A conservative senator is proposing to greatly broaden the background check system for firearms purchasers but require no records of the transactions as the Senate braced for votes on amendments to gun control legislation next week.
The plan by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., was one of several proposals Republicans were discussing in preparation for debate. In response to December's elementary school attack in Newtown, Conn., which killed 20 children and six adults, the Senate is considering a Democratic bill backed by President Barack Obama that would expand background checks, strengthen laws against illegal gun trafficking and slightly increase school security aid.The possible GOP amendments, described by aides and lobbyists, include one requiring states to recognize permits for carrying concealed weapons issued by other states. Many gun control advocates oppose the idea vehemently because some states' standards for issuing the permits are considered weak, and such a provision, if approved, might cause some to rethink support for the overall bill.
I suppose this is an example of compromise that some people are always talking about. I oppose it outright. In a discussion of which is the right thing to do, each item should be taken separately.
What's our opinion? Please leave a comment.
Impose a Federal Standard to qualify for reciprocity.
ReplyDeleteBut you are better off with a rape whistle or a cellphone so you can alert a REAL professional like me when you are cornered by a horde of AK47 wielding thugs intent on stealing both your money and your ass virginity, in the bathroom of your quaint neighborhood shopping mall.
Those who are highly trained to respond to such situations, would rather you civvies remain unarmed so you won't hurt yourself when you get into a situation and we respond.
I oppose it outright.
ReplyDeleteDamnit, herbivore, you leave me with a conundrum. No legislation is acceptable, obviously, that does anything to make anonymous acquisition of the life and liberty preservation tools known as firearms any slower or more difficult.
On the other hand, anything opposed by intellectually and morally bankrupt filth like you (with all due respect) is worth killing or dying for, by the general rule of thumb.
When idiotic evil fights idiotic evil, how do honorable, thinking individuals pick a side?
Hell with it. Kick each others' asses.
Your side always yammers about compromise, but when offered a compromise, you refuse. You sound like Yassir Arafat.
ReplyDeleteNo, Greg, it's your side and you in particulat that yammers about compromise. I've told you many times in a serious attempt to do what's best, compromise has no place.
DeleteI agree. That's why we will never permit your crazy ideas to become law.
DeleteMike, you're a staunch believer in background checks saving lives- we know this. So when offered with reciprocity, you would put your foot down and let people die while you wait for the next mass shooting and hope that it gives you more leverage to get it passed without compromise? And you would do this to not throw a bone to CCW holders who travel out of state? Remember these people are already allowed to carry guns in their home state- so you're only getting occasional disarmament.
ReplyDeleteIf you really believe this stuff saves lives, I would think you'd take what you can when you can to get those life saving bills in play as fast as you can. You probably think reciprocity would cost lives, but even using your worst assumptions of permit holders (instead of the real data), we're only talking about when they travel, and only when they travel to a state that doesn't currently recognize their permit. How many lives could that really cost (even using your worst "Yosemite Sam" impression of gun owners)? This is apparently more than the positive value of more background checks in terms of saving lives in your mind.
People who are allowed to carry concealed in Arizona and Montana could never qualify in New York or New Jersey. Reciprocity is wrong.
DeleteWhat's funny is you federal government haters all of a sudden like this kind of national rule. What happened to states' rights?
Mikeb, stop being deliberately idiotic. States' rights refer to things not covered by the Constitution or specifically given to the states. Gun rights are a Federally protected individual right.
DeleteBut note that you've made one true statement. New York only gives licenses to wealthy and politically connected people, while New Jersey doesn't issue licenses for the most part. But hey, it was o.k. for Mississippi not to let blacks vote, and those meddlesome people who came south to change things were wrong--is that what you mean?
You think reciprocity is wrong, ok. Is it so wrong that you'll let people die because you are still waiting for your private sales ban to pass without it, just so some rancher from Arizona can't carry all those times he stops by the Big Apple to catch the latest musical. That tells me that you really don't value background checks as a life saver as much as we're led to believe. If it were about lives, it would not be worth the wait. If it's about politics and government control over the gun culture, you can afford to be more patient.
DeleteRegarding "state's rights", you don't hear me on about that. I care about People's Rights.
DeleteBackground checks, insurance, registration, training, and more are acceptable provisions when dealing with a deadly weapon.
ReplyDeleteFinally, an anonymous commenter that I like.
DeleteAnonymous, if that's what you want for yourself, feel free. The rest of us will go on exercising our rights.
Delete