pockets by manipulating the naive. It has nothing to do with the constitution - NO ONE is trying to take guns away but fear keeps people blind.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The only people who have distorted the 2nd amendment are people like you!
Not according to the Supreme Court. And... how do you explain "well regulated militia?"
Supreme court says otherwise and the constitution itself says they get to decide what that means so you are, as usual, wrong. By the constitution, neither of those things are infringement.
Go join the military if you want to be part of the "well regulated" <<see that term REGULATED militia.
The average joe does not need to buy firearms without a thorough background check, period. A background check is not a gun ban - it is a common sense procedure.
You take a written and driving test to get a driver's license - do you complain about that? Shall we just had a driver's license to anyone who wants one?
When does responsibility come in when we are screaming about rights? I have the right to live in a safe society - how about that right?
In the parlance of 1787 "well regulated" meant well-equipped, not regulated by the government. We are ALL the militia.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."
Perhaps it might do you well to study the Constitution and the Founders a little more closely.
Perhaps it might do you some good to stop buying into all the NRA propaganda designed to get frightened people to part with their money for excess guns they don't need.
Curiously no one is being forced to buy anything (unlike Obamacare) they are making the choice to purchase them. And who are you to say they don't need them? Whether they 'need' or simply want them for whatever reason, it remains their absolute right to own them. Bummer for you but those are the rules.
I love how you term one of our founding fathers quotes as some how being NRA propaganda LOL. I weep for public education.
Gun sales skyrocketed with Obama's first election. No crisis or legislation you can blame on that. People knew his agenda from the get-go. Long before Newtown and Aurora Obama was already being called "Gun Salesman of the Year"
Yes, proof positive that the NRA and gun manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank. You've made my point for me. No one has tried to ban all guns in the US EVER - perhaps it's you who needs to learn some history.
Oh, really now?
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Sen. Diane Feinstein 1995
Gun sales skyrocketed because you and the NRA lied to the American people about the president. He never pushed for strict gun legislation and he is still only talking about mild reforms that even Saint Ronald Reagan was in favor of.
A background check takes a few minutes. It has nothing to do with constitutional rights. The argument is weak. Anyone who can't see this doesn't want to see it.
Nothing to do with constitutional rights....so if the background check is denied you still get to have your constitutionally protected gun right?
So you support the mentally unstable having guns? What about people who have been convicted of violent crimes in the past? What about people who have been convicted of crimes using guns having easy access to guns?
Define mentally unstable. I know various soldiers that are getting back from the war that have PTSD, do you think our boy's and girls who have sacrificed for our country shouldn't own gun?
As for violent crimes (IMO) it could be a based on a case by case scenario. Not all felon's are violent crime felonies and not all violent crimes warrant a person never being able to own a gun again.
Let's take the recent trouble we've been having (school shootings etc) you realize background checks wouldn't of saved a single life...so really anti-gun folks are just using a tragedy to push their agenda.
If a soldier has PTSD which can lead to violent behavior then by no means should be be able to own a gun, we have plenty of shootings committed by veterans in our past and they need to be cleared professionally before they can own a gun again.
Background checks as they are introduced in several countries would absolutely have stopped Sandy Hook (for example) as they entail that everyone in the household should be subject to a background check, if anyone fails the guns cannot be kept in the household.
A friend of mine has PTSD from the military because she was raped by a fellow soldier..it's interesting to hear that you think women should be unprotected from possible future rapes because their original rape might of angered them.
As for Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) the boy was recently diagnosed with Aspergers, which is not a violent mental issue...in fact some studies suggest that people with AS (high functioning autism) tend to be the victims more then the victimizers....so actually your again.
A background check would NOT of prevented Sandy Hook.
Never thought I'd be cheering on Anheuser-Busch!
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/19/anheuse … embership/
How about thinking politicians trying to do the best for the country? As opposed to cowards that cave to emotional demands that something, effective or not, be done? Or the amoral ones that voted for it because it will "buy" them votes to retain their job, perks and power?
Point is, there are many points of view here, and to declare anyone that disagrees with your particular stance on the subject to be either amoral or a coward is foolish in the extreme.
Wait, you just did! You just said that saying people were amoral was foolish, just after calling the people who voted for it amoral! Wow!
I generally agree with you that there is too much name calling and jumping to conclusions. And, I agree that it is very complicated. However, background checks are supported by almost ALL Americans, and is only a very small part of what should be done to address gun violence, in many people's opinions. I don't want to get into the entire gun debate here (there are plenty of other posts about it), but voting against this bill is akin to personally opening the door for the next Adam Lanza.
Really? Adam Lanza stole the weapons used! Criminals and killers wont submit to back ground checks so how exactly is that going to stop the next Adam Lanza?
No he didn't at all they were his mother's guns which is why any non child in the household needs to be subject to background check when a household gets a weapon.
He murdered his mother and STOLE her guns! Just because he lived there does not mean they are his. What wont you people stoop to to control us?
He was part of her household and he should have received a fall background check, it's very simple.
Its simple alright. You would subject all adults in a household to a back ground check and then what deny the person who passes the back ground check because someone else did not? That is not America, we have rights, you will not subvert them that easily.
If they have an unstable person in the household then yes, when you bring a gun to to a place where someone unstable or criminal lives you are committing a gross act of negligence and that is why people died at Sandy Hook.
Like I said, you will not subvert our rights that easily.
Then you will continue to see these massacres and eventually Americans will take radical and excessive steps much worse than background checks and we will all lose for the stubborn dumb attitude of those who refused to keep guns away from the unstable.
It looks like you have a very narrow focus on your rights. Citizens have many, sometimes conflicting rights. Despite the propoganda the NRA feeds its constituents, there are no absolute rights - individual rights must be balanced with public safety. This is an example.
Sorry, I couldn't think of anything more appropriate.
Background checks did stop him from purchasing a weapon. If his mother did not have those weapons, where would he have stolen them from?
No one believes that more background checks will stop every crime, but it will cut down on the number of mentally ill people who can buy weapons. And before you say it, the president also called for more investment in mental health...
Somebody else. What kind of question is that. This kid wanted to kill, he would have found a way to do it.
Right, but we can make it a little more difficult for people who are trying to kill others to get access to guns.
Nobody wants to touch this?
There is a total and complete ban on explosive devices so how do you explain the Boston bombing?
Yes, but it is still difficult to obtain all the pieces and it takes a lot more time to put a bomb together...
No one is suggesting any measure will stop all gun crime but it will reduce it. Myself I only favor complete backgrounds checks and that is a responsibility as I see it.
Anyone with a criminal history should not buy guns, anyone unstable should not own guns and no one should bring guns into a household where criminal or unstable people live because that is asking for what has happened.
There are lots of ways people get guns to kill people. No, there is no way to stop every single murder in our country (committed with guns or other weapons), but the gun rights folks seem to be hiding under this illusion that that guns have nothing to do with violence our country and that the problem is so insurmountable that there's no point in doing anything. Multiple factors contribute to gun violence - guns are one of them.
background checks won't stop ALL gun violence any more than seatbelts stop all deaths in car accidents.
The point is across the board background checks do NOTHING to infringe anyone's rights while making it more difficult for people who should not have guns to get them from the internet and gun shows - Why is that such a difficult concept?
If it makes it harder and can save some lives and doesn't take anyone's weapons away what is the problem exactly? The only problem is for those who unscrupulously sell weapons to anyone for a profit.
The mentally ill are not the problem with gun violence in this country. It's the gangs fighting over territory, drugs or just because someone walked through their "territory" wearing the wrong hat. Funny how no one is addressing this, and these people do not go to the local gun store to get their weapons.
Obama wants to address gun violence in the country? How about he starts with Chicago???
This woman addressed it but not surprisingly she had a different take on it. And they wonder why we fear our government.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfiel … -the-guns/
Adam Lanza did not steal the weapons. He got them from his mother, who knew he was unstable. If it were illegal to allow access to your guns to unstable people, then maybe she would have had enough sense to keep them away from him. All gun owners should be responsible for the crimes their guns are used to commit.
Luara, where do you get that information?
Is it something you heard on the news?
Is it something you researched?
Is it something "everybody" knows?
There is a point of perspective here.
Pro-gun control folks say "ALL Americans" (or at least 90%) support universal background checks....
Anti-gun control folks say, whoa! wait a minute... explain the legislation behind the concept, and suddenly more than a few people are no longer for it.
So as "fact" - that statement is very much still subject to debate. Yet you state it as an accepted fact. So how did you conclude this fact to be true?
But it doesn't matter, because it won't affect the issues it's touted to address. So why bother?
Because it's pandering to the public mood, that's why. Politicians are good at it.
Gun crimes aren't committed by people that failed background checks, and "everybody knows" that criminals don't submit to them So why the need for that legislation - except to make folks "feel good?"
Actually, those comments were intended to make a point, not to give my personal opinion.
But. However many people want tough registration laws, there are extremely few that base that opinion on anything more than the "common sense" idea that it will prevent crazies from having them.
There is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion, and indeed it is well known to be false. Anyone that wants a gun bad enough to kill someone with it will get one, and has. We just don't want to acknowledge that, particularly if we don't like guns anyway. So we cry for tougher regulations, as long as we don't have to cover the cost, forgetting that the real cost of the problem isn't money. It's lost lives, lives that will NOT be saved by any misguided effort to regulate guns any further.
Having said that, I would probably support background checks simply as a sop to keep those unwilling to examine the problem quiet.
There is a total and complete ban on explosive devices so how do you explain the Boston bombing? Outlaw guns and you will still have killing by guns, so this isn't about that at all. It is about controlling the American people.
No one is proposing to outlaw guns. Background checks are a far cry from that. And, yes, there will always be people out there who will build their own gun/bombs in order to hurt others. I rather that someone have to build a bomb or gun to use one that to be able to walk into Walmart and get guns that can kill dozens in an instant.
You cant walk in to wal-mart and buy guns that will kill dozens in an instant. You cant walk into a gun store and buy guns that will kill dozens in an instant. Those guns are completely prohibited with the exception of those licensed to own them.
Nonsense. I suppose we shouldn't have any kind of laws then and just have anarchy because someone will always find a way to break them. Let's just take down all the speed limit signs - I mean after all, not every speeder will get caught and get a ticket so let's just say the hell with it all and let everyone go nuts....
The argument that it isn't worth doing because it won't stop all acts of violence is just lame. Anything that helps curb violence and make it a more difficult choice should be simple common sense.
Latest Gallup poll shows you people are a stunningly small minority!
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/17/p … important/
Do you have a link to the actual poll?
Actually, here you go. Here is a posting form the Gallup site
58% of Americans want tighter gun laws. Well done man
Have to hand it to RG, he sure tries
Yes, but 58% of the population still believed in gun control. It may not have been a top priority for them, but those are the facts.
We have gun control, what you want is gun prohibition. And the facts are the Democrats will not get what they want and that is a good thing.
I am not in favor of banning all guns, no one has said that.
It's interesting that according to the poll 78% of the population was in favor of all gun control in 1990.
I hope you will forgive me if I say I don't believe you.
Fine. I don't care if you have a gun or not just keep it away from me. I will never have one.
The military is not a militia. You cannot buy any gun that will kill dozens instantly they are prohibited which is an infringement. The second amendment does not restrict what I can own government has done that.
So, how do you define well regulated?
The supreme court has ruled on this my input is not necessary.
The Supreme Court that says background checks are okay?
As I have said, we have enough laws on gun control. I believe that any law is an infringement by reading the second amendment and what it says. The supreme court has ruled that my right to own a weapon is irrefutable. But you dare to infringe on that right. You, josak, Obama will not be successful.
And meanwhile, people will continue to die because of less background checks than it takes to buy Sudafed.
The NRA used to be in favor of background checks and even banning assault-type weapons that are not necessary. I guess they are more interested in politics now.
You cannot buy a firearm in this country without a background check. It has been the law for quite sometime. And it only takes an ID to purchase Sudafed no background check at all, what did you hope to accomplish with that bit of misinformation?
But you can.... didn't you say you could sell a gun to whoever you want with no background check?
Sure I can, it is possible to buy a gun from any private individual without a background check, and it will remain legal to do so in spite of the lefts efforts!
Too bad, because the main way criminals get guns is by buying them from others or from stealing them...
Whatever, I just don't want those guns to find there way into this country through the backdoor more than happens now.
Okay, I was wrong about that. That was left over from my voter ID argument
Again, you may have a right to own a gun, but it is not absolute.
Its absolute while its in my hand, you can try and take it but you will be met with resistance.
Wow, you really are scared about someone taking away your gun!
No I'm not scared, anybody who wants to can attempt it. Are you scared to try?
Stroll down to the question about better background checks at gun shows.... 92% want those.
Heroes in my eyes. Any resistance to extensions of state power must be cheered!
Praising those who voted against this bad law does not equal anarchy, resisting government efforts to restrict freedom does not equal anarchy!
Innersmiff said, "Any resistance to extensions of state power must be cheered!" i guess that could mean that perhaps she is happy with current state powers, but I assumed she (and others) would prefer as little "government? as possible. No government = anarchy. Of course, this is forgetting that government creates jobs, builds roads and infrastructures, protects parks, makes sure our water is clean and our air is breathable, that people are safe (well, they try), and that our country is protected. But, besides those little things, who needs it?
Yes, as little government as possible. And that also does not =Anarchy! While you are singing the praises of mostly local government why don't you tell us about the bad things the Federal Government does?
Yes, there is good and bad (depending on your perspective). Believe me, there are plenty of things our government does that I'm not fan of. But, I think we would be much worse off with no government. I'm simply reminding those that bemoan government that there are many, many functions of government that *everyone* benefits from, whether or not they'd like to admit it.
Incidentally, anarchy is defined as the absence of government.
Is war good in your "perspective" our government seems to be in perpetual war! How about detaining people who are not charged with a crime? must be good to you? Don't preach to me about the greatness of government.
Finally, we agree on something! But, just because I don't like everything the government does, doesn't mean I can't see the benefits, or that I think we'd be better off without it. There's no way on earth that everyone will always be pleased by everything the government does/decides. That's why we have representational government, so the people have a say and can change who is calling the shots if they are not happy with the decisions of those in power.
That's why I will be fighting to replace the elected officials who voted against the background check bill.
The ones who voted against it represented their constituents and to you that's amoral, you can try and remove them but you will fail.
We'll see... I think this is another one of those issues that in 20-50 years we'll all look back, wondering how in the world this was even up for discussion. Time will tell.
Lol, I love how the right/NRA has twisted this argument into something it's not.
Background checks are not an infringement of your rights....
No One Is Banning/Taking Away Your Guns
The Second Amendment Isn't Being "Eroded"
The Government Isn't Coming To Get You....
Although, I suppose fear sells easier than common sense and logic...
"Background checks are not an infringement of your rights...."
Nowhere in the second amendment does it say that people convicted of certain crimes,the insane, and people convicted of drug offenses cannot own a firearm. So yes, background checks that prevent those people from purchasing a firearm is an infringement. I just happen to agree with that infringement.
"No One Is Banning/Taking Away Your Guns"
Many types of firearms are banned, so that statement is inaccurate.
"The Second Amendment Isn't Being "Eroded"
From the very first gun control bill ever introduced the Second Amendment has been eroded. Another inaccuracy!
"The Government Isn't Coming To Get You...."
You never know, they went after David Koresh!
I think gun advocates can learn something from Obama honestly. Maybe we should start using props like he did. Instead of Newton families we can use puppies.
And nice picture Clint Ward.
Have you ever loved a person in your life? If you have or ever had a child - consider their tiny body riddled with 11 bullets, their body shattered and unrecognizable. Does it have to happen to YOU, for you to care??
Those families are not props, their lives are forever ruined, and your statement shows at best your lack of empathy, at worst a complete lack of humanity. No matter what your political affiliation or stance on guns, belittling the suffering of those parents in any way, or suggesting that they are props, is just horrible and plain wrong.
(Approaches Keyboard holding a puppy)
Careful LauraGT your upsetting my puppy.
A prop is something that gives support/assistance. Having a bunch of grieving family members behind a guy trying to pass a gun control agenda would make them what exactly in your eyes?
(sorry about that last bit of typing the puppy tried running across my keyboard...silly thing)
I think they are people who are suffering deeply and are trying to make a positive difference so that as few people as possible have to suffer what they have suffered. I doubt it took much convincing for them to show up in Washington. They, and many Americans alongside them, will fight tirelessly until there is change.
I don't know you, and I know you are trying to get a rise (congrats). I believe in lively discussion and arguing through different viewpoints, but speaking negatively about and demeaning those families demonstrates an extreme lack of character and honor.
I didn't demean the families only their actions....or rather the actions of the President. Using the family members as props....background support. If you really think about it Obama's probably happy in a sense their children died..can you think of a better prop then grieving families to support his gun control agenda?
The puppies was to get a rise...but the prop comment is an honest one.
He used the grieving families in some speeches and cops is others....
http://twitchy.com/2013/04/03/another-p … prop-this/
Has anyone actually seen the bill as it was written? It is my understanding their were problems with the language in the bill that left too much undetermined and undefined, leaving it more or less unenforceable.
This is what happens when you try to get laws passed based on pure emotion. We call it "feel-good legislation." We pass it just to get something- ANYTHING- passed so we'll feel good about ourselves and we never seem to proofread it before we sign it into law.
And yeah, I know: Nobody's trying to take my guns away...not right now, anyway. Just like I said in my hub, "The Science of Incrementalism."
Nice try, though. You can go back to your name-calling, hysterical wailing, and NRA conspiracy theories now.
by David 7 years ago
What is so bad about background checks for gun purchases?I have seen many complaints about expanding background checks for gun purchases but I haven't seen reasons attached to the complaints.Society has to go through tests to get things like drivers licenses before they can operate a vehicle, why...
by Stacie L 4 years ago
According to a Mic analysis of political spending data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA, —often cited as the most influential lobbying organization in the country — has spent a total of $27,205,245 in support of the 50 senators who voted against background check expansion on...
by strengthcourageme 5 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by Marcy Goodfleisch 2 years ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
by JeniferD 10 years ago
I think we should. If it's one job that a mandatory background check should be required for, it's that of a public official. Why? Representation of the citizens is a sacred trust and that trust has been violated over and over again, and speaking for myself, I am damned tired of...
by ahorseback 6 years ago
Is America the only country in the world to not see chemical weapons use as a travesty? I hear echoes of Adolf Hitler laughing . The U.N.is completely useless--The "Useless Nations"......
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|