Today after reviewing the statement, Sebastian summed it up in his typically lop-sided way. " It’s basically just another call for banning private sales."
Here's part of the statement.
What's your opinion? Would fixing the database and requiring background checks on all transfers be a good thing or not?Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of more than 550 mayors, proposes that the U.S. fulfill the intent of the 1968 law by fixing the broken background check system.
First, the system should contain all the records of felony convictions, domestic violence incidents, drug history, and determinations of mental illness that would prevent those categories of troubled people from buying guns. The new Congress should set a goal of getting this job finished within three years.
Second, Congress should subject every gun sale to a background check by closing the loopholes that permit guns to be sold without them. Licensed gun dealers are covered by the Brady Bill. But “occasional sellers,” for example those that sell firearms at gun shows, through classified ads or even on the internet, do not have to conduct background checks. The only way to prevent guns from falling into the hands of violent criminals, the mentally unstable, and other already prohibited dangerous persons is through a comprehensive national background check system with no loopholes. Reasonable exceptions would include, for example, transfers of guns within families, or by wills, or to people who have a valid state-issued gun permit issued within the last five years that meets or exceeds the Federal background check standard.
Please leave a comment.
The solution is obvious- if you don’t have political motives.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fantastic proposal. There should be strong support from both sides, since recent polls have shown that gun owners support stronger background checks and better record keeping and reporting to NICS. Over at New Trajectory, an invitation to gun owners showed that some respondents also suggested more thorough background checks, particularly for mental illness (http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/01/results-from-my-open-invitation.html).
ReplyDeleteI sincerely hope that the president includes this in his address tomorrow, and that our elected officials take it to heart. Yes, it will be expensive and a hassle to implement, but it is a necessity to reduce the insane number of deaths each year.
No private transfers = no deal.
ReplyDeleteI see he got to use the word "loophole". Of course that is a lie. The GCA'68 specifically excluded private sales. SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED them. It was never an intent to apply to private sales or it never would have passed.
Its not a "loophole", its a "feature".
This is a terrible proposal. Placing additional limits and costs upon law abiding citizens will not deter criminals.
ReplyDeleteHow about a background check for bloggers, and a waiting period for each post?
Anonymous thinks that since laws against murder do not deter murderers, we should not prohibit murder.
ReplyDeleteOf course it would be a good thing--unless you think that every wackaloon with twenty bucks should be able to buy a gun.
In reply to R. Stanton Scott:
ReplyDelete"unless you think that every wackaloon with twenty bucks should be able to buy a gun."
How about we change the subject of your sentence to another specifically enumerated right?
"unless you think that every wackaloon with a typewriter should be allowed to speak freely"
or how about
"unless you think that every wackaloon with some friends should be able to freely assemble"
oh, heres a good one
"unless you think every wackaloon with a religion of his own should be allowed to worship freely"
Now, please if you will, tell me how your statement and those I've modified above differ? Each of those subjects are a right laid out in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech. Freedom to assemble. Gun ownership. It's America. People have rights here, unless they have done something specifically to lose that right.
Have a good day, Sir.
-Staff Sergeant John V.
US Army
I think you're right, R. Stanton Scott. I'll go even further and say that our supposedly anonymous commenter is wrong when he says, "Placing additional limits and costs upon law abiding citizens will not deter criminals."
ReplyDeleteThat's not true. He just says it because, well, I don't know why he says it.
Placing proper restrictions on the law-abiding will directly affect the criminals for the simple reason that the criminals get their guns from the law abiding, all of their guns. That's the shady connection the lawful gun owners keep trying to ignore.
Mikeb wrote:
ReplyDelete"Placing proper restrictions on the law-abiding will directly affect the criminals for the simple reason that the criminals get their guns from the law abiding, all of their guns. That's the shady connection the lawful gun owners keep trying to ignore."
Of course, getting guns from law-abiding is the only possible way for criminals to get them, right?
Criminals will always get guns from their easiest source. If it's avaialble to buy legally from a dealer, they'll get it there. Close that avenue, and they'll use straw purchasers. Block that, and they'll find another way. Even if you block off all possible ways that a criminal could get a gun through a "law-abiding" person, those supplying the criminal demand will either smuggle them in from where they CAN get the guns, or manufacture them very easily, just like illicit drugs.
Making it harder for violent criminals to get guns doesn't really make it that much harder for criminals to get guns, AND the black market "on the street" will ALWAYS meet the demand.
...Orygunner...
C'mon Orygunner, you're really stretching the credibility there. The gun flow from the good guys to the bad guys could be practically eliminated with proper laws and enforcement. Importing guns from other countries would be so much more costly and difficult, that the good result would hold, same with criminals making zip guns. None of that would come close to replacing the wide-open faucet we have now.
ReplyDelete