Friday, March 22, 2013

Harry Reid Says Universal Background Checks a Must


Yahoo News reports

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Thursday that to be effective any gun-control bill that passes his chamber must include universal background checks, an embattled centerpiece of the White House's bid to curb gun violence.

Reid voiced hope that an elusive bipartisan deal can soon be reached to require virtually all firearm purchasers to be screened for criminal records and possible mental health problems.
Republicans have voiced concerns that a proposed record-keeping provision in private sales could lead to registration, something that gun-rights groups have long opposed.

But Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said in a statement: "In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks."

Federally registered gun dealers are required to conduct such background checks, but about 40 percent of guns are purchased from private sellers who have no such obligation.

Earlier this week, Reid acknowledged that there is not enough support in the Senate to pass another key part of Obama's drive to curb gun violence - a proposed renewal of a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons.

I'd be quite pleased if the AWB failed as long as universal background checks became law. After that another bill to address the high-capacity magazines would make it just about perfect.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Your side can't get this crap passed even in the Senate. It won't pass the House. It's time to call this fight and move on. You had your chance. The country has more pressing matters to attend to.

    1. What doesn't pass now, will in a few years. You know your days are numbered.

    2. You know your days are numbered.

      Yeah, Greg--you're not immortal--take that ;-).

    3. Everyone's days are numbered, and each generation must take up the fight for freedom. We'll lose only if we do what you want and agree to "compromise," meaning that we agree to give in.

    4. Both of you tedious characters know what I meant. Your days of enjoying lax gun laws are numbered.

    5. Beware getting just what you wish for legislatively. I'm afraid the unintended consequences will be akin to reaping the whirlwind.

    6. Because the gun control fairy is going to change minds? The incident in Newtown gave you your best shot, and that's failing.

  2. After that another bill to address the high-capacity magazines would make it just about perfect.

    Hahahahahahaha! Oh, and I almost forgot to add: Hahahahahahaha!

    You're so darn cute when you forget how intellectually and morally bankrupt you are!

    1. What's bankrupt about wanting a limit on magazine size? You last me man.

    2. I "last" you?

      Whatever. Gotta go. Time to shop for 3-D printers. Not because I think a magazine ban is coming--it obviously ain't--but it's so damned fun to illustrate the futility of such idiocy. Hoping I can talk Defense Distributed into coming up with plans for printing 20-round drums for my Vepr-12 shotgun.

      Any ideas for a name for that project? "Cuomo" magazine is taken, as is "Feinstein" magazine. Lautenberg is one of the more outspoken fanatics in favor of sending people to prison for 11-round mags, but he's retiring soon. "McCarthy" mag has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

    3. Speaking for myself, I'll say that your side is morally bankrupt in its yearning to control good citizens. Demanding limits on the size of a magazine is but one consequence of a total moral failing.

    4. Because you are willing to ruin good people's lives over it.

    5. Kurt, that was a typo. Thanks for pointing it out and pretending you didn't understand that I was saying You lost me with that bullshit about being bankrupt.

      This shows how petty you are and how desperate for a victory, even if it's nothing more than pointing out a typo.

    6. Do you guys really think people are going to go to jail for having the wrong size magazine in their possession? Half the time, when one of you fanatics lets your kids shoot each other with your unsecured guns you don't even get a slap on the wrist.

    7. As usual, you're wrong. I had no idea what you were trying to say. As it turns out, I was clearly missing very little (which, come to think of it, was probably rather predictable).

      Anyway, yes--it's morally and intellectually bankrupt to imprison people (for ten years, per the Lautenberg/McCarthy abomination) for having 11-round magazines.

      That's not about saving lives--it's about imprisoning gun owners.

      I'll give up my "high capacity" magazines when there are no more than ten people advocating banning them. Until then, I need to prepare for the eventuality of encountering more than ten of you twisted, evil freaks at once.

    8. Is it your contention, then, that a hideously evil law is made less hideously evil by "virtue" of the fact that it might not be enforced sometimes?

      Good Lord--you're an even less intelligent sack of contemptibility than I had thought.

    9. Mikeb, whether or not we'd face a prison sentence for having a magazine that your side says holds too many rounds, we don't want to have a criminal record that would disqualify us from owning firearms. We don't even want to break laws. At the same time, we want the laws of this country to be just, recognizing basic rights.

      But yes, in jurisdictions that ban standard capacity magazines, possessing one can result in jail time and a fine. Unless you're David Gregory, of course.

    10. There's a simple solution, and I got it from you. You guys keep telling me that when a homeowner murders an intruder who was unarmed and obviously had not intentions of doing anything but steal the TV, that the homeowner was in the right and it's the intruders fault. If you don't want to get shot, don't break into someone's house.

      In the same way, when magazine limitations, and any other gun control laws come into effect, you have a choice to obey them or not. If you do the Kurt Hofmann method of disobeying, then it's completley on you. If you go to jail for it, you can only blame yourself.

      If you don't like the law, then you have to use the Democratic process to have it changed. I got that one from you too in our discussions on the 2A.

      One thing I noticed is you guys are not very consistent.

    11. Lemme help you with that Mikey. You see, the perp has no right to be in my house, stealing my TV. I have a right to my property, and a second amendment right to standard equipment.

      When you take a right away unconstitutionally, your law is invalid, and civil disobedience is allowable. There's two schools of thought on Civil disobedience. One is the Ghandi/MLK school that says you flout the law and take your lumps to show how unjust it is. The other is the American Revolution model where you flout the law and shoot at anyone who tries to stop you.

      Different folks will belong to different schools, and the results won't be pretty.

    12. In the same way, when magazine limitations, and any other gun control laws come into effect, you have a choice to obey them or not. If you do the Kurt Hofmann method of disobeying, then it's completley on you. If you go to jail for it, you can only blame yourself.

      No, you idiotic sack of subhumanity--if I go to prison for the utterly harmless and victimless "crime" of owning an eleven-round magazine, I'll blame the scum who imposed that evil on a once free society, and the voters who empowered said scum to do so.

      If you don't like the law, then you have to use the Democratic process to have it changed.

      It's not a that I "don't like" the evil of a magazine ban, it's that such bans are not only evil, but also unconstitutional, and therefore illegitimate, in addition to being just plain idiotic. But if you want "democratic process" (or even the oddly capitalized version you seem to prefer), don't worry--I don't plan to let such a law pass without placing my vote.

      I got that one from you too in our discussions on the 2A.

      Bullshit. When have I said that?

    13. But you'll have to repeal the Second Amdendment to make magazine limits constitutional. I've told you something else before: An unjust law is no law at all. It's just force.

      The difference in the two situations that you described is that a thief is causing harm to an innocent person. The owner of a magazine that will hold more than X rounds is harming no one just by owning that magazine. It is unjust for the law to ban anything that harms no innocent person.

    14. Kurt, you must feel the same way about the probihition on fully automatic weapons. I know it's not a total prohibition, depending on where you live, but the hoops you have to jump through must qualify for your arrogant disdain, no? Is that an evil that's been imposed on a once-free society, according to your high-drama definition?

      Greg, you're living in a dream world of fantasy interpretation of the 2A. What the fuck does the amendment have to say about magazine size? And don't tell me about the "shall not be infringed" bit, because the Conservative Supreme Court has already ruled on that. Reasonable restrictions are allowed.

    15. My "arrogant disdain"? If demanding non-interference with the exercise of my Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is "arrogant," I suppose that's a charge I'll just have to live with.

      As for the oppressive, draconian regulation of full-auto firearms, sure--it's sick, twisted and wrong. I guess I kinda let myself be conditioned to accept it, just by virtue of the simple fact that the abomination of the NFA had been in place for over three decades before I was born. For now, there are other battles more worth fighting.

      Besides, I am putting a Bumpski stock on my Vepr-12 shotgun, making it much like this Saiga. Not so much for the admittedly dubious tactical utility as for the enjoyment of that Feinstein hag's anguished bleating about bump fire stocks ;-).

      Might put some DefendAR-15 stocks on my AR-15s, too, for the same reason.

    16. Reasonable restrictions are allowed.

      I suppose the Easter Bunny is "allowed," too, but who the hell cares, since he doesn't exist--a quality he shares with your mythical "reasonable restrictions"?

    17. There's nothing reasonable about restricting magazine size. Here's a hint: If you think something is reasonable, it isn't. If you knew anything about guns, you'd know how easy it is to change out magazines or to carry more guns. You'd know how easy it is to use a more powerful gun. But why bother learning anything about the subject?

    18. Cho had one or two 15 round magazines at VT, but he only used the 10 rounders, and still managed that massacre. Had Loughner had the shorter, 10 round magazines, it might have been harder for people to grab hold of his reload and stop him. Loughner does not mean all you think he means.

    19. So? Mikeb, the Virigina Tech shooter used Brady-approved magazines. The Tucson shooter could have stood off a bit and swapped mags out. Or he could have rented a truck, painted it to look like a delivery vechicle, filled it with explosives or gasoline, and killed everyone present.

      The purpose of magazine limits is to create incremental gun control, aiming ultimately at banning all guns. I can see no other reason that explains the motivation for this.

    20. The reason for magazine limitations is exactly what they say it is. Perhaps your bias makes it impossible for you to believe that, either that or your lying in order to demonize your opponents.

  3. The reason for magazine limitations is exactly what they say it is.

    To give us the opportunity to experience the joy of defying injustice and evil? That's kinda nice of them.

    1. Who put you in charge of deciding what's injustice and evil? Isn't that for the courts to decide in a democratic republic?

    2. I, as an individual, put myself in charge of determining which laws deserve my obedience, and which I have a moral obligation to defy.

      That's not, by the way, an idea for which I can take credit.

      Henry David Thoreau:

      Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them.

      Or how about:

      Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.

      And Gandhi:

      An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.

      And Martin Luther King:

      An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.


      One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

      And a more current civil rights icon, David Codrea:

      When I grew tired of that I held up one of the “Assault Weapon Registration Applications” and said “Here’s one of your applications to register my militia rifle, with a space on it for my thumbprint. Here’s what I think of it.” I tore it up and tossed it to the floor.

      I could go on, but perhaps even you get the picture.

      I have a greater number of "high capacity" magazines than is worth going to the trouble of counting, and I'll be getting more, whether they remain legal or not (actually, a ban would push me to get an even greater additional number), because, "An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so."