Virginia Tech Survivors to Obama, Romney: Fix Firearms Background Check

1. i feel for these people, i really do. no one should lose a loved one to needless violence. having said that, i was not involved in any of those shootings. curtailing my freedoms or rights because of crimes i did not commit is a crime itself.

   • Hi Ryan,

     Do you believe criminals or mental health patients should be able to acquire guns? Are you either of these two? Would a more thorough background check prevent you from getting a gun?

     I just purchased my first gun two weeks ago, and am looking forward to many more. I am thankful a background check was done on me prior to doing so. I purchased a gun to defend myself, my family and my property. If a Background check prevents a criminal from getting a gun, than that is one less person I need to worry about. I recognize that criminal is likely going to get a gun illegally. So perhaps a more thorough background check won’t solve the issue, but I fail to see how it harms the issue too. I will still be able to pass a background check and purchase a gun….

     • They seem unaware that there was legislation passed following the Virginia Tech massacre, supported by the NRA no less, in order to address some of the problems with incomplete records in the background check system.

       http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2007/senate-passes-nics-improvement-act,-hou.aspx

       Cho was somewhat unusual in being a prohibited person who was none the less able to legally purchase firearms, because of flaws in the system. The Aurora shooter did not have a prohibiting legal history, nor do most mass shooters who were able to purchase guns.

     • “If a Background check prevents a criminal from getting a gun, than that is one less person I need to worry about. I recognize that criminal is likely going to get a gun illegally.”

       Randy, have you not answered your own question here? Virginia has background checks. If that system is “broken”, then absolutely we should fix it.

       But as you noted, gun laws don’t keep guns out of crimminals’ hands any better here, than they do in Mexico, where crimminal drug cartels slaughter, main & slaughter a defenseless population of law-abiding people.

       Making rape ‘illegal’ doesn’t prevent rape from occuring.
       Making murder ‘illegal’ doesn’t stop murders.

       Empowering people to defend themselves, does.

     • Hi Randy,
       If these people are so dangerous that they can’t be trusted with a gun, why are they out and about in public, allowed to use cars, knives, buy plumbing supplies or fertilizers?

       Background checks won’t fix criminals. They will still be criminals. And that will still be the problem, not their access to firearms.

       Unrelated to your comment, these people need to look up the definition of murder, and compare it to their “statistics” on gun deaths.

     • Randy, congratulations on buying your first firearm! You hit the nail on the head. Criminals will get guns, period. In the end, we have no way of stopping them, at least not any reasonable way. And background checks work. I’ve seen cops come into the gun store I used to work at in multiple occasions, looking for information on 4473 forms about prohibited persons trying to buy guns. System isn’t perfect, but it does work.

     • Yeah, more thorough background checks, thats the ticket. I have to give ID or get a Doc’s permission for cold medicine because some folks like to get high on meth. Yet, we still have meth heads here in Oregon. I don’t need ID to vote though…

     • I am a law abiding citizen. I am a service member (USMC), and regularly am required to stand armed duty and qualify with rifle and pistol; the Corps deems me qualified enough for both. I am a licensed attorney in good standing with my state bar (TX) since 1999. I have no convictions, nothing beyond a couple of very old speeding tickets (pre-2001). I have a concealed carry permit (TX).

       So? EVERY gun purchase I have made has been delayed. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM (and it’s been a few over the years…)

       The closest I have come to not being delayed was once in 2003/2004, and apparently the call came in just after I got tired of tooling around at the gun store for about a couple of hours and left.

       So, is the background check system broken? From my perspective it is… I still don’t know what gives them cause to delay me, over and over again.

       But more importantly, it seems that there is a basic flaw in the system, and it’s not in the background check system itself.

       It’s in the mental health screening and evaluations. The thing is, since most people aren’t screened for mental problems until a problem occurs (and even then), we are finding out too late that someone should have been screened and diagnosed. As a result, certifiable, yet uncertified, people routinely pass the background checks, and the rest becomes history the day they “flip their lid”.

       Sure, after the fact the anecdotal comments come out; “it didn’t surprise me that xyz did it, he always seemed a little” something or another.

       But, do you want to give the state MORE power to mandate psychological testing on the basis of someone else’s hunch that you’re a little something or another?

       Do we want the same doctors and psychiatrists to determine our sanity, considering the definitely biased community that is the healthcare community?

   • Well said jwm.

     The Vtech killer didn’t get a gun because of a loophole; he got one because the system put in place to prevent him from getting one malfunctioned.

     • What BlinkyPete said. Hasn’t that problem been remedied now? And what broken background check system? I like how there are no specifics at all there.

     • As a VT alumnus and avid shooter I can see both side of this argument and your are right. The system did malfunction; however, this doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have still gotten a gun. Let’s say that the system prevents him from buying a gun. The amount of flea-markets in the Blacksburg area and surrounding Appalachian counties that sell guns from private party to private party are uncountable. A better system may be needed, but it still won’t prevent people from eventually acquiring a firearm.

2. The nations’ gun laws are broken, but not in the way that these people imply. They hope to prevent the human condition from occuring in the future.

3. Idiots.

   “On April 16, 2007, 32 of our mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, and sisters and brothers were murdered by someone who never should have been able to buy a gun.”

   How about this: “…shall not be infringed.”

   Crystal. Clear.

   • The world is not composed of absolutes.

     There are plenty of reasonable measures that do not interfere with the rights of innocent people to protect themselves. One example is laws designed to keep mental patients and convicted felons from owning guns.

     The Supreme Court has ruled several times that such restrictions are not contrary to the 2nd Amendment. And like it or not, the Supreme Court is the final word on the matter.

     • And the Supreme Court would NEVER be composed of political activists who abuse their power. Nah. Never.

       I couldn’t care less what the corrupt “justices” of the SCOTUS say. I look to the Constitution, I don’t need stuffed robes “interpreting” (raping) it for me.

       Otherwise, I agree that the world is not composed of absolutes. I simply have to wonder, again, why these mental patients and convicted felons are allowed access to knives, cars, fertilizer, gasoline, and any number if items that can be just as destructive if not more destructive than guns. Why are they even allowed in public?

       • There are some fine points here that people seem to miss.

         1. The Supreme Court right now is controlled by Conservatives, as it has been many times in the past.
         2. The people on the Supreme Court are very smart. So if you disagree with them, you are most likely wrong, and they are most likely right.
         3. The Constitution gives the SCOTUS the right to define what the Constitution means. So even if you disagree with #2 above, you are still wrong, by definition.

         I am not trying to be a jerk about it, I am just saying that we live in a country of laws. We can’t keep people in jail forever for robbing a bank, but we can at least keep them from going out and buying another gun.

         And we should.

       • “…but we can at least keep them from going out and buying another gun.”
         ——
         How, exactly? It is already illegal for a felon to possess a firearm. It is already illegal to sell a firearm to a person whom you suspect or would reasonably suspect to be a criminal. Yet criminals still have guns. How can this be, if it is indeed possible to legislate guns out of the possession of criminals?

       • Your point is exactly the one they are making.

         It is already illegal. All we need to do is enforce the laws we already have, and close the loopholes.

       • 1. The Supreme Court right now is controlled by Conservatives, as it has been many times in the past.

         -Your point? Until it’s controlled 100 percent by people faithful to the Constitution rather than a political ideology, it’s a group ripe for corruption, conservative or liberal.

         2. The people on the Supreme Court are very smart. So if you disagree with them, you are most likely wrong, and they are most likely right.

         -Two things wrong with this. 1, intelligence does not translate to morality. Plenty of historical monsters were geniuses. I’d rather have Forrest Gump on the SCOTUS than Kagan or Sotomayor. 2, you have no idea what my intelligence level is compared to theirs. I realize that for those without a solid argument it’s easy to simply call an opposing viewpoint “stupid” but, well, let’s just say you’re wrong. Plus, if you think becoming a high-up in politics has much to do with smarts rather than agenda, connections, and unscrupulous motives, you’re dreaming.

         3. The Constitution gives the SCOTUS the right to define what the Constitution means. So even if you disagree with #2 above, you are still wrong, by definition.

         -The difference is, unlike most gun-grabbers, I don’t worship and swear fealty to the government. I recognize flaws and the potential for perversion. The SCOTUS has the job of “interpreting” the Constitution, which is a staggering amount of power and, in my opinion, a dangerous amount. I don’t care if I’m lawfully “wrong” for viewing the Constitution in its true sense, I know I’m morally and truthfully right, and that’s all I care about, despite what black-robed tyrants try to push. Tomorrow they can say that free speech only applies to politicians, does that make them “right?”

       • Silver,

         I understand what you are saying. I am all for people being morally and truthfully right. Remember that I was originally talking to the guy who called the Virginia families “idiots”. High IQ does not mean the same thing as morality, but it does mean that people can’t dismiss your opinion as being stupid.

         I don’t know you, so maybe you are a super-genius like Wile E. Coyote. Maybe gun regulation is such a complex issue that no one but you and the NRA will ever understand it completely.

         But my own personal opinion is that most of the current gun regulations strike a fair balance between protecting the rights of gun owners and protecting my right not to live next door to an armed ex-felon.

         The government makes some attempt to protect all rights in a similar manner. For example, coal plants kill people too. The government makes some attempt to balance the rights of the coal plant owers with the rights of coal miners and people who use electricity (and/or breathe air).

         Right now, it just happens that the courts (and the government in general) balances those rights more in favor of corporations, gun-owners, and the religious right.

         I admit, the relationships between rights can be tricky. Some ex-felons turned their lives around, paid their debt to society, and deserve to be able to protect themselves. But statistically, giving them their gun rights back is a losing bet. I live in Florida, where something over 50% of everyone released from prison ends up re-arrested within three years. (The rate for violent crime is lower, so you have to stretch it out to ten years before you get over 50%.)

         Those are well-known statistics, and they are available anywhere. Yet people frequently argue on this board that it is immoral for the court to restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of felons. No it isn’t. In this one particular case, based on the available evidence, the court is absolutely correct. This particular restriction on the 2nd Amendment protects more freedoms than it costs. The court does not “grant” rights, but it does, sort of, “weigh” rights.

         I am hardly the kind of person who worships government, but it is an amazing freedom that you have. You are free to disagree with the Supreme Court, in print, and the court has repeatedly protected your right to do so. (USA! USA! USA!)

         Further, their reasoning is not based on political hackery, it is not based on twisted ideology, it is based on the hard truth that not everyone lives up to their right to keep and bear arms. (Insert your own cheer here.)

         Obviously, the Supreme Court did not write the laws that prohibited felons from buying guns. They merely decided that states and the federal government had the right to write such laws, within reason. This means that the laws themselves still come from elected officials. Don’t like the law? Vote for someone different. Or run for Congress. The SCOTUS is not going to stop you.

         I personally find some of their decisions political hackery. The ‘Citizens United’ case comes to mind. But if I want to do something about it, my choices are limited. I can tell you that comparing my IQ to Clarence Thomas’ is not a particularly convincing argument.

         More to the point, they would respond that the 2nd Amendment and 1st Amendment are always subject to the political gymnastics of weighing one right against another, and that rich people always get more rights.

         For Example, if you were going to make a quick list of Supreme Court Justices who could be impeached for their political activities, the list would begin and end with Clarence Thomas. Raising money for Political Action Committees, after all, is not an activity protected in the Constitution, except as interpreted by Clarence Thomas.

         You see the issue here? The SCOTUS has no personal financial interest in the 2nd Amendment that we know of. Although gun manufacturers or gun grabbers could be paying them under the table, they are not likely to pay enough to change the opinions the justices already own.

         On the other hand, the SCOTUS can become not only amazangly rich, but also absurdly more powerful, just by allowing their own family members to engage in “free speech”.

         The people who really run the country are the billionaires, not the SCOTUS or the POTUS. And if your guns were a threat to the power of the billionaires, then the government would have already taken away your guns.

         These days, the only threat to the power of billionaires is voting. And you don’t have to look too carefully to see voting rights being taken away in Florida and OH, and PA, and a few other “swing” states.

         They claim that this is just balancing one right against another, to keep “illegals” from voting. But be warned. If the government can take away voting rights today, then they can take away guns tomorrow.

         You might think they would never do such a thing, but try this little thought experiment:

         What do you think the government would do if gun owners became a threat to billionaires?

     • SCOTUS has also ruled that a right delayed is a right denied.

       • So low budget you need yo go talk to the BATF who has prosecuted less than 1% of the 1 mil felons stopped from buying a firearm from a licensed source since 1994. Or the 830,000 others rejected which include the crazies. Or the 100% who pass the background check using fake identification or the 95% of felons who don’t even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with.

         The BATF only allows licensed dealers access to NICS yet antis complain about private sales hmmmmm.

         Read Haynes vs US 390, 85 1968.

         Yeah that there background check really does uh what again oh that’s right it only infringes on the law abiding.

       • Jarhead, those seem like the perfect example of existing laws that could be enforced better.

         Seems like if we have a law with a 1% enforcement rate, then enforcement needs to be better funded and better organized.

       • You did not read Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 did you?

         See, the US Supreme Court ruled that any law requiring a person to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, was not applicable, making 85% of existing gun control laws not legally applicable to felons.

         This was upheld in Freed 401, 1971.

         See that circle jerk of stupidity, the government refusing/failing to enforce the laws, yet the laws le.g. the background check, dont apply to felons, and by default the crazies. So if the background check doesnt apply to the badguys by law, what does it really accomplish?

         Oh thats right, it employs those too stupid to make it in the outside world.

         Oh wait, we the government tell you, you must disarm in these gun free zones, but heavens forbid we should be held accountable for failing to protect you then eh?

         Same circular insanity.

         More funding, to do the job they are already supposed to do? Isnt BATF in charge of enforcing the background check & firearms stautes, yeah they are.

         The “hierarchy of criminal charges” does not apply as the felons were committing aN INDIVIDUAL felony by itself just trying to aquire a firearm.

         The BATF has their names in the database, otherwise they would not have been rejected.

         So what exactly is the cost to document a crime which the felon attempting to buy is, and forwarding that warrant to the local prosecutor to pursue arrest?

         Based on government being sooooooo efficient (dripping sarcasm) why cant they do this simple task they already do?

         What no space in prisons, legalize illicit drugs and 30-40% of the 2.7 mil prisoners no longer criminals, theres your space. 1 million felons not prosecuted since 1994.

         How does one prevent the bad guys getting access to firearms? Only one sure way, imprison them as then makes it really hard (not impossible, people die violently in prison and orders are given to underlings outside the prison) to kill or commit a crime at that point.

         Not enough money to prosecute, well, solved the money issue by legalizing illicit drugs.

         What, not enough time as the courts are overloaded, geez, same answer as above if the prosecutors are not prosecuting all the drug charges they do.

         Slam dunk kinda prosecution also, thought Prosecuting attorneys liked sure cases, guess they lied huh?

         Yeah BATF $1.12 billion avg. annual budget and 4,559 employee’s of which oh 1/3 is salary and they dont have the time, resources or ability to file more warrants, a task they already do today.

         No, the only extra funding they need is the states funding the mental health reporting requirements/procedures, a sepearte function outside the BATF as it takes bodies to man/collate/input to NICS which they have not done since its inception.

         That way when that system is implemented and updated, the antis can then blame the Tiahart Amendment for the continued failure to prosecute those caught violating the law as it prevent politicians and media from gaining access. (the old blame GW Bush mentality because their failed solution failed again)

         The courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals:


         Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
         Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
         Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
         “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

         Why is it, that the police, whose best response times are 4 minutes, avg 15-20 minutes can only solve 8.06% of all violent crimes committed on a yearly basis?
         FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 45.1% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate.
         http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.htm
         But oh wait, we have to remember those 4.8 million violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.
         http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2224
         http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2008/tables/D04Mar08.pdf
         http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf
         So based on that (1.38 mil x 45.1%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.06% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.

         So you really want to blanket a solution as providing more money to enforcement agencies and laws?

         Turning the monies spent on Iraq & Afghanistan to police agencies and such wouldnt solve the problem the circle jerk of laws not applying to felons & crazies and the government not doing their job.

         Legalizing illicit drugs, forcing the BATF to enforce the existing laws and holding the gooberment financially and criminally liable for their failures sure would be a great, logical, first start.

4. These people are convinced that what is needed are still more laws for law abiding people to deal with and criminals to skirt.
   The real solution is more complicated and involves getting rid of the policies that created a room full of victims, so many times. But that goes counter to what the talking heads say and against the beliefs of many.

5. Not necessarily speaking of Cho here, but if someone has no criminal record and no history of mental illness, and can buy a firearm legally, HOW will more regulation prevent that person from hurting or killing innocent people if they decide to do so?

6. 1) It isn’t broken.

   2) If someone is bent on killing, they will, whether it’s with a legally owned firearm, an illegally owned firearm, or a few bags of fertilizer.

   3) We will never entirely eradicate violent crime. Even if every man and woman in the country were armed 24/7, things would still go bump in the night.

   4) The suggestion that the rights of every citizen in the land should be encroached upon to placate what I’m sure is a very real emotional loss to these people is morally bankrupt, and they should be ashamed of having done so, to whatever degree it may be.

   5)

   We know that respect for the Second Amendment can go hand-in-hand with keeping guns away from criminals.

   No, in fact, it can not, and the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The Second Amendment ensures that the right in question shall not be infringed of your typical law abiding citizen– the mass majority in question. Criminals do not care how many laws are passed to prevent them from doing something, they will do it anyway. Insane people do not care how many laws are passed to prevent them from doing something, they will do it anyway.

   Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

   • Well said, sir! You are absolutely right!

7. Who defines “mental health patients”? Someone seeking therapy for PTSD? Are flat earthers mentally unstable? How about someone who self commits to a mental health care facility? If I enter a institution for ‘sex addiction’ am now denied my right to keep and bear arms? Homosexuality was once listed as a mental disorder. Can a christian state institutionalize non-believers? Violent felons can and should have the citizenship curtailed. But does a embezzling banker not need to protect himself?

   Once we allow the removal for the non-criminal mentally defective where do we stop?

   Remember, if you were to only allow people of above average intelligence to posses a gun you have just disarmed half the nation.

   • Google “psikhushkas”.

   • Joe Biden seems a bit unhinged lately, maybe they should keep an eye on him.

   • “Remember, if you were to only allow people of above average intelligence to posses a gun you have just disarmed half the nation.”

     Yeah, but they’d all be progressives, so they wouldn’t care.

     • If you look carefully, you would see that the people with the most education are the most progressive. So technically, you would have disarmed all the red states.

       • That’s fine but in most of the country “education” = “indoctrination” not intelligence. If you haven’t met a number of highly educated but unable to get out of the rain idiots then you are either very young or you really don’t have much to do with people and real life.

       • Education is not all there is to being smart. But if you were to compare it to lack of education, it has a lot of advantages.

         Science is not always right, for example, but if you are betting, that is the way to bet.

         Also, if you meet someone who is joyfully immune to both facts and common sense, I would not recommend electing him your leader.

       • Education level has nothing to do with common sense, you know, the ability to apply said book learning to the real world.

         Hence so many book smart people have a superiority complex that their intelligence means they know better than everyone else, not really.

         Yeah sad how someone so smart, cant even see the facts right on the tip of their nose.

         Those progressives like that, as a rule are really dumb about applying said book smarts to real world situations in a logical and sane fashion.

         Afterall, who is so stupid as to continually persecute the 80 mil law abiding gun owners for the crimes of the few career criminals, gang members, and suiciders and get upset their activities fail so miserably, oh thats right, progressives.

         Such overwhleming evidence, we rest our case.

       • Jarhead: If you think all progressives are the same, then you must think that all gun owners are same?

8. As a dealer I think they should fix the pre-1898 law. Any of those guns can be purchased with no check and seldom a good age limit. Many of those are just or more powerful than modern firearms. Quite a few are cartridge guns albeit black powder.

   • Are you being serious? I’m terrified, just terrified of the gangbanger with the Griswold & Gunnison replica.

     • Ever watch Pawn Stars on TV ? .. It’s all they buy and sell. Obviously you know nothing about what kinds of guns of the 1898 era include. A gun is a gun although I will acquiesce that almost no shootings have occurred with them as an illegal gun is much easier to get.

       I only mentioned it as a “loophole” that is still open.

       • I watch Pawn Stars, and I’m not sure expensive, antique, low capacity firearms are something we should be concerned about. Why not be worried about people with machine shops manufacturing their own guns? It seems to make about as much sense.

       • gee, broke dad, don’t you own a gunshop? closing that loophole would maybe throw a little business your way.

       • Ya do know that Pawn Stars is a “reality” TV – TV show, right?

         Remember the blogs here about the for the shop in Colorado, and the show that features them, “American Guns“? If you do, you should have noted that some of the things that happen on “reality” TV are in fact, not exactly reality, but staged. Don’t you thing that under such circumstances that what you are seeing is staged?

9. If a background check fails even once, then the whole system is a failure. There will always be failures. Background checks will save no one as they are only required to prevent people from acquiring guns legally. FAIL.

10. Funny how, whenever we point out gun violence in foreign utopias like Canada or the UK, gun-grabbers jump on us saying they never claimed it would eliminate gun violence completely (right, mikey?). And yet, they jump on fringe exceptions to the background check system’s success to claim that the whole system is broken. Does their hypocrisy know no bounds?

    “So let us remember the victims of Aurora and Oak Creek. And then let us honor their memory by working to prevent the next Virginia Tech, the next Tucson, the next Aurora and the next Oak Creek.”

    If they really meant that, then they’d encourage people to learn how to defend themselves so that other people don’t have to cower and die as helpless victims like their own children had to. Tools and sheep, the lot of them.

11. Interesting that nobody who wants the background check system “fixed” can make a useful suggestion about how to fix it, but instead kowtow to our “leaders” to do their thinking for them.

    No wonder they go to their deaths without a fight.

12. No law can stop the evil that men do. No act of passion, depraved indifference or of mental defect can be known before it happens.

    Rape, burglery, robbing of banks, and murder have plenty of laws, and yet they are broken everyday.

    Will one more law really stop anything? or will one more laws simply further constrict and chain those who abide by the law?

    There are root causes that attention can be directed to including: bullying, poverty, a cycle of gangs, crime and prison and failed mental health system — direct your efforts towards those causes in hopes of stopping something in the future.

    Will the knowledge of further constricting and constraining your fellow citiziens make you sleep better at night? Will this bring those lost back? Will it stop a futher tragedy — the answer to all those questions is “NO!”

13. I actually agree. Background checks can be so much f–king better and effective without implementing stupid and unnecessary wait times and limits.

    I think the limitations are definitely not the gun laws, it is the bureaucracy that is supposed to make background checks work.

    • Background checks can be so much f–king better

      How?

      • they can be improved by improving the bureaucracy necessary for a background check.

        its a stretch: improving bureaucracy.

        • How would that prevent someone without any sort of criminal or mental health history from buying a gun, EXACTLY?

        • In some cases, it wouldn’t do anything. We assume that someone is responsible until they prove otherwise.

          Once they have proven to be irresponsible, though, we can do a lot more, and we should.

14. Is that a ProMag magazine in the cops AR?

15. The sad truth is that Virginia Tech, Columbine, Congresswoman Giffords, and Aurora could have all been prevented. Political correctness, lack of parental supervision, and in-action led to all these murders. VT knew of the mental illness of their shooter and hid it. The boys from Columbine had absent parents who could have cared less about them. Loughner(Shot Giffords) had the Police called on him 9 times by his Junior College, and Holmes’s Doctor did too little to late. At least she went to the Campus Police, who in turn did nothing.

    All shooters were mental defectives and dangerous. All shot and killed their victims in ‘gun free zones.’ Almost no one acted in a preventative manner, one tried and the authorities dropped the ball. Had one of these people been placed on a 72 hour psychiatric hold in the system, they would have never been allowed to buy a gun. So very sad……

16. Of those “murders” I’m sure that 32 are in Chicago and the other two are elsewhere…or one is actually a suicide or someone shot by a LEO

17. I fixing the flaw that allowed Cho to legally buy a gun was important and was done. The idea, however, that ALL gun transactions MUST go through a back ground check. Not so much. I’ve bought guns off friends, I’ve had friends buy guns off me. I’ve bought guns from strangers at gun shows, and once from a dude of gunbroker who just happened to live near by. These sales are nice becuse you can usually get a good bargain. I can get more for the gun then I would from a dealer, and the seller pays less because there is no dealer mark up or transfer fee. Requiring every sale go through an FFL will do nothing more than increase the cost of used guns (lets be honest, the people who are selling guns illegally on the streets to criminals are not going to suddenly do bacground checks).

18. I wouldn’t mind having a system where I could call in a background check without being an FFL. Charge me $5 like the NICS and I can get a background check on whoever I’m selling my guns to. I’d hate to be the guy that sold a gun to some mass murderer. It’d also be great to be able to run the serial of a gun your buying to make sure it’s not stolen or part of some crime or something.

    • Yeah, it would be horrible that you had the record of that background check and when the police came to get you for selling to a felon, you showed them the receipt for the background check that said “Eligible to buy”. They hate it when their intended victim has a get out of jail free card.

      It would be horrible to take some of that $1.12 bil annual BATF budget to make a web page change for unlimited access to check as they already have a website, IT support, and the data inside their database and the programming already exist as FFL licensee background check so in IT terms, you piggy back off the existing wheel and simplify, no need to recreate it.

      They already attach an identification number to each check as how else could they count how many occurred?

      Make the person inquiring responsible to print out the verification sheet, eliminating the cost of paper to the poor underfunded BATF.

      Really pretty simple and inexpensive, but logical never does seem to be the rule in government dealings does it?

19. Repeal rid of the Gun Control Act of 1968(GCA68).
    No NICS..
    No 4473 forms.
    No reporting.
    No “prohibited persons” government lists.
    Erase the terrorist organization called BATFE(“ATF”), fire its agents and sell all assets and properties to the public.

    Also get rid of all language anywhere in federal law that holds any regulation of firearm/ammo-types.

    There. THAT is “common sense”.

    • I am not sure that word “sense” means what you think it means.

    • You forgot the repeal of NFA ’34. Hopefully someday.

20. Repeal the Second Amendment or leave me da %$@# alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!

21. Maybe the Sheep need to grow some Balls instead. If the ones at VT had the backbone of the generation that fought WW2 I bet the shooter would have been taken out before he killed three people

22. One problem I’ve yet to see addressed with regard to the concept of “background checks”, is “Who gets to determine what’s a disabling condition?”

    Today it may be a felony conviction. But look at that one component. A felony used to be considered a serious crime like murder, or rape. Today you can be convicted of a felony for catching the wrong kind of fish!

    And that’s just the sort of example that illustrates my concerns. What if the next requirement is that you receive state-approved training? What if that training starts to look like the Feral Government’s Flight Deck Officer training? You know, the training that takes a week in the middle of the desert, two hours away from the nearest airport? What if the price of the training is set at $5000 a pop? And classes have to be scheduled a year in advance?

    The point is, adding “reasonable” restrictions to the point of absurdity really isn’t’ that hard.

    And as the cases mentioned here make clear – all the background checks in the world do not tell us what someone will do tomorrow.

    • Bambi: You are absolutely right that background checks don’t predict the future. But they can tell us a little about the past. This is not perfect, but if we start throwing out all laws that aren’t perfect, then we won’t have any laws left at all.

      As far as what is a “reasonable” restriction, that is why we have courts and elected officials. They aren’t perfect, but again, those are the only tools available. If we decide that we don’t trust courts with gun rights, then why do we trust them with voting rights, or really, for anything?

      Why do we get upset over trivial limits on gun rights, but ingore much more severe limits on their freedom and wealth? My theory is that people watch too many movies.

      In movies, people are always able to defend themselves against the world using only their guns and their super-human reflexes. (Or, if you are MacGyver, electrical tape and potting soil.)

      In the real world, your guns will not help you protect your rights, because no one is coming to shoot you. They are coming to take away your health insurance, using inflation. They are coming to take away your job, using outsourcing. They are coming to take away your retirement, using derivatives.

      Actually, many people have already lost all these things and more. And not a single shot was fired in the process.

      In most cases, you never even get to see the people who are taking away your life’s savingsmuch less shoot at them. The politicians calmly assure you that they will protect your right to bear arms, but meanwhile, they are taking away every other right that matters.

      In Florida, you will eventually need more documents to vote than to obtain a concealed carry permit. This is because guns are only a threat to tellers and other low-level bank employees, while votes are a threat to the people who own banks.

      • yes lbd. you fight against the need for id to vote, a right in the constitution. but you’re all for the pages of laws pertaining to buying a gun, also a right under the constitution. all rights are equal in my eyes, but apparently not yours.

        • Not to mention the ID requirements to vote (at least in my state) are WAAY more broad than the ID needed to purchase a gun on a 4473.

        • I am OK with requiring an ID to vote. But a birth certificate AND a passport? Seriously?

        • Shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt in the case of voting rights? Are there really thousands of people willing to commit crimes to be able to vote?

          And even if there are, what is the worst that can happen? Are we worried that they are going to elect a bunch of ingorant Congressmen? Too late.

23. Not to diminish the horror these folks have undergone, I must say that heeding the very people who could/would do nothing in the moment to prevent themselves from being victims is not the smartest thing to come down the pike.

    • Plenty of people don’t carry firearms, for various reasons. I have a friend who is autistic, for example. He is very smart, holds a good job, pays his taxes, and never accepted any Medicare or even food stamps from the government. He could never defend himself, or even drive, though, because his reflexes are not good enough.

      I am not sure how this adds up to an argument that we shouldn’t enfore existing gun laws.

    • Its a shame to say it but it was a thinning out of the sheep

      • Chuck:

        It is a shame to say it, and you should be embarrassed. Alas, you are not likely to realize it.

        I’m at a loss for words to express my contempt. Doesn’t happen very often.

        • So its not Sheep that won’t resist even if it means they will get killed? Feel all the contempt you like but you can’t be denied the words are true.

        • Chuck: That is why history always honors people who defend themselves. It is a little known fact that Ghandi carried a revolver.

          In the book of John, the complete quote was actually: “‘He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me… I’ll cut the fool.”

      • So Chuck, anyone who doesn’t carry a gun, in your mind, can be cast aside, or used as a human shield, whenever someone else feels like going on a killing spree?

        That is the dark side of American gun culture: There are a lot of people who believe like you. There are people who honestly think that the purpose of guns is not to protect human rights, but to take them away.

        Just to let you know, the bankers on Wall Street feel much the same about your bank account. They view you much like sheep or bison. You are a large population of slow-moving animals, to be used as food.

        When they hear about the fact that you are armed, they chuckle. They figure if you can’t protect your life’s savings any better than than that, then they deserve to own you.

        There are only one or two laws left keeping them from just taking your money, and they have spent hundreds of millions (of your money) fighting to repeal those laws.

        So enjoy your little fantasy of power. In a few years, when you sell off your remaining guns to raise money for medicine, the people on Wall Street will be glad to remind you which end of the food chain you live on.

Comments are closed.