Gabby Giffords husband: Background checks are practical

[Sid]

The federal government has recently ruled that background checks unfairly discriminate against minorities.

The Democrats get hysterical about requiring a photo ID to vote -just to prove you are who you say you are- arguing it might somehow prevent someone from exercising their Constitutional right to vote because they can't afford one (an absurd argument of course, but one they actually seem to believe among themselves after repeating it to each other often enough, long enough, and loudly enough).

But violating Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the peoples right to arms seem to make no difference at all to them.

The typical leftist double standard coming from the idea that anything needed to accomplish their desired end is justified.

We should be concerning ourselves with looking past the issues they are promoting at any given moment and examining exactly what those end goals are.

As the leftist hero Chairman Mao so aptly advised. "All political power grows from the barrel of a gun".

The only standard the left has is to get whatever they want at any price and by any means they deem necessary. They call on the Constitution if and when it can be used to further their ends, and ridicule, deny, and defy it when it does not.

[DoubleB]

Background checks are practical and effective. And the alternative is to just sell guns to whomever wants one. That is dangerous and just plain nonsense.

Pass the common sense laws we have promoted in Colorado.

We should be concerning ourselves with looking past the issues they are promoting at any given moment and examining exactly what those end goals are.

The end goal of background checks is obvious to rational folks - keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of crazy, deranged people.

There is no master plan to take all the guns away from gun lovers. Just keep the guns out of the hands of the crazy folk among us.

[jakebrake]

If Gabby and I can serve as moderate, calm and respectful voices throughout this debate, we hope others will join us, and together we can focus on solutions that both enhance our Second Amendment rights and help stop these horrible killings.

Unfortunately for the clueless Kelly, nothing in his silly rhetoric will "enhance our Second Amendment rights." A recent article by John Hawkins in Townhall.com exemplifies Kelly's, and the typical lefty's naivety.

5 Things the gun control advocates Apparently Don't Understand

#2] Criminals and lunatics don't obey gun laws: The belief that someone who's planning to go on a killing spree is going to turn in a gun because it's made illegal is almost as nuts as going on the killing spree. Yet the gun control advocates in the Democrat Party operate on the assumption that nut jobs like Adam Lanza or a gangbanger who sells crack for a living is going to get rid of a high-capacity magazine if Congress says he cant have it. That's like a prohibitionist who gets upset about alcoholism and deals with the problem by demanding that all the people without drinking problems have to be kept away from booze.

Unfortunately, this is the critical thinking exhibited by Kelly most of his gun grabbing supporters on the left. It's truly a sad day for our once great Constitution, and one can only hope and pray it will survive the assault rhetoric coming from the democrats.

IN GOD WE TRUST!

[Sid]

It looks as if the universal background check bill will pass the Senate and go to the Governor's desk later this week. In spite of overwhelming public opposition to ALL of the seven gun control bills heard in Senate committees on Monday, Democrats ignored their constituencies and their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Colorado's legislative process has been bought out by the East coast!! That said, let me return to the subject of the article.

Universal background checks equate to private sales being done through a dealer. If I have a firearm in my safe that I bought from a private individual, who may have bought it from another private individual...Who can trace it to me? If it can't be traced to me, how will anyone know if I sell it to another while completely ignoring the law and avoiding the costs involved with the dealer and background check? There are hundreds of thousands of firearms that can't be traced to their present owners. So the law of requiring background checks on private sales is unenforceable...UNLESS you support it with universal REGISTRATION. Make it a felony to be in possesion of an unregistered firearm and then you begin to see more compliance with universal background checks but not until. I tried to make that easy to understand. Does anyone not see where universal background checks are going? Does anyone not see what the Demcrats are doing? We better fix this in 2014 or we will soon have the same draconian bull shiditsu they shoved down the throats of gun owners in New York!

I certainly hope that is where it is going. Registration of every firearm, even if it takes decades, is the only way to trace guns used in crimes. The way things are now, we have essentially tied the hands of law enforcement in investigation of crimes committed with guns. 300 million unregistered guns in circulation in the US is complete insanity. License (renewable every 5 years) for every gun owner, registration and liability insurance for every gun, and enhanced sentencing for crimes committed with unregistered and/or stolen guns.

So how would government programs that deliberately override the system to provide firearms directly to criminals, such as Obama's Fast and Furious, figure into your scenario?

And does the Constitution figure into it at all?

[Sid]

Background checks are practical and effective. And the alternative is to just sell guns to whomever wants one. That is dangerous and just plain nonsense.

Pass the common sense laws we have promoted in Colorado.

Wanna support that with any kind of statistics?

Statistics showing background checks have ever actually prevented someone with criminal intend from getting any kind of gun they wanted?

You can't because there are none. You're trying to pass of a paranoid fantasy based opinion as if it were a fact.

[Saxon]

Where is his opinion on the 15-round magazine limit?

Somebody should tell him that the overwhelming majority of the gun crime committed in this country is by THUGS who don't care about your laws. We don't even enforce what we have on the books now.

[swen swenson]

The things we can do to promote responsible gun ownership and protect our Second Amendment rights are the very same things that will do the most to reduce gun violence in America.

Of course this assumes that criminals and lunatics won't be able to get guns if they must submit to a background check, but we know this is faulty reasoning at best.

So long as the medical establishment subscribes to the Patient's Bill of Rights, which guarantees the patient's right to be treated confidentially, folks like Jared Loughner and James Holmes will continue to pass background checks. The Columbine shooters were too young to buy guns but got them through a straw purchaser. The Sandy Hook shooter stole his. Universal background checks wouldn't have detered any of these shootings, nor many others of recent memory.

With 300 million guns in circulation anyone who wants one can get one, background check or no. To claim that a universal background check will do anything to reduce gun violence flies in the face of historic reality.

[familyortiz]

What an excellent, well thought out piece.
More thorough background checks are practical. As the poster just wrote, "I agree that it is wise to keep weapons from certain individuals." It could be the mentally ill, those with previous criminal backgrounds or those under restraining orders, or like a guy I knew that, on two different occasions, fired bullets thru his apartment walls when playing with his guns.
It is practical, unless you're still writing in terms of LEFT and RIGHT, which is senseless in this issue.
BTW, that issue of patient confidentiality should go by the wayside, as applied absolutely. The case against CU in the Holmes shooting should prove that out. It is unreasonable to protect individual rights when there is an imminent danger to others.

[ChillinDenver]

It looks as if the universal background check bill will pass the Senate and go to the Governor's desk later this week. In spite of overwhelming public opposition to ALL of the seven gun control bills heard in Senate committees on Monday, Democrats ignored their constituencies and their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Colorado's legislative process has been bought out by the East coast!! That said, let me return to the subject of the article.

Universal background checks equate to private sales being done through a dealer. If I have a firearm in my safe that I bought from a private individual, who may have bought it from another private individual...Who can trace it to me? If it can't be traced to me, how will anyone know if I sell it to another while completely ignoring the law and avoiding the costs involved with the dealer and background check? There are hundreds of thousands of firearms that can't be traced to their present owners. So the law of requiring background checks on private sales is unenforceable...UNLESS you support it with universal REGISTRATION. Make it a felony to be in possesion of an unregistered firearm and then you begin to see more compliance with universal background checks but not until. I tried to make that easy to understand. Does anyone not see where universal background checks are going? Does anyone not see what the Demcrats are doing? We better fix this in 2014 or we will soon have the same draconian bull shiditsu they shoved down the throats of gun owners in New York!

I certainly hope that is where it is going. Registration of every firearm, even if it takes decades, is the only way to trace guns used in crimes. The way things are now, we have essentially tied the hands of law enforcement in investigation of crimes committed with guns. 300 million unregistered guns in circulation in the US is complete insanity. License (renewable every 5 years) for every gun owner, registration and liability insurance for every gun, and enhanced sentencing for crimes committed with unregistered and/or stolen guns.

So how would government programs that deliberately override the system to provide firearms directly to criminals, such as Obama's Fast and Furious, figure into your scenario?

And does the Constitution figure into it at all?

I don't think there is anyone on the planet who thinks Fast and Furious was a good idea.

I do not consider reasonable regulation of firearms for the common good of the people to be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. You and I both have seen plenty of arguments on both sides of this issue, so I will not repeat them.

[Boss302]

#2] Criminals and lunatics don't obey gun laws:

Uh, could this be because when it comes to private sales, there is no law to obey? As things stand, if a private seller wants to sell a weapon to someone, all he has to ask is "will your check clear?"

Could this be part of the reason why criminals have such easy, cheap access to guns?

[Sid]

It looks as if the universal background check bill will pass the Senate and go to the Governor's desk later this week. In spite of overwhelming public opposition to ALL of the seven gun control bills heard in Senate committees on Monday, Democrats ignored their constituencies and their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Colorado's legislative process has been bought out by the East coast!! That said, let me return to the subject of the article.

Universal background checks equate to private sales being done through a dealer. If I have a firearm in my safe that I bought from a private individual, who may have bought it from another private individual...Who can trace it to me? If it can't be traced to me, how will anyone know if I sell it to another while completely ignoring the law and avoiding the costs involved with the dealer and background check? There are hundreds of thousands of firearms that can't be traced to their present owners. So the law of requiring background checks on private sales is unenforceable...UNLESS you support it with universal REGISTRATION. Make it a felony to be in possesion of an unregistered firearm and then you begin to see more compliance with universal background checks but not until. I tried to make that easy to understand. Does anyone not see where universal background checks are going? Does anyone not see what the Demcrats are doing? We better fix this in 2014 or we will soon have the same draconian bull shiditsu they shoved down the throats of gun owners in New York!

I certainly hope that is where it is going. Registration of every firearm, even if it takes decades, is the only way to trace guns used in crimes. The way things are now, we have essentially tied the hands of law enforcement in investigation of crimes committed with guns. 300 million unregistered guns in circulation in the US is complete insanity. License (renewable every 5 years) for every gun owner, registration and liability insurance for every gun, and enhanced sentencing for crimes committed with unregistered and/or stolen guns.

So how would government programs that deliberately override the system to provide firearms directly to criminals, such as Obama's Fast and Furious, figure into your scenario?

And does the Constitution figure into it at all?

I don't think there is anyone on the planet who thinks Fast and Furious was a good idea.

I do not consider reasonable regulation of firearms for the common good of the people to be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. You and I both have seen plenty of arguments on both sides of this issue, so I will not repeat them.

So how about reasonable verification of voter identity for the common good?

I don't consider that an infringement on the right to vote.

You'll notice that none of these laws -which are and will continue to be absurdly ineffective in their stated purpose- have any provisions to protect the rights of the people, just infringe on and interfere with them.

[ChillinDenver]

It looks as if the universal background check bill will pass the Senate and go to the Governor's desk later this week. In spite of overwhelming public opposition to ALL of the seven gun control bills heard in Senate committees on Monday, Democrats ignored their constituencies and their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Colorado's legislative process has been bought out by the East coast!! That said, let me return to the subject of the article.

Universal background checks equate to private sales being done through a dealer. If I have a firearm in my safe that I bought from a private individual, who may have bought it from another private individual...Who can trace it to me? If it can't be traced to me, how will anyone know if I sell it to another while completely ignoring the law and avoiding the costs involved with the dealer and background check? There are hundreds of thousands of firearms that can't be traced to their present owners. So the law of requiring background checks on private sales is unenforceable...UNLESS you support it with universal REGISTRATION. Make it a felony to be in possesion of an unregistered firearm and then you begin to see more compliance with universal background checks but not until. I tried to make that easy to understand. Does anyone not see where universal background checks are going? Does anyone not see what the Demcrats are doing? We better fix this in 2014 or we will soon have the same draconian bull shiditsu they shoved down the throats of gun owners in New York!

I certainly hope that is where it is going. Registration of every firearm, even if it takes decades, is the only way to trace guns used in crimes. The way things are now, we have essentially tied the hands of law enforcement in investigation of crimes committed with guns. 300 million unregistered guns in circulation in the US is complete insanity. License (renewable every 5 years) for every gun owner, registration and liability insurance for every gun, and enhanced sentencing for crimes committed with unregistered and/or stolen guns.

So how would government programs that deliberately override the system to provide firearms directly to criminals, such as Obama's Fast and Furious, figure into your scenario?

And does the Constitution figure into it at all?

I don't think there is anyone on the planet who thinks Fast and Furious was a good idea.

I do not consider reasonable regulation of firearms for the common good of the people to be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. You and I both have seen plenty of arguments on both sides of this issue, so I will not repeat them.

So how about reasonable verification of voter identity for the common good?

I don't consider that an infringement on the right to vote.

You'll notice that none of these laws -which are and will continue to be absurdly ineffective in their stated purpose- have any provisions to protect the rights of the people, just infringe on and interfere with them.

Absolutely.

I agree.

I disagree. They are lukewarm laws at best, but they are steps in the right direction if we are serious about dealing with gun violence in our society.

[Sid]

#2] Criminals and lunatics don't obey gun laws:

Uh, could this be because when it comes to private sales, there is no law to obey? As things stand, if a private seller wants to sell a weapon to someone, all he has to ask is "will your check clear?"

Could this be part of the reason why criminals have such easy, cheap access to guns?

Exactly what would be different under this law?

Anyone willing to sell without question will do so, and stolen guns will trade among criminals in the same manner they do now.

I can't believe that anyone actually believes this is aimed at firearms violence, the majority of violence is in the big cities with the strictest firearms laws.

[Boss302]

The things we can do to promote responsible gun ownership and protect our Second Amendment rights are the very same things that will do the most to reduce gun violence in America.

Of course this assumes that criminals and lunatics won't be able to get guns if they must submit to a background check, but we know this is faulty reasoning at best.

Ah, yes, the "if the law won't stop 100% of crimes it's not worth it" argument. We have laws against drunk driving, tax cheating, assault, murder and a myriad of other crimes, and last I checked, those laws don't prevent those crimes 100% of the time. Do they need to go as well? We both know the answer to that question.

If you want to make guns harder to get for criminals, then here's one simple way to do it: constrict the supply of guns available to them. Requiring all gun sales or transfers to be subject to a background check will help do just that.

[Boss302]

#2] Criminals and lunatics don't obey gun laws:

Uh, could this be because when it comes to private sales, there is no law to obey? As things stand, if a private seller wants to sell a weapon to someone, all he has to ask is "will your check clear?"

Could this be part of the reason why criminals have such easy, cheap access to guns?

Exactly what would be different under this law?

Anyone willing to sell without question will do so, and stolen guns will trade among criminals in the same manner they do now.

The difference is obvious: under the current law, people "willing to sell without question" are not subject to criminal penalties. Under the proposed law, they are.

It won't stop all illegal sales, but there are going to be plenty that ARE stopped. Would YOU sell a gun to someone who failed a background check with the prospect of prison time? I sure as hell wouldn't. And the same holds true of a criminal who's selling a gun to another criminal - why would you risk tacking extra years onto your eventual sentence?

The net effect of this will be to constrict the supply of illegal guns to criminals. No one says it'll stop all illegal sales, but it will help prevent them.

[Joe N]

Mark Kelly is not a Colorado resident so his opinion is of no interest to citizens in Colorado. If the Democrats want to pass a law, how about one forbidding outsiders coming in and wasting the Senate/House's time when Colorado citizens are restricted on the time they can testify.

[Boss302]

I can't believe that anyone actually believes this is aimed at firearms violence, the majority of violence is in the big cities with the strictest firearms laws.

The fact is that some of the cities with the worst crime problems are in "shall issue" states. St. Louis, New Orleans, Miami, and Atlanta and several other fall into this category. New York and L.A. have very restrictive gun laws and very low crime rates.

You generalize poorly.

[familyortiz]

The things we can do to promote responsible gun ownership and protect our Second Amendment rights are the very same things that will do the most to reduce gun violence in America.

Of course this assumes that criminals and lunatics won't be able to get guns if they must submit to a background check, but we know this is faulty reasoning at best.

So long as the medical establishment subscribes to the Patient's Bill of Rights, which guarantees the patient's right to be treated confidentially, folks like Jared Loughner and James Holmes will continue to pass background checks. The Columbine shooters were too young to buy guns but got them through a straw purchaser. The Sandy Hook shooter stole his. Universal background checks wouldn't have detered any of these shootings, nor many others of recent memory.

With 300 million guns in circulation anyone who wants one can get one, background check or no. To claim that a universal background check will do anything to reduce gun violence flies in the face of historic reality.

"Faulty reasoning at best?" So if the medical community does start reporting the mentally ill and this data is forwarded to a database, it will have an effect on those mentally ill trying to get a gun. It will reduce gun violence. Your logic is flawed and more like throwing your hands up and doing nothing.

[gurg]

"why Jared Loughner was able to purchase a weapon even after being turned down by the U.S. military when he failed a pre-enlistment drug test... Attorney General Janet Reno, the policy prohibited the military from reporting certain drug abusers to the FBI, which manages the national list of prohibited gun-buyers, federal officials said.
Loughner attempted to enlist in the Army in December 2008 but was rejected because he failed a drug-screening process, Army officials said. Within a year, Loughner bought a Harrington & Richardson shotgun from Sportsman???s Warehouse in Tucson. In November, he went back to the same store and purchased a Glock 19 ??? the one he is accused of using in the Jan. 8 rampage that killed six and wounded 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D)."

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/clinto ... -fbi-list/

How would the DEMO legislation correct this? It doesn't!

[familyortiz]

Background checks are practical and effective. And the alternative is to just sell guns to whomever wants one. That is dangerous and just plain nonsense.
Pass the common sense laws we have promoted in Colorado.

Wanna support that with any kind of statistics?

Here you go Sid, the number of those rejected. You can't determine how many crimes were prevented, because they were prevented.

Washington (CNN) -- More than a million people failed background checks to buy guns during the past 14 years because of criminal records, drug use or mental health issues, according to FBI figures.
Nearly 60 percent of those failing background checks, or nearly 578,000 people, were rejected because of a felony or serious misdemeanor conviction, according to information on the FBI website that was updated this month.

If you possibly can, throw your hands up a little higher.