Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) unveiled a bipartisan compromise on expanding gun sale background checks Wednesday, raising hopes that the Senate could pass the most ambitious gun reform legislation in two decades.

Toomey and Manchin’s compromise bill would require background checks for all commercial gun sales, including gun show and online purchases. Licensed gun dealers would be required to keep records of the sales — a major sticking point for many Republicans such as Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who walked away from previous negotiations with Manchin over concerns that creating a paper trail would be the first step towards a national gun registry. Private transactions that are not for profit would not require background checks under the proposal.

Senator Manchin said that, although “This amendment won’t ease the pain” felt by the victims of gun violence, “nobody here — and I mean not one of us in this great Capitol of ours — can sit by and not try to prevent a day like that from happening again.”

Although Manchin and Toomey’s compromise bill falls short of the universal background checks that reform advocates — including the White House — initially supported, it would still cover the vast majority of gun sales. Perhaps more importantly, it would also have a realistic chance of becoming law.

Toomey’s active role in shaping the bill is crucial to its chances of passing Congress. Due to his reputation as one of the most conservative senators, Toomey could provide significant political cover for other Republicans to support gun reform efforts. To that end, Toomey stressed on Wednesday that he doesn’t see background checks as any threat to law-abiding gun owners.

“We hear sometimes about background checks leading to an erosion of our Second Amendment rights,” Toomey said at the press conference. “That simply hasn’t happened. I am going to make sure it doesn’t.”

Toomey then went even further, noting that “I don’t consider criminal background checks to be gun control. I think it’s just common sense.”

“If you pass a criminal background check, you get to buy a gun. It’s no problem. It’s the people who fail a criminal or a mental health background check that we don’t want having guns,” the senator added.

Whether gun reform legislation that expands background checks can pass the Senate is still an open question, but it now appears that the upper chamber will at least vote on the measure. At least 10 Republican senators have said they will not join a planned filibuster to prevent the bill from coming to the floor, clearing the path for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to schedule a vote to proceed on Thursday.

Moving the bill through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will be a much trickier task. Still, Toomey said Wednesday that a “substantial number” of House Republicans support his and Manchin’s general approach to background checks. Earlier Wednesday morning, influential representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) noted that “When Pat Toomey puts something out, I always pay attention,” suggesting that the House majority will at least consider the compromise. Still, any gun reform bill would likely have to pass the House with a small minority of Republican support — in violation of the “Hastert rule.”

Unsurprisingly, the National Rifle Association disapproves of Manchin and Toomey’s proposal, despite the senators’ “A” ratings from the group.

“Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools,” the NRA’s statement on the proposal says. “The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson.”

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

  • Anyone who apposes even this “Vanilla” version of a background check, should have to prove their point by actually facing the families of victims.

    Look them in the eye and tell them, “TOO BAD ABOUT YOUR KID, BUT, HEY,THAT IS JUST THE PRICE WE HAVE TO PAY IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS TO HAVE SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS WITH HUGE MAGAZINES OF CHEAP AMMO.”

    Now, that would take guts. A LOT MORE GUTS THAN CARRYING A GLOCK OR NA AR-15 OR WITH A 30 ROUND MAGAZINE.

    • middleclasstaxpayer

      It’s NOT guns that kill, it’s people that kill….all the regs in the world will not change the proclivity of some madman to hurt/kill others You might suggest banning violent video games & movies, however, as they infect kids at a young age with violence. Have you seen “Kindergarten Killers” for example. Your own kids may have.

      • WhutHeSaid

        So it’s not guns that kill, it’s video games, eh? Don’t be an idiot. I support the 2nd Amendment and always have, but when people make ridiculous arguments it just weakens both our rights and our society.

        Guns are designed to kill quickly and efficiently — period. No 4 year olds have accidentally killed themselves with a video game, but it happens every day with guns. We need to be responsible and practical — not slobbering nut-case zealots without the will to face reality.

      • johninPCFL

        Well, or try to. Please note the NON slaughter of Chinese that happened the same day as the Newtown massacre. Or the more recent NON slaughter of just a few days ago.
        Crazies will try to massacre. Not having weapons of mass casualty keeps them from mass slaughter.
        But in one respect you are correct. Even if the weapons of mass casualty were banned today, they’d be available for decades to come.

      • recordguy_2000

        It’s certain people that kill people and keeping guns out of their hands – at least making it more difficult for those certain people to obtain guns – is a step in the right direction. As far as your suggestion regarding banning violent video games, I’m with you on that one but that’s no reason to oppose this proposed legislation.

      • TheSkalawag929

        You are right guns don’t kill people. It’s people with guns and other weapons that kill people.

        What is your suggestion for changing the proclivity of human beings toward violence rather than reason besides doing nothing.

        Parents’ are responsible for what their kids watch. If kids are as you say being infected with violence from video games and movies look to their parents to solve that problem.

        • stcroixcarp

          A hammer will kill a violent video game.

          • TheSkalawag929

            Yes it will but not buying it save you money as an extra benefit.

      • CPAinNewYork

        That is such a timeworn, weak excuse that it’s almost in the pathetic category.

        If you really believe that “It’s NOT guns that kill, it’s people that kill” crap, then I have a proposal for you: Identify the gun shop owner who sold a weapon that was used to kill someone and make him or her personally liable both criminally and civilly.

        How does that sound to you, lamebrain?

        • recordguy_2000

          Or, if the gun was stolen during a burglary because the gun was left on the living room couch or in plain view somewhere else, then make the moron who made the gun “easy to steal” criminally and civilly liable – sometimes the gun shop owner is the one to blame; sometimes it’s the lamebrain gun owner who’s really at fault.

      • stcroixcarp

        Guns do kill. Violence is learned and video games are great teachers. I would not let my children play violent video games and I limited TV watching. I made the kids play outside and get involved in music, sports, drama, and church. And still one child suffered depression as a teen. I am thankful that we are not gun owners because he did not have easy access to guns. He is alive, well and successful today, and he is teaching his children the ways of peace. Teach the children in your life how to be peaceful joyful people.

      • jmprint

        This morning I read where a 4 year shot a 6 year old, do you really think the 4 year old intended to kill, NO the gun killed the 6 year old.

        • middleclasstaxpayer

          These incidents are very rare, and only dragged out in an attempt to bolster your losing position. Guns SAVE over a million lives a year in the hands of police, military & armed civilians. Automobiles kill over 40,000 US citizens a year, and simple things like bicycles killed over 775 people in 2006, while injuring 44,000 more! There will ALWAYS be an exception to any rule, but in states where right-to-carry laws are in effect, the murder, rape & robbery rates are MUCH LOWER than in “safe cities” like Chicago, New York City, etc, where firearms are drastically restricted, except for criminals of course, who murder at will, safe from confrontation by disarmed citizens, who are sitting ducks, and easy pickings for armed thugs.

          • jmprint

            Yes, you are so right, but that statement that guns don’t kill is false.
            And yes gun are needed, and NO one’s second amendment is being infringed by having laws that protect more innocent people. If you are alaw abiding citizen, you shouldn’t have a problem with the restriction that President Obama has laid out.

          • AdamMos

            You are right, people kill people and guns make it really easy for people to kill people. Nobody is proposing taking anyones gun away. We would just like some common sense legislation that require meaningful and universal background checks and limit the amount military assualt rifles and high capacity magazines that are already rampant on our streets. Nobody is going to take your gun away unless you are a nut or a convict. Grow up already! Your facts are also wrong. the looser the gun laws the higher the amount of gun violence in those states.In AZ we do not require conceal and carry permits and we have the the highest gun violence in the nation. The Wild west where guns are actually worshippped. I am surrounded by idiots. Our state govt response to the Gabby Giffords massacre was to name the Colt 45 as the official gun of AZ. IDIOTS! This gun culture is out of control. If the NRA and morons like you keep it up you are going to ruin it for everybody.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            The reason Arizona has so much crime is because of the illegal aliens who cross the border armed and dangerous. If the US citizens were not also armed, it would be a slaughter! And president does nothing to curb the infiltration…..no fence, less border guards, less funding. What the WH wants is MORE illegals to convert to citizen democrats so liberals can win again.

          • Independent1

            You have to be the biggest nitwit posting on The National Memo, when are you going to do one ounce of fact checking before you open your mouth. Fact is that Obama increased border security more than any other president, and the flow of illegals had actually reversed to where more illegals were leaving America than entering. People who think that building fences and adding a zillion more guards along the border is going to absoultely stop illegals from entering America are leaving in la la land. It just is not physically possible to absolutely shut down the border.

          • Independent1

            And by the way, everything that the Obama administration has proposed is 100% constitutional. In a 2008 rulling the Supreme court ruled that although citizens had a right to own a gun for self protection that did not give them the right to own any gun they want for any purpose they want. Here’s the law:

            In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” but also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.

          • Independent1

            Also, are you even remotely aware that just the fact that someone in a house owns a gun, that the likelihood that someone in that house, most often women and children, will be killed by a gun goes up by 50%. Although you claim that guns don’t kill, just putting a gun in someones hand greatly increases the odds they’ll kill someone with that gun sooner or later. So just the presence of a gun increases the odds of killing someone. One of the saddest cases I’ve heard was on the news last night or the night before – a deputy was showing someone one of his non service weapons in his bedroom and set the gun down on the bed, within seconds a 4 year old picked up the gun and accidently grabbed the trigger setting the gun off and killing the deputy’s wife. Had that gun not been there – the deputy’s wife would still be alive – GUNS DO KILL JUST BY THEMSELVES!!!!!!

          • recordguy_2000

            Very sad story about the 4 year old accidentally shooting and killing the deputy’s wife (by the way, it wasn’t their child who allegedly fired the gun but the child of someone attending the cookout). I’m waiting for a follow-up. Something smells funny about that story. There had to be 3 adults in that room, the deputy, the person he was showing off the gun to and the deputy’s wife. Hard to believe not one of them saw a toddler reaching over to pick up a gun on the bed.

            Regardless, if it happened the way the deputy said or it’s a cover up, it WAS A GUN THAT CAUSED THE WIFE’S DEATH.

          • TheSkalawag929

            I thought according to your right-wing zealotry that if more people had guns the safer they would be.

            In Arizona there are more people carrying guns because of the loose gun laws there but the people are not safer.

            Your zealotry seems to be flawed.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Just imagine what the slaughter would be if ONLY the illegals (who are criminals under US law) had weapons in Arizona?????

          • TheSkalawag929

            That seems to be the problem now. Right-wingers are all up in arms over things they have imagined. And some of them have some very wild imaginations.

            Let’s get real for a change. Who in government is advocating taking away your guns. If you believe the conspiracy theories from the right wouldn’t someone or some group have to have control of the government in order to initiate the confiscation of people’s guns? Wouldn’t the military and law enforcement across the country have to be in on the take over? And wouldn’t the Press through out the country have to be in on the cover up.

            Sorry but I just don’t see anyone or any group making that kind of power grab so doesn’t that render the right-wing argument moot until that time.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            You either are NOT paying close attention, or do NOT understand what is happening…..Firstly, gov’t officials & anti-gun groups are RENAMING guns as old as 100+ years as “assault weapons” simply because someone affixed a front hand grip or other non-lethal accessory onto it.
            Just the nomenclature “assault weapon” makes novices & the general public scared. Then these same folks suggest a magazine LIMIT on rounds. Some say 15, others 10, and now even 7 rounds is enough. Once this kind of limit is imposed, some will come forward to say, well it should be only 5, then 3, then just one. Once a “limit” is established, it will be very simple for gov’t to adjust downward, just as our Tax Rate has been adjusted UPWARD since great depression. That’s the problem.

          • TheSkalawag929

            I believe that I have asked you in the recent past to name the weapons that you claim have been renamed that are 100 years old that have been cosmetically changed and branded as assault weapons. No response.

            I also said using your logic going in the other direction when is enough enough. We already have magazines that hold 30 rounds and magazines so big they’re called drums holding 100 rounds. When will sanity take root on the right-wing side of the aisle.

            You should leave the tax rate out of your argument because it is the lowest it has been in forever.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            To clarify, SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearms have existed for over 100 years. However liberals & gun haters have suggested or insinuated that SEMI-AUTO firearms are akin to FULLY automatic arms, which is patently untrue. And when ANY semi-auto arm has, in addition, a front grip or other accessory, it has been suggested that these are now “assault weapons,” which would scare anyone not knowledgeable on the subject. In fact, many of the proposed banned guns simply have an objectionable accessory as mentioned. Once you start banning items simply by the WAY THEY LOOK, we are headed in the wrong direction.
            My reference to the tax rate was to illustrate how something with a NUMBER can easily be manipulated UP OR DOWN by our government. When income taxes were proposed in 1930s, I believe it was LESS THAN a 1% assessment on income. It’s far from that now, and appears to be going UP!

          • recordguy_2000

            Our tax RATE has been adjusted upward since the Great Depression? Again, you are completely wrong. You need to get your facts straight.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Our US income tax rate on earnings was at ONE PERCENT in 1930-31, and has been adjusted UPWARD just about every year since…what planet are you living on? Once the income tax was instituted in 1913, it has consistently been raised by our government. What do you find inaccurate about this fact?????

          • Allan Richardson

            Guns lying around are a TEMPTATION to people who are momentarily upset to kill someone before they have a chance to cool down.

            Guns lying around are an “attractive nuisance” to kids, like an unfenced swimming pool.

            Guns lying around are an invitation to suicide for depressed people who might have second thoughts if they had to exert some effort and make some plans to kill themselves; without the gun, someone might have a chance to help them.

            Guns lying around are an invitation to unbalanced people with a “personal apocalypse” wish to go down in an ultimate battle with the world. Having some REASONABLE limit on number of guns and bullets might just slow these people down enough to get help.

            And in too many cases, the self defense gun in the bedside table is inadvertently used to kill a son or daughter coming home unexpectedly from college or the military late at night. Thankfully, that does not pose QUITE as big a risk now that cell phones are available (call from the door, Dad, don’t shoot when I come in, OK?), but it can still happen.

            And the culture promoted by gun makers and the NRA, that a gun is the answer to all social problems, seems to give unstable people the idea of handling a disagreement with a shootout. Shakespeare has Hamlet asking whether to “take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them?” Most of the “personal apocalypse” shooters have used guns for years and come from either red states or rural areas where guns are prevalent, and their neighbors THINK they are stable until they snap. Criminals in blue states have to put out some (illegal) EFFORT to get a gun; non-criminals in red states have so many guns around that, if they wish to become criminals, the guns are easy to get, legal, and nobody questions why they want one.

          • recordguy_2000

            First of all, no one that I know of is proposing making gun ownership illegal for law abiding & mentally stable citizens.

            On your right to carry states, you state that the murder rate is much lower. Could that be because those states don’t have large cities with the highest percentage of poverty, welfare recipients and drug use. I’m talking about those states where Chicago, Detroit, Miami, L.A., N.Y., Philadelphia, Atlanta, Houston, etc. are located.

            Sounds like you’re suggesting a return to the days of the Wild West of the 1870’s where everyone carried their gun in a holster when the went outside. I can see it now, to guys get drunk in a bar, have an argument over a girl and instead of a fistfight, they have a shootout while the other patrons duck for cover.

          • Allan Richardson

            If I remember my Gunsmoke reruns correctly, even Marshall Dillon tried to make the Long Branch a gun-free zone, at Miss Kitty’s request. And in wild west movies, when a trial is being held, everyone had to check their weapons at the door.

            Now the Georgia legislature wants to let people bring their guns to CHURCH, in case they have a theological dispute with the minister. Honey Boo Boo is probably ashamed of her state by this time.

          • recordguy_2000

            🙂

      • leadvillexp

        People do kill. In China right now it is cut childrens throats with knives or use gasoline. Think back to Murrah building 1995, Tokeo subway sarrin 1995, WTC 1993 car bomb, and WTC 2001 planes. In Columbine they also had propane bombs. If not guns any thing will be used. This is not about the method, it’s about mental health that we have stopped funding and put them out on the street. Parents have trouble getting help fot their children and you wonder why this happens. It’s not guns.

      • You are way off target. My comment still stands.

        GROW A PAIR!!! FACE SOMEONE WHO LOST A CHILD BECAUSE SOME COWARD BLEW THEM AWAY.

        SEE IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHY IT IS FOR THE GREATER GOOD THAT THEIR CHILD WILL NEVER GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL, NEVER GET MARRIED, NEVER HAVE CHILDREN, NEVER BRING JOY TO THEIR PART OF THE WORLD.

        I am willing to bet you don’t have the guts to do it. Instead, you would rather rant and rave about video games.

  • recordguy_2000

    This really confirms what I’ve always believed. The NRA isn’t really concerned about Second Amendment rights. Their primary purpose is that of a trade association to do all in their power to protect the profits of their primary financial donors, i.e. gun dealers who sell at guns shows. The Constitutional rights of their rank and file membership, the law-abiding gun owner, are a secondary concern for them and is mainly used as a pretense for their insensitive blather.

    • Kurt CPI

      And what, you think the politicians supporting this legislation are driven by their moral compass? If they didn’t think this would buy some votes from their support base, they’d change their tune faster than you could change a tire.

      • TheSkalawag929

        If it was only about votes there would be no question since 90% of Americans support universal background checks.
        It’s about money. It’s always been about money.

      • recordguy_2000

        Sure, the bi-partisan sponsors of this bill aren’t proposing anything to jeopardize their votes. But that’s not only besides the point, it’s irrelevant and non-responsive in regard to what I view to be the main purpose of the bill or how I view the main purpose of the NRA.

        Perhaps you should consider this question. How does making it more difficult for thugs who can’t pass a criminal background check or those who are mentally ill threaten the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens to own and possess guns for lawful purposes? If keeping a gun out of the hands of one criminal or nut saves even one life, this law will have served an important purpose.

        • middleclasstaxpayer

          Wake up! Criminals & mentally deficient persons are ALREADY banned from purchasing firearms by the 1000’s of laws already on the books. The ONLY people restricted by new laws are the law-abiding citizens, NOT criminals!!!

          • Independent1

            Not true, any criminal today can walk into a gun show in many states and purchase any number of guns they want with no questions asked and no background checks. In some states, only Federally registered dealers are required to do background checks at gun shows, unregistered dealers and individuals who want to unload their arsenal are not required to run background checks; in many states, not even federally registered dealers are required to do background checks at gun shows.

          • Allan Richardson

            After seeing a show about how “law abiding” citizens (i.e. no actual police record) are given money by criminals to buy a gun and sell it back to the criminal (like an adult buying liquor or cigarettes for a teenager, except much more deadly), KNOWING AND NOT CARING that they are now trafficking in guns to arm gangs in Mexico and other countries, I propose that citizens who are proven to do that should serve their sentences IN THE COUNTRIES where their guns end up in violation of THE OTHER countries’ laws. No San Quentin for you, Bub, you’re going to jail in MEXICO.

          • recordguy_2000

            Even if your statement was accurate regarding ‘1000’s of laws’, which it’s not, those laws would be completely ineffective if the gun seller wasn’t required to do background checks.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            It has been estimated that, in fact, there are over 10,000 laws on the books in the various states & counties regarding gun ownership.

          • recordguy_2000

            Well I’ll be darned. However, the U.S. just needs a few good laws….with teeth.

    • MrStoneheep

      Mr Record Guy, gun “DEALERS” at shows ALREADY have to run a background check on all buyers even at gunshows. Don[t believe ALL you hear from Diane and the nutjob from Colorado that thinks when a clip is emptied, it can’t be used again.
      This “compromise” does nothing to change that, it only requires now for me to run a background check on passing my guns on to someone not even born yet, my Grand-kids. As you’re not a member of the NRA, how do you know so much of what they are concerned with? Do you take their publications? Really doubt it since they are for members only.

      • recordguy_2000

        I just “love” that members only braggadacio. It has a certain ring to it. Oh I know what it reminds me of…”whites only”.

        Apparently the bill requires more checks than are required now – all commercial sales – or else there would be no point in drafting the bill if all it did was maintain status quo.

        But you keep reading that magazine for members only and absorb their propaganda like a sponge. Hats off to you.

      • CPAinNewYork

        I’m an NRA member and I believe that their opposition to laws restricting gun sales is reprehensible. Pick up a copy of The American Rifleman and you’ll see dozens of advertisements for guns, ammunition, reloading machines, etc. The magazine touts safety, but it’s baloney. Their money comes from gun industry advertisements. As with most things in this world, it all comes down to money.

      • Independent1

        The laws in most states require ONLY FEDERALLY REGISTERED gun dealers to run background checks and some states don’t require background checks at gun shows by any dealer. Individuals at gun shows who want to unload their arsenal are not required to run background checks in the majority of states. You better start checking your facts.

  • Personally, I’m way past out of patience for cowardly, milquetoast representatives who only propose weakly crafted legislation “because it might pass”: Get off your handsomely compensated BUTTOCKS and do the damn job the American people elected you to do: TAKE BOLD AND DECISIVE ACTION on this – and other – critical issues that affect our lives!

    DO SOMETHING – ANYTHING – other that your tiresome “sit on my hands, procrastinate, and stubbornly impede” typical inaction!

    If those of us in the private sector shirked our responsibilities and failed to produce at work, we’d have long since lost our positions: STAND UP to corporate bullies and Republican obstructionist – LISTEN to your constituents … those INDIVIDUAL Americans you represent, as opposed to the corporate interests that perpetually try to buy you… and VOTE the people’s voice.

    GET RID OF MILITARY-STYLE HARDWARE AND WEAPONS – remove them from the hands of private citizens… limit magazine capacities and place absolute background checks on all weaposn purchases – everywhere – and give us our lives back!

    DO IT – NOW – and do it COMPLETELY, not just some half-assed attempt to placate those who just can’t seem to get past the “status quo”!

    For once in your political careers, ACT!

    • recordguy_2000

      While I agree that military style weapons and hi-cap magazines should be banned (which doesn’t mean of course that the criminals and nuts won’t get their hands on this hardware), it IS an important consideration that the bi-partisan bill, as proposed, stands a good chance of passage. In other words, a glass half full is better than a glass that’s completely empty.

      • CPAinNewYork

        Only if you’re not one of those who gets shot.

  • Kurt CPI

    I don’t have a problem with background checks and don’t undrerstand why anyone does. What I do have a problem with is registering as a gun owner (which I am not, BTW). If I were to purchase a gun, in this information age it would target me for everything from spam to witch hunts. People should be verified to be sane, responsible and non-criminal before being allowed to purchase a gun. But once so certified, their right to remain an anonymous gun owner should be upheld, just as the right of a journalist to use anonymous sources must be protected.

    • johninPCFL

      How about trained? Shouldn’t a person buying a lethal weapon at least be trained in its use and handling? Shouldn’t they be trained to know when they can shoot another person? Shouldn’t they know whether the bullet they shoot will travel 100 feet or a mile? Or is it OK so long as they get prison time for screwing up and killing another American?
      Both a gun and a screwdriver have operational mechanisms obvious at first inspection. The consequences of misusing a screwdriver are a scrape on a finished surface. Not so serious as a dead child in the next room – as has happened during “cleaning” by an untrained gun owner.

    • jmprint

      And why is it important to remain anonymous, shouldn’t you be proud to own a gun responsibly.

    • stcroixcarp

      Why do you want to remain anonymous as a gun owner? Don’t your neighbors have a right to know if you are armed so they can take precautions like not letting their children play with your kids in your house? Or that they should probably call the police at the first sign of domestic violence?

    • TheSkalawag929

      If your argument for not registering guns is the possibility of being spammed, I won’t even touch witch hunt, then you shouldn’t purchase a vehicle, purchase or rent a home or apartment or make any other major purchase because you give out more information doing those things than you do when you purchase a gun.

  • mike

    I said it before: just the first nick, opening the door to end our second amendment rights disappearing. With this there will be a paper trail so the bureaucrats(Big Brother) can follow you even more. Just this week we find the EPA released info on farmers to environmental groups and when caught asked for them back-were the documents copied? So down the road some zealot will take all the gun information and give it to the people of their cause-ergo, lost freedoms. When are people going to learn; keep govt. at arms length.

    • TheSkalawag929

      Your unreasonable fear of some imaginary government plot is paralyzing your ability to think rationally.

      Granted the EPA giving out some personal information of farmers to some environmental groups is wrong. To equate that with some sort of big brother plot is not reasonable.

      I suspect that I have no chance in convincing you that your fears are unfounded so I can only hope that more reasonable people out number you and that they will prevail.

      • mike

        Baloney!!!! If you want to put your faith in govt., go ahead!!! Just remember that each time these wrongs are done it was a decision from someone with an agenda or incompetence. This bill requires records kept on each purchase, what happens when some bureaucrat walks in and says give me your records or I take your license or jail. If you don’t think that can’t happen you are very naïve. Could it happen to you!! I hope not.

        My effete snob convince me you are right. I am on the side of not worrying about protecting myself and keeping an arms length between me and the ruling class.
        Show me, oh great thinker.

        • TheSkalawag929

          “…what happens when some bureaucrat walks in and says give me your records or I take your license or jail….”

          I suspect the same thing that happens when some bureaucrat, ie. law enforcement agent, shows up with a warrant for the records now. They are turned over or the person who refuses is taken into custody.

          As I said in my previous post “I suspect that I have no chance in convincing you that your fears are unfounded..” so I wont try. Beside that fact I have no need to convince you of anything. I’m just voicing my opinion.

          I have also noticed that when people perceive that they are on the loosing side of a conversation they resort to name calling and righteous indignation.

          • mike

            If by law records have to kept my scenario about “bureaucrat walks in” will happen. When EPA is caught in the act you just yawn. You just love big govt..

            As to convincing me, I was curious what your argument would be.

            Did I hurt your feelings? Poor baby. It has been my experience that if you don’t agree with left they are condescending, questioning ones rational, smirking, laughing, anything to denigrate the other side.

            Below will show that I am not losing the argument over our constitutional rights being limited.

            Below are six cases brought before the Supreme Court and unanimously(even Obama nominees voted against) rejected in the last 15 months. All expanding Federal Power by the Obama admin..

            United States v. Jones-GPS in cars to monitor individuals

            Sackett v. EPA-landowners right to challenge fines and have a hearing

            Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & schoolsv. EEOC

            Arizona v. United States-overriding state laws at Presidents desire.

            Gabelli v. SEC- unlimited time to impose penalties

            Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States-Destroy private property without compensation(just).
            You can attack me for my position and call me irrational but you are the one with your headed buried in the sand. So, take a deep yawn and go back to sleep. One day you or your offspring will wake up and say: What the hell happened.

            All above are examples of the Obama admin. trying to grab more Executive Power.

          • TheSkalawag929

            Your scenario will happen only in your imaginary world.

            When the EPA is caught doing what making a mistake? There have been private companies that have made far greater mistakes. Your big deal with is that it was a department in the government. Any excuse to sit back and point your finger and say I told you so.

            You weren’t being curious. You were just trying to being a smart mouth. And you failed.

            You filled up with your own self worth. I was just pointing out that when you right-wingers are failing to win the argument you resort to name calling and righteous indignation. Your perception of your treatment by the left is quite astute. However what you fail to realize is that you are deserving of what you get from us on the left.

            The six cases that you cite are not new or ground breaking in their precedence. As a matter of fact all of these cases cite previous cases so as I said there is nothing new here.

            You take my attack of your defense of your position as a personal one. That is not the case. And you see the fact that I point out that your argument is grounded in irrationality as some how pointing to a deficiency on my part is laughable.

            Keep trying maybe one day you’ll be able to convince the doctors in the institution in which you are housed that you have been cured and that you are ready to rejoin society.

          • mike

            I loved your response, Thanks. And thanks for making my case, having the other side confirm my position is pure delight. I never said new or ground breaking. What I am concerned about is the expansion of govt. and the loss of our rights. Your acknowledgement of previous court rulings shows the history and length the govt. will go to limit citizens of this country, but more concerning is its expansion of more power.

            Who has the Intellectual High Ground, don’t flatter yourself you don’t. If one doesn’t agree with the left position they will find ridicule, intolerance, especially within your own ranks. If position is weak you demagogue, change the subject, attack the messenger, nothing new, same old play book.

            If you truly believe govt does an efficient job, spends out monies wisely then I think it is not me that needs being institutionalized.
            I am on several email list of progressive sites just to understand and appreciate their positions and thinking. Never a dull moment.

          • TheSkalawag929

            Your post did in fact did give me the impression that you believed that you had stumbled across something new : “Below are six cases brought before the Supreme Court and unanimously(even Obama nominees voted against) rejected in the last 15 months”. The cases were not so much power grabs as they were disputes over rules, regulations and laws and their implementation.

            Arguing Intellectual High Ground with you would be unfair to YOU since you have a physical and mental aversion to truth and facts which puts you at a disadvantage.

            Government is not perfect but it would be much better if we could get the zealots out of it and replace them with more level headed representation.

            Just visiting progressive sites doesn’t constitute the acquisition of knowledge especially when, as I suspect, your main purpose is to spread delusion and disinformation.

            Was it you that claimed to have been banned from Media Matters? If it was I can see why.

          • mike

            Again, love to see your superior intellect at work. You frame these rules, regulations, and laws, all made to grab more Fed. power as just doing business. In one, EPA was trying to deny the citizen from a hearing to challenge the fines imposed. Abuse of power. The GPA case the stupid fed. employees had to put the unit on in DC and by a certain time, they missed the time and put on in MD. Real incompetence by your fed. workers. The feds didn’t even have any information he had committed a crime I could go on and on but you are not worth the time.

            I see you as one of the UN’s: uninformed, unintelligent, uneducated, and definitely unmotivated to know the truth.
            Zealots are all on the right, right??? What a joke.

            No to Media Matters.

            The delusion is on you not me. I have given you accurate information which you have acknowledge was true and you responded with your interruption of said facts. I disagree plain and simple.

            Well Mental Midget it was fun!! Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. I have now seen a true elitist in action. Perfect in every way. LOL

          • TheSkalawag929

            Glad you recognize superiority.
            You can look at the cases any way you choose. Makes no difference to me how long it takes for you to come out of the wilderness if at all.
            What you see is your mind playing tricks on you. You should really resume taking your medication.

            Your accurate information is merely right-wing talking points. I can see how that confuses you living in the bubble that you’re in.

            “Mental Midget”? Resorting to your name calling and Kool-Aid tactic again which as I have pointed out in the past means you have lost the debate.

          • mike

            God you are so easy. Keep thinking you are that superior being because it is part of your delusional life. Nice try any way. As to accurate cases/information you sure didn’t have any trouble finding them, did you? True talking points never the less.

            In this case I am not losing. Just a little tit for tat for your insipid remarks about me and my opinions. I hope that Kool-Aid taste good, you deserve it my effete little snob. The intellect of the World. LOL See you later Mr. UN.

          • TheSkalawag929

            “Just a little tit for tat for your insipid remarks about me and my opinions.”

            How about this? “Whatever’. You’ll probably bend this to your diluted way of thinking anyway.

          • mike

            What a disappointment.With your superiority complex I was hoping you knew when to walk away.

            If the cases(6) did pass and would not increase the power of the govt., then you sir(used loosely) are the delusional one. Ask yourself: Yes or NO!!!!
            If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy. Thomas Jefferson Happy Birthday Thomas
            As to “whatever” nice Girly response from you. Will Skally go out and play and get a little fresh air and play nice with the others.

          • TheSkalawag929

            Just about what I expected Hanz.
            No more time to waste on you.

          • mike

            You still haven’t answered my question: YES OR NO!!
            Couldn’t answer my question, as I expected.
            Wouldn’t the other kids play with you, soooo sorry!!!!

          • TheSkalawag929

            I will answer yes or no if you will answer the following in a manner that allows a yes or no answer to your proposed question:
            1) Who determines what is “wasting the labors of the people”?

            2)Who determines what “the pretense” is and what it means?

            3) What is the intended definition of “must become happy”?

            4) Does it mean that everyone must become happy or some?

            5) If it means that some must become happy does it mean that the majority must become happy?, Does it mean that the top percentage must become happy? or Does it mean that the bottom percentage must become happy?
            Exactly who is it that MUST become happy?

          • mike

            Nice try my supercilious Scally

            Thomas Jefferson wrote many cogent thoughts on this new Republic. Next time you see him I know he will help you with interpretation.

            As to my question, which you seem not able or uncomfortable to answer, is in black and white, straight forward, historical and not in some flowery form needing interpretation. This is the third time you have danced around the questions. So I must assume you can’t or you are plainly a Intellectually Dishonest Person. I pretty sure it is the latter.

            I baffles me why this Superiority Complex person keeps looking more feeble each time he writes.

            Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself? Because that’s what you continue to do each time. See you later my girly little friend.

          • TheSkalawag929

            Yes Jefferson was a deep and complex thinker. Which is why I pay him the respect he deserves by trying to understand what he meant when he put his thoughts down on paper. Since YOU are unable, due to a lack competence, or unwilling, because you are lazy, to put the question in context I looked the quote up for my self. And so I will answer your question in the context from which the quote was taken. Yes.

            You may assume until your heart is content from your perch of blissful ignorance. It makes no difference to me what your assumptions are.

            Since you haven’t been able to figure out why you are so baffled let me point it out the reasons for you.
            It’s not because I am superior or at all complex so much as you are inept and dull witted. The proof being your having to resort to name calling.

            I admit that I have embarrassed myself on occasion but this isn’t one of them.

          • mike

            Yet again an embarrassment on your part. I am so happy that you have finally admitted that those 6 cases if ruled differently would have been the expansion of govt. Now go out and play, your brain needs to rid itself of all those cobwebs. What a silly little boy you are.

          • TheSkalawag929

            I admitted nothing of the sort. You have reading comprehension problems.

          • mike

            Again, you have shown how intellectually dishonest you are. Still can’t and won’t answer a simple question. Pathetic!!!

            This guy from the institution(your words not mine) has forced you off your complacent ass to do a little research for once, oops. twice. Amazing!!!

            A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Now little Skally here is a chance to learn more.

            Every time you are dumb enough to write back just belittles you a little bit more. keep them coming with your banal remarks. You remind me of a little boy on the play ground who just doesn’t know when to walk away.

          • TheSkalawag929

            “You remind me of a little boy on the play ground who just doesn’t know when to walk away.”

            Would that be the one everyone cheers for because he won’t let the bully win just because he’s bigger? Isn’t that the essence of the American Spirit? Never give up never quit.

            You’re looking for the last word aren’t you? I don’t think that I’ll let you have it just yet. But rest assured it will be MY decision as to if and when you get it.

            It’s a drag you being dependent on the whim of a Leftist Liberal.
            Isn’t it?

            The mean old “little Skally” taking away my right to have the last word.

          • mike

            Every morning when you wake up and look in the mirror knowing you couldn’t answer a simple Yes or No question, or even refute the cases, because it would betray your ideologue position, and had to resort to girly games like ” I will answer your question if you answer mine first” must really suck. Poor little skally couldn’t answer a simple little question. But, in your heart you know they would have increased the power of govt.. Later, comrade!!!

          • TheSkalawag929

            You are stupid.

    • recordguy_2000

      Mike, you’re more than a little paranoid, wouldn’t you agree? Big Brother? Are you writing about the U.S. or North Korea?

      What’s wrong with a paper trail? I don’t think Big Brother…oops our government…has the time and inclination to follow up on that paper trail unless there seems to be a problem with the owner such as connections to violent or terroristic groups, Aryan Brotherhood type organizations, etc.

      However, a paper trail might just serve one vital purpose and that it might be another incentive for lawful gun owners to be prudent in how and where they store their weapons. A large number of guns that end up in the hands of thugs, drug dealers, gangstas, etc. were stolen during burglaries. This might be an incentive for gun owners to store their weapons in a safe place….like a safe or hidden away. It’s not a good idea to leave your gun by the side of a chair in the living room in plain view. If your home is burglarized, the guns are the first to be taken.

      • mike

        How do you know what the govt. is thinking now or in the future. You seem to have forgotten Napolitano and vets being potential terrorist. Or the DHS office of Intelligence and Analysis defining terrorist as individuals that place state and local jurisdiction over Federal., or bumper stickers with Ron Paul, Bob Barr as suspicious individuals. How about bulk purchases of food with cash as potential terrorist, The Tea Party by one study, even the questioning of the govt. by the average American is a potential terrorist. I did not make this up, this was taken from the DHS studies and reports. You can’t read their minds and neither can I but at least I am wary of too big a govt.. Keep yawning and sleeping.

        Since 80% of all guns stolen are never recovered, your paper trail just doesn’t quite cut it. Cut drugs out and most of the killings, gangs, and burglaries to fund their habit would disappear. The majority of prudent gun owners do protect their guns.
        As to being paranoid-I don’t think so. Cautious, Wary, Protective of family, Yes!!! But more important watching their agenda.
        If you think all is well and your freedoms have not tried to be taken just keep dreaming. Obama said he was going to transform this country and he is sure trying from: GPS on cars with warrants, seizure of property without just compensation, rights to challenge fines or have a hearing, interference in the church to pick a pastor, overriding of state laws. Oh by way, all SHOT DOWN by the Supreme Court last year in unanimous votes. So don’t give me this Bull about my paranoia.

      • TheSkalawag929

        mike is paralyzed by some imagined fear that is being stoked by the NRA who by the way back in 1999 were for the very laws that they are now against.

      • Allan Richardson

        As a computer programmer for 30+ years, I am aware that database files can be optimized for different purposes. A gun registry would be useful to catch real criminals if a specific weapon, or a handful of weapons, for which the police have the ballistics pattern, could be matched to find out who is the registered gun owner, and then find out what that person’s connection is. If the gun had been reported stolen, the police could find that out without even having to question the registered owner.

        However, for police to solve crimes they do NOT need to access, for example, all the weapons in the county, or even all the weapons registered to a given street or zip code, or to people with a given last name. Those large extracts from the file would enable mass confiscations, and should not only be illegal, the database should be designed to make THAT type of access impossible.

        It is possible to design a database so that the “pinpoint query” is possible but the “file dump” is not. Encrypt each file record so that it cannot be decrypted without EITHER the ballistics pattern OR the full name and address of one specific person. And automatically keep a log of all such queries, time date, police agency, badge number, and reason for access (details to include the case number, etc. or if REALLY paranoid, search warrant reference) to keep bad cops from “fishing” by multiple random queries. Assuming that the NRA would be in on the design of the database access, would THAT satisfy the paranoids that confiscation would not be possible? Actually, once loaded from the paper copies that gun dealers keep now, and once the papers are destroyed after doing so, confiscation the “hard way” by seizing record books would no longer be possible.

        • recordguy_2000

          I really doubt that any safeguards in regard to information access would satisfy the NRA as long as the registry could potentially cut into the bottom line profits of their biggest donors – the gun manufacturers, big box retail stores, independent gun dealers and your basic gun show dealers.

          • TheSkalawag929

            I think you’re right. It always has been and always will be about the money.

  • this is B-S well if thy get some type of things passed ok but when are the ppl. of this country going to understand with the GOP ding-gongs party of no in office nothing will get done. heck the first 4 years of the Pres. in office the GOP blocked every thing . even DITCH McConnell things he was just in office to make sure the Pres. didn’t get another term oooops you idiot you failed that one . isn’t it nice to only try to not let some one get a 2nd term and get paid for it for 4 years. as for the anti-Christ Romney and his eddie monster look a-like boy friend that keeps getting his stupid budgets failed the whole GOP ding-dong should be voted out so the ppl. and then country can get something done here . PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY get together and help clean the GOP ding-dong out of office and get the country ready for Mrs. Clinton to be the next Pres. of this country get the John butt GOP’S out then we can move forward . help your self help the country

    • TheSkalawag929

      We can start “House” cleaning with the 2014 election and do a little sprucing up in the Senate while we’re at it.

  • ALL of you are missing the point. Go after, catch and destroy criminals, and get all the country off of drugs. They go after rights but never the root cause of the problems and the criminals run free. Criminals will never have a background check so the only purpose of a check is to know where the easy guns are to confiscate later. So what was accomplished except to step on the Constitution? Sorry, I wont submit to communism sweeping the country. All of you go live in No. Korea and take Obama with you as your new Dear Leader and leave the rest of us alone.

    • jmprint

      You are wrong, criminals do get background checks. And our country is better because of it. You live in a feared mind. Non of us want communism and we don’t fear it, because it doesn’t exist in the US, and we won’t let it happen.

    • ralphkr

      Oh, Charles, you are missing the whole point of this charade. It is so much easier to make a well publicized move against guns than to try and go after the reason certain people go on killing sprees. A few decades ago a number school children shot by a young girl with a rifle and the state immediately went after assault rifles and big magazines while ignoring the fact that the shooter had used a bolt action rifle that held a maximum of 5 rounds. By the way, they did find out the real reason the girl started shooting up the playground “It was Monday and I was bored.”