There is no democracy when 86 - 90% of the country is in favor of a piece of bipartisan legislation and it still is unable to get through a filibuster. Shameful. It's an insult to the American people. We aren't the United States of America, we are the United States of the NRA.
What people have to understand is that under law "sale" is not sale as normal people understand the term.
In NYS right now, if you let your buddy try your gun at a range you are a criminal as soon as you hand it to him. And he is a criminal when he hands it back. These "transfers" are "sales" which require a criminal background check each time.
"Sound bite" reporting means the public has no idea what is really going on, they just have a very manipulated impression of what they think is going on...
Lorie,
The US is not a democracy, it is a Republic. Our system uses representational democracy. This insures the mob does not have the ability to abuse the minority. We can play dueling polls and I can quote the poll showing 4% of Americans consider gun control a serious concern.
The reality is that Assault Weapons Scams and creating obstacles for law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their rights is not going to have any effect on crime or violence. These things may sound good, may make you feel better, may help a politician rally their base, but they will not effect criminals at all.
The last thing this Country needs is more laws created as knee jerk responses to tragic, emotional events. Hi Mr Cuomo. The gun control Bill failing in the Senate yesterday is a win of monumental proportion of Democracy for Freedom. Now, let's work on repealing The Communist, oops, I meant Patriot Act and restoring all the rights it stole from us. After that, then perhaps a rational and logical debate on tighter gun control is in order.
What a lot of politicians seem to not understand is people who should not possess firearms, for obvious reasons, do not walk into licensed firearms retail outlets to buy a gun. They get their guns through theft, and from illegal sales of guns on the streets.
I heard it said that, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." It's good if you're the wolves, not so much if you're the sheep.
Oh I think they understand all right, Ray. I believe they know it's easier to push around good law-abiding citizens who have much to lose by being arrested and fined. That way they can then go to their base supporters and ask for campaign funds by saying "See, I helped make you safer" when, the reality as you point out is not so much. They couldn't care less about stomping in peoples' rights, but about keeping their position.
Lorie; I resent your United States of NRA remark. For many people, including me, it's not about the guns, it's about individual rights, and the 2nd amendment. The NRA has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I understand our form of government, Kyle. We have representatives who we elect to vote the will of the people. They are not supposed to be voting the will of a lobby group because they fear losing their job. The will of the people is overwhelmingly for background checks. It is the ONE piece of gun legislation that just about everyone (minus 10 -12%) agree on. Hell, this is even the will of the people on The Batavian.
I am no extreme left winger on gun rights. We own a couple shot guns, my husband used to be an avid hunter and was a Marine Marksman. I eat more than my share of venison every year and invite friends and neighbors on to my land to hunt as long as we get some back straps. In fact last November, the hunter on my land borrowed our lawn mower to haul his kill out of our thicket.
This law was written by both parties and had provisions that protected law abiding gun owners. I am much more angry with the Democrats who voted "no" so they can shamelessly maintain their A rating at election time.
The 4 democrats who voted against the background checks were from Alaska, North Dakota, Arkansas and Montana. States that respect individual liberty a whole heck of a lot more than NY. Although, the NRA may play a bit part in their re-election bids, they're there because their constituents think they want to protect their freedom and not make them like the NE US. Senators are supposed to be representing their states anyway and not anyone else, period. Not the NRA, not any political party and not the wishes of the President. The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed, and the President showing the world that he believes he should control the US Senate is one of the best arguments against the 17th amendment.
There were four democrats who voted against the proposed gun control legislation. They were all from states where the constituents overwhelmingly opposed the new legislation. Regardless of anyone's personal position on gun control, I have a different question to ask; Is it the obligation of elected officials to represent their constituents or should elected officials always faithfully adhere to the POTUS's political agenda?
I think its important to first define and understand what EXACTLY is meant by the generalised term "Background Check".
For the majority of you, I'm guessing that the basis of your understanding relies solely upon what you have heard on MSNBC, CNN or the like.
When we say we don't want bad people to have guns. We can all generally agree...but....who is bad? Who are they? Are they your son because he had a minor brush with the law as a teen? Your daughter because she decided she wasn't responsible enough to pay all those parking tickets? Are they now deemed a risk to society? Defective in some way?
Let us continue to dissect this term "Background Check". None of us want homicidal maniacs running around with guns and the checks should help make sure of that, right? But.... What else will they be doing? Your daughter who has manic depression and an eating disorder...she too is now defined as having a mental and behavioral illness...she loses her second amendment rights.
Your son, the one who has ADHD or an anxiety disorder or perhaps showed signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder as a child...he too is now deemed a defective individual and is stripped of his right to bear arms.
What those of you who blindly push for these so called gun control laws don't understand....is that you DONT UNDERSTAND the implications of rejecting the rights earned for you by your forefathers through hundreds of thousands of their deaths. Lives given up to preserve the freedoms you now take for granted.
Atleast do your children and future generations the courtesy of fully understanding what you are arguing for and against. Selling their birth rights of freedom for a false sense of security is indeed the biggest injustice you can commit....
Background checks have been (somewhat) effective in keeping guns from those who should not have them.
"Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone..."
(http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17689167-background-checks-f…)
That's over a million instances per year where a convicted criminal, a person with a documented violent history, or a person who was mentally unstable was blocked from getting a very dangerous weapon.
So what did these people do after being rejected? Some would have given up getting a weapon (not a bad thing), others would have found some ne'er-do-well to sell them a gun, but the others would have simply strolled into the next gun show, found a seller who was not a "dealer" (even though his inventory rivaled any dealer ther), and bought a gun perfectly legally. We KNEW the buyer was a criminal/violent/unstable, yet still let them buy the gun legally.
Universal background checks would prevent this.
Would they still be able to buy a gun from someplace? Sure they could... It is illegal to drive drunk, or drink while underage, but folks still do it. So folks will still (just as they do now) buy guns illegally. But making it harder than waiting a month for a gun show to appear or simply driving 100 miles to the next show (in NC there is one within a short distance almost every month) is better and safer than what we have now, WITHOUT infringing on anybody's 2nd Amendment rights.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment would obliterate the issue of whether or not senators are voting according to the will of the NRA or some other lobby.
There would be no more political campaign donations to senators.
There would be other politics at play in senator selection, but once in office they would either vote according to the dictates of their respective states or their own conscious, not based on lobbyist pressure, presidential pressure or popular opinion.
The issue of campaign finance reform at congressional level would become almost moot.
The tragic murders in Newtown, CT, the senseless massacre in Aurora, CO and the killing of a judge and others and the wounding of Rep. Giffords were all used to tug the heartstrings of the nation on this. But none of those would have been prevented by stronger background checks. Again, rational thought over emotional responses.
Looking back, background checks did not stop three mass shootings that claimed more than 40 lives since 2011.
In the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, where 26 people, mostly children, were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Adam Lanza used two semi-automatic handguns and a semi-automatic rifle. He didn't get a background check for those weapons. They were legally purchased and registered to his mother, Nancy Lanza, who was his first victim.
Last July, James Holmes walked into a crowded theater in Aurora, Colorado, and began shooting. His AR-15, two 9 mm Glocks, .40 caliber pistol and 12-guage shotgun were all purchased legally, after his name was submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Twelve people were killed.
The same is true with Jared Loughner, who shot then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people, killing six, in Tucson in January 2011. His application was never flagged when run through NICS -- the database from which potential firearms buyers are determined legally eligible to purchase a gun.
NRA 'plucks the bird' to weaken gun proposals
"The one shooter that might have been prevented by background checks and was not was the Virginia Tech shooter because he had, in fact, been adjudicated to be potentially violent," said National Rifle Association President David Keene.
Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in 2007 on the picturesque Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, had been deemed mentally ill by a judge, which is one of the criteria used to disqualify certain people trying to buy a gun. Others who could be potentially disqualified include convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts and domestic abusers.
Tim....are you kidding? You quote an article that said.... Background checks have been (somewhat) effective in keeping guns from those who should not have them. "Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone..."
(http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17689167-background-checks-fo...)
You sir, quoting that show the great big disconnect between common sense and delusion. If it has done such an excellent job then why do we need further legislation? if it did such a good job then why the mass shootings between then and now. Simple observance of the facts show the article you quoted is pure fantasy. There have been more mass shootings after these laws were passed than before them. You mightas well say let's turn over gun regulation to the superheroes and forget all about it. Starting your comment with that article strips your comments of all credibility.
Most people know that background checks would not have stopped the recent killings.
The bigger issue for people who support the 2nd Amendment is that some politicians, like our own governor, want confiscation. Maintaining a data base of people who ask for the background check and pass it serves no purpose unless you later want to know where they are and what they own.
And this recent NY Safe Act is an example. By now we have all heard about Mr. Lewis in Buffalo and how they tried to take away his guns. The Monroe County clerk said there was another request to do the same to someone there, but that the clerk refused.
I have a friend who brought home a Russian rifle, legally, from Viet Nam. It is a bolt action, 5 round clip gun. But now, after 44 years, it is an "assault" rifle because those silly Russians put a bayonet on it. Now it has to be registered with the state, or he is a criminal.
I’ve heard nothing in Obama’s gun bill that calls for increased penalties and/or mandatory sentencing for convicted felons and or violent gang members who try to purchase or use an illegal firearm in the commission of any crime.
It certainly infringes on the rights of the law abiding
Yet the New York Safe Act has provisions to make the formally law abiding into felons with penalties harsher than a repeat child molester receives for having just one extra bullet in a magazine for example.
Words (laws) are merely symbolism without substance unless aggressively enforced followed by convictions and punishment for violent felons; not the formally law abiding citizens made into felons with words.
Before your friend gets panicked: In order to be an "assault weapon" the gun has to be semi-automatic. If it is a rifle, it also has to have a detachable magazine. If it is a shotgun it also has to have a fixed or detachable magazine capacity of more than five rounds. Pistols are a whole other dogs breakfast of cosmetic criteria, but still have to be semi-auto to play the assault weapon scam game.
Bolt actions, pumps, levers, trapdoors; anything not semi-auto, can have all the "evil features" you want. The features are meaningless to the function of the gun or the use to which it is used, but banning pistol grips and bayonet lugs help bring money into the coffers of special interests and ignorant politicians.
The Senators who voted against the "anti-gun bill" (Including Senator Reid, who I allude to) are seriously concerned that they won't get reelected if they vote for it. In other words: They are voting as their constituents would like them to.
Are they supposed to vote against their constituents wishes just to satisfy the special interests that lobby for greater restrictions on our 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment Rights? There are special interests on both sides of most issues in American politics, because it is the only way to counter the abuse of these special interests on the other side.
It is essentially a political arms race. Take a close look at the groups and organizations that you support. They are "special interest groups" just like the NRA and organized labor. You support some special interest, whether it is giving money to the National Organization of Women, the Sierra Club, the Chamber of Commerce or the NRA. They get your money and support because you agree with their goals. Giving that money and support has been determined by the Supreme Court to be protected "Speech" under the 1st Amendment.
Depending on who's count you go by, there are 20 blue states and 30 red states.
I'm not going to take the time to do the math, but it's a fair bet that a majority of Americans live in those blue states.
So when Obama says a majority of Americans support this or that gun measure, he's probably right.
But senators are not obligated in any sense to vote according to the wishes of the majority of Americans. They are elected to represent the people of their respective states.
Academically speaking, there should be about 60 senators who support the 2nd Amendment and about 40 senators who don't.
So many of these comments and those of our legislators depend on the false premise that you can legislate the behavior of criminals and lunatics. Laws do not protect us from criminals, laws react to and punish criminals. Laws compel honest citizens who are predisposed to obey rules to do so for the good of society and themselves. Laws mean nothing to criminals and those who have slipped out of rational thought. Place yourself in the logic set of a criminal (gang member, street thug) or an irrational thinker (James Holmes, Adam Lanza, William Spengler). No amount of background check, magazine limit, waiting period, or limitation on style of weapon is going to suddenly cause them to have an epiphany and say to themselves "I guess I had better not commit this act because their is a possibility of fines or confinement on the other side" It is simply absurd. When faced with existing roadblocks or proposed new roadblocks, the criminal simply resorts to what is second nature, breaking the law to obtain what he needs. The irrational thinker will do the same or devise some other way to commit atrocities (pressure cooker bombs, I.E.D.'s, ricin, and any other of a multitude of ways demonstrated in the past of inflicting harm on innocent, unsuspecting people). Do we honestly believe that Lanza, Holmes, and Spengler (who already circumvented existing laws and the new laws proposed would have simply given them different ones to circumvent) and others like them when faced with a law simply give up, abandon their plans, and go back to a quiet peaceful existence? All of the new laws and proposed new laws do nothing but harass and infringe on the 99% of honest responsible gun owners who never have and never will use their firearms for nefarious purposes.
I don't have a problem with
I don't have a problem with the checks at a gun store as they are now. But there should be none for sales between family and other private sales.
My biggest objection is to keeping a data base of people who requested, and passed the check. There is no justification for that.
There is no democracy when 86
There is no democracy when 86 - 90% of the country is in favor of a piece of bipartisan legislation and it still is unable to get through a filibuster. Shameful. It's an insult to the American people. We aren't the United States of America, we are the United States of the NRA.
What people have to
What people have to understand is that under law "sale" is not sale as normal people understand the term.
In NYS right now, if you let your buddy try your gun at a range you are a criminal as soon as you hand it to him. And he is a criminal when he hands it back. These "transfers" are "sales" which require a criminal background check each time.
"Sound bite" reporting means the public has no idea what is really going on, they just have a very manipulated impression of what they think is going on...
Lorie, The US is not a
Lorie,
The US is not a democracy, it is a Republic. Our system uses representational democracy. This insures the mob does not have the ability to abuse the minority. We can play dueling polls and I can quote the poll showing 4% of Americans consider gun control a serious concern.
The reality is that Assault Weapons Scams and creating obstacles for law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their rights is not going to have any effect on crime or violence. These things may sound good, may make you feel better, may help a politician rally their base, but they will not effect criminals at all.
The last thing this Country
The last thing this Country needs is more laws created as knee jerk responses to tragic, emotional events. Hi Mr Cuomo. The gun control Bill failing in the Senate yesterday is a win of monumental proportion of Democracy for Freedom. Now, let's work on repealing The Communist, oops, I meant Patriot Act and restoring all the rights it stole from us. After that, then perhaps a rational and logical debate on tighter gun control is in order.
What a lot of politicians
What a lot of politicians seem to not understand is people who should not possess firearms, for obvious reasons, do not walk into licensed firearms retail outlets to buy a gun. They get their guns through theft, and from illegal sales of guns on the streets.
I heard it said that,
I heard it said that, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." It's good if you're the wolves, not so much if you're the sheep.
Oh I think they understand
Oh I think they understand all right, Ray. I believe they know it's easier to push around good law-abiding citizens who have much to lose by being arrested and fined. That way they can then go to their base supporters and ask for campaign funds by saying "See, I helped make you safer" when, the reality as you point out is not so much. They couldn't care less about stomping in peoples' rights, but about keeping their position.
Lorie; I resent your United States of NRA remark. For many people, including me, it's not about the guns, it's about individual rights, and the 2nd amendment. The NRA has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I understand our form of
I understand our form of government, Kyle. We have representatives who we elect to vote the will of the people. They are not supposed to be voting the will of a lobby group because they fear losing their job. The will of the people is overwhelmingly for background checks. It is the ONE piece of gun legislation that just about everyone (minus 10 -12%) agree on. Hell, this is even the will of the people on The Batavian.
I am no extreme left winger on gun rights. We own a couple shot guns, my husband used to be an avid hunter and was a Marine Marksman. I eat more than my share of venison every year and invite friends and neighbors on to my land to hunt as long as we get some back straps. In fact last November, the hunter on my land borrowed our lawn mower to haul his kill out of our thicket.
This law was written by both parties and had provisions that protected law abiding gun owners. I am much more angry with the Democrats who voted "no" so they can shamelessly maintain their A rating at election time.
The 4 democrats who voted
The 4 democrats who voted against the background checks were from Alaska, North Dakota, Arkansas and Montana. States that respect individual liberty a whole heck of a lot more than NY. Although, the NRA may play a bit part in their re-election bids, they're there because their constituents think they want to protect their freedom and not make them like the NE US. Senators are supposed to be representing their states anyway and not anyone else, period. Not the NRA, not any political party and not the wishes of the President. The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed, and the President showing the world that he believes he should control the US Senate is one of the best arguments against the 17th amendment.
There were four democrats who
There were four democrats who voted against the proposed gun control legislation. They were all from states where the constituents overwhelmingly opposed the new legislation. Regardless of anyone's personal position on gun control, I have a different question to ask; Is it the obligation of elected officials to represent their constituents or should elected officials always faithfully adhere to the POTUS's political agenda?
Not too many people think the
Not too many people think the 17th Amendment should be repealed.
I do.
I think it's one of the things that took checks and balances a little more out of balance.
I think its important to
I think its important to first define and understand what EXACTLY is meant by the generalised term "Background Check".
For the majority of you, I'm guessing that the basis of your understanding relies solely upon what you have heard on MSNBC, CNN or the like.
When we say we don't want bad people to have guns. We can all generally agree...but....who is bad? Who are they? Are they your son because he had a minor brush with the law as a teen? Your daughter because she decided she wasn't responsible enough to pay all those parking tickets? Are they now deemed a risk to society? Defective in some way?
Let us continue to dissect this term "Background Check". None of us want homicidal maniacs running around with guns and the checks should help make sure of that, right? But.... What else will they be doing? Your daughter who has manic depression and an eating disorder...she too is now defined as having a mental and behavioral illness...she loses her second amendment rights.
Your son, the one who has ADHD or an anxiety disorder or perhaps showed signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder as a child...he too is now deemed a defective individual and is stripped of his right to bear arms.
What those of you who blindly push for these so called gun control laws don't understand....is that you DONT UNDERSTAND the implications of rejecting the rights earned for you by your forefathers through hundreds of thousands of their deaths. Lives given up to preserve the freedoms you now take for granted.
Atleast do your children and future generations the courtesy of fully understanding what you are arguing for and against. Selling their birth rights of freedom for a false sense of security is indeed the biggest injustice you can commit....
Background checks have been
Background checks have been (somewhat) effective in keeping guns from those who should not have them.
"Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone..."
(http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17689167-background-checks-f…)
That's over a million instances per year where a convicted criminal, a person with a documented violent history, or a person who was mentally unstable was blocked from getting a very dangerous weapon.
So what did these people do after being rejected? Some would have given up getting a weapon (not a bad thing), others would have found some ne'er-do-well to sell them a gun, but the others would have simply strolled into the next gun show, found a seller who was not a "dealer" (even though his inventory rivaled any dealer ther), and bought a gun perfectly legally. We KNEW the buyer was a criminal/violent/unstable, yet still let them buy the gun legally.
Universal background checks would prevent this.
Would they still be able to buy a gun from someplace? Sure they could... It is illegal to drive drunk, or drink while underage, but folks still do it. So folks will still (just as they do now) buy guns illegally. But making it harder than waiting a month for a gun show to appear or simply driving 100 miles to the next show (in NC there is one within a short distance almost every month) is better and safer than what we have now, WITHOUT infringing on anybody's 2nd Amendment rights.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment
Repeal of the 17th Amendment would obliterate the issue of whether or not senators are voting according to the will of the NRA or some other lobby.
There would be no more political campaign donations to senators.
There would be other politics at play in senator selection, but once in office they would either vote according to the dictates of their respective states or their own conscious, not based on lobbyist pressure, presidential pressure or popular opinion.
The issue of campaign finance reform at congressional level would become almost moot.
The tragic murders in
The tragic murders in Newtown, CT, the senseless massacre in Aurora, CO and the killing of a judge and others and the wounding of Rep. Giffords were all used to tug the heartstrings of the nation on this. But none of those would have been prevented by stronger background checks. Again, rational thought over emotional responses.
Looking back, background checks did not stop three mass shootings that claimed more than 40 lives since 2011.
In the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, where 26 people, mostly children, were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Adam Lanza used two semi-automatic handguns and a semi-automatic rifle. He didn't get a background check for those weapons. They were legally purchased and registered to his mother, Nancy Lanza, who was his first victim.
Last July, James Holmes walked into a crowded theater in Aurora, Colorado, and began shooting. His AR-15, two 9 mm Glocks, .40 caliber pistol and 12-guage shotgun were all purchased legally, after his name was submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Twelve people were killed.
The same is true with Jared Loughner, who shot then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people, killing six, in Tucson in January 2011. His application was never flagged when run through NICS -- the database from which potential firearms buyers are determined legally eligible to purchase a gun.
NRA 'plucks the bird' to weaken gun proposals
"The one shooter that might have been prevented by background checks and was not was the Virginia Tech shooter because he had, in fact, been adjudicated to be potentially violent," said National Rifle Association President David Keene.
Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in 2007 on the picturesque Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, had been deemed mentally ill by a judge, which is one of the criteria used to disqualify certain people trying to buy a gun. Others who could be potentially disqualified include convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts and domestic abusers.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-mass-shootings
You and i are 100% in
You and i are 100% in agreement on the 17th amendment Howard.
Tim....are you kidding? You
Tim....are you kidding? You quote an article that said.... Background checks have been (somewhat) effective in keeping guns from those who should not have them. "Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone..."
(http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17689167-background-checks-fo...)
You sir, quoting that show the great big disconnect between common sense and delusion. If it has done such an excellent job then why do we need further legislation? if it did such a good job then why the mass shootings between then and now. Simple observance of the facts show the article you quoted is pure fantasy. There have been more mass shootings after these laws were passed than before them. You mightas well say let's turn over gun regulation to the superheroes and forget all about it. Starting your comment with that article strips your comments of all credibility.
Most people know that
Most people know that background checks would not have stopped the recent killings.
The bigger issue for people who support the 2nd Amendment is that some politicians, like our own governor, want confiscation. Maintaining a data base of people who ask for the background check and pass it serves no purpose unless you later want to know where they are and what they own.
And this recent NY Safe Act is an example. By now we have all heard about Mr. Lewis in Buffalo and how they tried to take away his guns. The Monroe County clerk said there was another request to do the same to someone there, but that the clerk refused.
I have a friend who brought home a Russian rifle, legally, from Viet Nam. It is a bolt action, 5 round clip gun. But now, after 44 years, it is an "assault" rifle because those silly Russians put a bayonet on it. Now it has to be registered with the state, or he is a criminal.
I’ve heard nothing in Obama’s
I’ve heard nothing in Obama’s gun bill that calls for increased penalties and/or mandatory sentencing for convicted felons and or violent gang members who try to purchase or use an illegal firearm in the commission of any crime.
It certainly infringes on the rights of the law abiding
Yet the New York Safe Act has provisions to make the formally law abiding into felons with penalties harsher than a repeat child molester receives for having just one extra bullet in a magazine for example.
Words (laws) are merely symbolism without substance unless aggressively enforced followed by convictions and punishment for violent felons; not the formally law abiding citizens made into felons with words.
John, Before your friend gets
John,
Before your friend gets panicked: In order to be an "assault weapon" the gun has to be semi-automatic. If it is a rifle, it also has to have a detachable magazine. If it is a shotgun it also has to have a fixed or detachable magazine capacity of more than five rounds. Pistols are a whole other dogs breakfast of cosmetic criteria, but still have to be semi-auto to play the assault weapon scam game.
Bolt actions, pumps, levers, trapdoors; anything not semi-auto, can have all the "evil features" you want. The features are meaningless to the function of the gun or the use to which it is used, but banning pistol grips and bayonet lugs help bring money into the coffers of special interests and ignorant politicians.
Lorie, The Senators who voted
Lorie,
The Senators who voted against the "anti-gun bill" (Including Senator Reid, who I allude to) are seriously concerned that they won't get reelected if they vote for it. In other words: They are voting as their constituents would like them to.
Are they supposed to vote against their constituents wishes just to satisfy the special interests that lobby for greater restrictions on our 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment Rights? There are special interests on both sides of most issues in American politics, because it is the only way to counter the abuse of these special interests on the other side.
It is essentially a political arms race. Take a close look at the groups and organizations that you support. They are "special interest groups" just like the NRA and organized labor. You support some special interest, whether it is giving money to the National Organization of Women, the Sierra Club, the Chamber of Commerce or the NRA. They get your money and support because you agree with their goals. Giving that money and support has been determined by the Supreme Court to be protected "Speech" under the 1st Amendment.
Depending on who's count you
Depending on who's count you go by, there are 20 blue states and 30 red states.
I'm not going to take the time to do the math, but it's a fair bet that a majority of Americans live in those blue states.
So when Obama says a majority of Americans support this or that gun measure, he's probably right.
But senators are not obligated in any sense to vote according to the wishes of the majority of Americans. They are elected to represent the people of their respective states.
Academically speaking, there should be about 60 senators who support the 2nd Amendment and about 40 senators who don't.
So many of these comments and
So many of these comments and those of our legislators depend on the false premise that you can legislate the behavior of criminals and lunatics. Laws do not protect us from criminals, laws react to and punish criminals. Laws compel honest citizens who are predisposed to obey rules to do so for the good of society and themselves. Laws mean nothing to criminals and those who have slipped out of rational thought. Place yourself in the logic set of a criminal (gang member, street thug) or an irrational thinker (James Holmes, Adam Lanza, William Spengler). No amount of background check, magazine limit, waiting period, or limitation on style of weapon is going to suddenly cause them to have an epiphany and say to themselves "I guess I had better not commit this act because their is a possibility of fines or confinement on the other side" It is simply absurd. When faced with existing roadblocks or proposed new roadblocks, the criminal simply resorts to what is second nature, breaking the law to obtain what he needs. The irrational thinker will do the same or devise some other way to commit atrocities (pressure cooker bombs, I.E.D.'s, ricin, and any other of a multitude of ways demonstrated in the past of inflicting harm on innocent, unsuspecting people). Do we honestly believe that Lanza, Holmes, and Spengler (who already circumvented existing laws and the new laws proposed would have simply given them different ones to circumvent) and others like them when faced with a law simply give up, abandon their plans, and go back to a quiet peaceful existence? All of the new laws and proposed new laws do nothing but harass and infringe on the 99% of honest responsible gun owners who never have and never will use their firearms for nefarious purposes.