Obama Administration Backing Away from an Assault Weapons Ban?

 

The New York Times went to print with this yesterday: “As a task force led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. readies recommendations on reducing gun violence for delivery to the president next week, White House officials say a new ban will be an element of whatever final package is proposed. But given the entrenched opposition from gun rights groups and their advocates on Capitol Hill, the White House is trying to avoid making its passage the sole definition of success and is emphasizing other new gun rules that could conceivably win bipartisan support and reduce gun deaths.” Today, the Obama Administration pushed back . . .

“The President has been clear that Congress should reinstate the assault weapons ban and that avoiding this issue just because it’s been politically difficult in the past is not an option,” Matt Lehrich, a White House spokesperson told TPM Friday in response to the Times piece.

While a failure by Obama to deliver a ban after his strong words following the Newtown shooting would likely be seen as a political loss in general, gun control advocates in particular say otherwise. The priority for them, they say, is universal background checks.

“The single biggest problem that the administration can solve is making sure every [firearms] buyer gets a background check,” Mark Glaze told TPM Friday. Glaze is the director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Michael Bloomberg’s gun control advocacy group. “Nearly 50% of buyers never get one, and that is the dominant problem in gun policy in this country.”

The Brady Campaign took a similar position on background checks in the Times story Friday, another sign that the gun control crowd is ready to back Obama up if his push for an assault weapons ban sputters out in the face of congressional gridlock. “It’s very important to point out that background checks could have an even bigger impact,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign, told the paper.

Has the [Internet] Age of Miracles not passed? While not proclaiming victory, the NRA is bullish on putting the kibosh on an AWB. abc.go.news.com:

David Keene, president of the NRA, speaking on NBC Friday morning, said he doesn’t believe there will be an assault weapons ban. Congress won’t support it, he argued, and from his view it did nothing to stop violence when it was passed in 1994.

“I do not think there is going to be a ban on so-called assault weapons passed by Congress,” he said.

While this an extremely hopeful sign in a time of troubles, preparing for defeat is not the same as abandoning the field. At the very least, Obama’s Boyz are going to run civilian disarmament up the proverbial flagpole and see who salutes it. And Senator Feinstein will not be denied, even if she is.

Besides, there are very members of the gun rights community who trust a word any politician says about their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. For good reason. And, lest we forget, the battle is joined in Connecticut, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and more.

This is far from over, folks.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

102 Responses to Obama Administration Backing Away from an Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    Hmm, is it just me or does there seem to be some double speak and some open ended statements made??

  2. avatarBlinkyPete says:

    I’d be a lot more open to compromises if I wasn’t absolutely positive that the opposition is only interested in incremental disarmament. If they were so concerned about the private buyer issue they wouldn’t have created it by putting ‘kitchen table’ FFL’s out of business in the early 90′s.

    • avatarPyrotek85 says:

      That’s just it, it never ends with a compromise on both sides and then the issue is settled, they keep coming back for more.

      • I think any compromise on our part should include rolling back infringements on gun-rights. Here are some ideas I’ve come up with (and compiled from other people):

        * Ensure proper reporting of all Involuntary Commitment of Persons During a Mental Health Crisis (so called 302′ed) and prohibit purchase of firearms for 1 year, with some way to appeal the decision in a reasonable and timely manner to avoid abuse of the system.
        * Ensure proper reporting of other types of prohibitors to the NCIS system, basically “filling the cracks” in the existing system.
        * Funding for straw purchase awareness program, to make people aware that it is illegal and carries a stiff penalty
        * Require all sales of firearms have a background check (so called “gun show loophole”).
        * Stricter criteria for the background checks on handguns.
        * Restrictions in the number of handguns that can be purchased in a give time frame (to prevent straw purchases).
        * Mandatory waiting periods to pick up handguns (also to prevent straw purchases).

        Those are completely dependent on the following also being enacted:

        * Tax breaks for attending a firearm safety class.
        * Tax breaks for owning a firearm safe.
        * Repeal the Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection act
        * Remove suppressors from the category of Title II weapons
        * Reduce the manufacturer and transfer tax to $5 (in line with AOW transfer cost) for short barreled rifles, shotguns and AOWs.
        * Abolishment of federally created gun-free zones that are not secured with the likes of metal detectors and armed guards at all entryways.
        * National CCW or national CCW reciprocity.

        • avatarswhit says:

          Great suggestions. I support this 100%.

        • avatarswhit says:

          I wish the NRA were smart enough to propose something like this. This debate would end quickly in a very benefical compromise.

        • send the suggestion to your representatives, the nra, your local news etc.

        • avatarstormchaser says:

          This is a compromise I could actually consider. Personally I’m not sure that as long as we keep the prohibition on record keeping there is any reason we should be against background checks for all sales. Yes, it is a PITA, but I have never purchased a gun without one.

          I would like to see any ban defeated and for us to keep the momentum up and push forward on national reciprocity, open carry, campus carry etc.
          Our dedicated organizations (Alan Gura, et al) have been making considerable inroads over the last decade. Just remember what a long road it has been with CCW over the last many years, and now IL is going to have to have CCW, that is all 50 states.
          The pendulum has been swinging our way for many years, and I hope that we can continue. If we do suffer this setback, I believe that it can be overturned ultimately I just hope we don’t have to wait 40 years for the right judges to be seated on SCOTUS.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      EACH AND EVERY COMPROMISE occurs on one side only. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, dammit! In fact, it’s WAY MORE than enough.

      Won’t get fooled again. But doubtless many well-meaning people will be. Anyway, I’ve had it up to HERE with “well-meaning” dupes and stupid jackanapes.

  3. avatarCapt. Howdy says:

    Here in the Socialist Republic of Illinois, we have the firearm owners identification card, or FOID. To get a FOID you have to go through a background check. When you purchase a gun, you have to go through another background check. And to buy ammunition, you have to present your FOID. If I buy ammo online, I have to fax my FOID and drivers license to the company I am buying from. So we go through background checks more than once.

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      What, no hitler salute for purchases? ther’re slipping, Randy

    • avatarmatt says:

      Consider yourself lucky you dont live in Cook County which bans online ammo sales. MidwayUSA wont ship brass or unloaded bullets to my Chicago address.

    • avatarThomasR says:

      Yeah, and you have a total gun ban in Chicago; one of the murder capitals in the world commited by gun.

      So does the fact that all these checks and licenses and permits stop absolutely no bad guy from getting and using “illegal guns and ammo” have one ounce of effect when it comes to anti-gun people and politicians proposing more laws that infringe our god given rights?

      Absolutely not, that would need people to act on logic and fact instead like a bunch of mindless animals running around in a blind panic reacting out of irrational fears.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      What you meant is, “you have to go through the SAME background check.” Just in case you wake up one morning and you’re somebody else.

  4. avatarPete says:

    In a perfect world, background checks for all non-family transfers makes sense. But, once every transaction goes through NICS, the temptation to start recording them would be irresistible to the gun-banners. Registration would be next on their agendas the day after passage.

    • avatarPhydeaux says:

      Plus, as Capt. Howdy describes, the pervasive background checks in IL don’t appear to be effective in any way in reducing gun violence.

      Given the absence of data showing background checks having some degree of effectiveness, this seems to be just a prelude to gun registration.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        Well, gun violence is down, like 49%. Some people may doubt the reason, but there’s really only one answer: MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME.

    • avatarBen says:

      It seems unenforceable without registration/tracking of some kind. I don’t know exactly how the NICS system works, but it seems like if they don’t record the data, there would be no way prosecutors could ever prove and convict someone of failing to do a background check on a private transaction. This makes me wonder if once this requirement becomes law, if tracking the transactions will get slipped under the guise of helping law enforcement.

      • avatarPete says:

        I imagine the seller could get a confirmation number over the phone or as a printout on a terminal. It’s the seller who would want to be covered if the buyer turns out to be prohibited.

  5. avatarMike S says:

    I’m seeing it too. Certain elements in the press are starting to get all mopey about an AWB’s prospects.

  6. The fact that Biden has been out threatening a ban by Executive Order, shows something that anyone who has been watching political processes could identify – the White House is not confident of getting enough Democrats on board as far as legislating a ban on guns is concerned. Post Sandy Hook, has anyone asked Chuck Schumer what he would prefer? The fact that that man has kept his piehole shut so far, shows that there is little enthusiasm within the formerly anti gun crowd in the Democrat Party itself for a ban. Feinstein has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. If she doesn’t drop dead through this current term, she is still not going to be able to fight another election. An unburied political carcass, she can afford to indulge in ideological fantasies, because she is not going to be around to be blamed if the Democrats come up against the kind of public anger that Al Gore faced when he ran for President.

    The tragedy in all of this is that few Republicans have been able to recognize Obama and Biden’s bluff. Dictatorial politicians brag hardest when they are at their weakest. It has worked perfectly for the White House to use guns, which are inanimate objects, and the thoroughly incompetent NRA leadership as a scapegoat to divert attention away from its own failures in running the country. A pliant and sycophantic media has happily parroted this propaganda, and the Republicans, the supposedly “pro gun” party, have been unintelligent enough to fall for the Democrats’ bluff. Whatever happens, it is likely that the huge number of law abiding pro gun Americans will get screwed – until the next elections, that is.

  7. avatarBlake says:

    If this administration thinks they can get away with banning guns via full frontal assault, they will do it without hesitation.

    However, if the current administration thinks an outright gun ban won’t work, they’ll appoint people who will find ways to put in place policies that effectively ban guns without coming right out and saying “guns are banned.”

  8. avatarBlake says:

    By the way, notice Biden came out with what should have been immediately labeled “an extreme” position, a gun ban via Executive Order.

    No one called out the White House for that remark, leading the White House to believe they can appear reasonable by compromising with Biden’s extreme statement.

    Congratulations, everyone, the Overton Window was moved way over toward gun control and any compromise with Biden’s statement radically compromises the Second Amendment.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      Well observed, sir. I think the window has slid to just short of national confiscation, so anything short of that is within reach.

      Only a long and consistent education of the public regarding the Truths about firearms with move the window back the other way.

      • avatarQWL says:

        With the rebranding of gun control organizations to gun “safety” organizations they will conviently be there for the general public to turn to for this education.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Massive bonus points for the Overton Window reference. I was starting to wonder if I was the only one who understood political dynamics around here.

      While there wasn’t a front-page reaction to the administration’s EO saber-rattling, the political analyst coverage I read that day consistently included mentions of raised eyebrows and skepticism towards the EO approach.

      • avatarSilver says:

        Elitist much? Your inner leftist is showing.

        One need not be familiar with terms for certain dynamics to fully understand them.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Don’t read too much into my statement. Didn’t mean to imply that people who didn’t use the term Overton Window didn’t understand the concept.

      • avatarBlake says:

        Alpha, this is why I questioned whether it was wise for the NRA to attend the gun control conference.

        As soon as Biden made the gun ban EO statement, the NRA should have refused to attend the conference until such time as the White House repudiated Biden’s statement.

        • avatarJustAJ says:

          No, it would have taken the WH too long to figure out what they were asking for.

        • avatarrosignol says:

          It is always a good idea to be polite.

          It doesn’t cost anything to call a press conference afterwards and say “The Vice-President had several ideas, none of which we felt would be effective in preventing another tragedy like Newtown. The NRA still believes that stationing a police officer on the school grounds would be more effective than legislative action that would infringe the 2nd Amendment rights of millions of law-abiding citizens who have never killed anyone”.

          …and then they send out the fundraising letters detailing exactly what Biden was proposing.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          The meetings were scheduled, and they were going to happen whether the NRA played ball or not. Once the administration has set the table, either you represent your interests or let them be represented for you by your opposition.

          I agree in principle, BTW, and their FOAD press release could certainly have included a statement about EOs calling their bluff.

  9. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    Until I see otherwise, I will consider them to want it all.

  10. avatarMerits says:

    Remember when Obamacare was dead, defeated, over, and the pivot was to jobs and the economy? Then 10 days later suddenly it was back and the only thing that mattered was passing it because it was *so* imperative to save our failing economy? This isn’t ever going to be ‘over’, but we need to kill it dead several times just to be able to exhale, because disarmament is part of Obama and the lefts’ ideology, and he has shown when he sees an opportunity, no matter how small or the damage it will do to reputation, economy, or political capital, ‘his will be done’ by hook or by crook.

    • avatarGreg Camp says:

      Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate when the healthcare reform act passed. A Republican House can put the brakes on new gun control.

  11. avatarJoe Sixpack says:

    At a Federal level, it’s highly unlikely anything will happen other then something minor, like closing the mythical gun show loophole. With the upcoming debt ceiling circus, they’ll look to throw a bunch of crap against the wall ASAP and see what sticks. Once the debt circus gets fully underway, this all fades away and AR prices crash, ammo becomes available again as do high cap mags. The economy is the #1 issue and will be for years to come as we slog through the Next Great Depression.

    The action will be at the local level where it’s easier to push through asinine laws especially in places where the D’s enjoy a super or absolute majority.

  12. avatarHowie Rosen says:

    Michael Bloomberg’s gun control advocacy group. “Nearly 50% of buyers never get one, and that is the dominant problem in gun policy in this country.”
    I guess NICS is only for half of us then?

  13. avatarChuckN says:

    Expanding background checks could also act as a ban.
    For starters, if background checks are required for all
    firearm transfers, it’d be hard to effectively resist.
    We’d have to argue (or appear to be) against criminal
    checks. There would be no way to come out smelling
    like a rose.

    Also consider the current state of the NCIS system.
    Would it actually be expanded and streamlined to
    handle the added load? If the answer is no, then
    a buyer could end up waiting weeks if not months
    for the paperwork. Every purchase, could be as bad
    as buying a Class 3 firearm/device now.

    • avatarTim says:

      Why isn’t the NICS available to everyone now????

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Privacy and scalability.

        Privacy: there’s a presumption that FFLs are accountable for their NICS transactions, and they present an ID as part of all requests that would enable any abuses to be identified as coming from a specific FFL. This creates a reasonably effective setup whereby the users (FFLs) have significant disincentives to abuse (loss of FFL, loss of access to NICS) that prevent them from running background checks on random folks unrelated to firearms sales.

        It’s not immediately clear to me (and I do some work in privacy issues and related process design) how you would open up the existing system to everyone without adding some additional protections. The simplest, and frankly by far the most likely, is to force all transactions requiring a NICS check to involve an FFL.

        Scalability: it’s going to be interesting to see how NICS scales up to include all transactions without becoming a de facto impediment to transfers. If Congress isn’t asleep at the wheel on this, they’ll include requirements for NICS response times.

        • avatarLemming says:

          Scalability: I gotta think the FBI is sobbing in the corner over Cuomo’s plan to have NY ammo purchases go through NICS.

          Privacy: The solution (which this or any othe recent president would balk at) is to creat a “kitchen table FFL.” The sort of folks who existed before Clinton cleaned them out.

          It’s a 21st Century/NICS check world. Politics aside there’s no reason there shouldn’t be a “small business” style FFL available.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          100% agree — but the funny thing is that the FFL I’m using to transfer my AR lowers is basically a “kitchen-table FFL”. I’m pretty sure that FFL transfers are his bread and butter, dwarfing his curios-and-relics business.

          They do exist, and I would hope that they make a comeback if we do end up with Federal legislation mandating 100% FFL transfers like here in CA. I’m certain we’re going to get jacked on transfer fees if there isn’t competition.

  14. avatarjwm says:

    The anti’s are always talking compromise. Let’s give them the chance to prove it. Offer them the background check on all gun purchases in exchange for constitutional carry at all times and in all places. after all, if you can pass an NICS check you should be able to carry your purchase.

    See how fast they give up background checks for all sales. Mag limits in exchange for constitutional carry. After all, they’re reasonable people that wish to compromise, right?

    • avatarPhydeaux says:

      +1 Why don’t we ever see gun rights advocates pushing back like this, asking for more in return for considering proposals from gun controllers?

      • avatarJosef says:

        I’m convinced that the NRA isn’t doing enough to defend our rights. Looking at who’s on the board of the NRA, I think something far more nefarious is going on here.

      • avatarGreg Camp says:

        I ask gun control freaks this question all the time. They weasel about and refuse to say what they’d offer in return. The most I can get is that we’ll live in a safer country. Yeah, right.

      • avatarDavid says:

        Because the NRA isn’t a gun rights advocate for you. They are for making money for themselves and are too timid to get real reforms toward Constitutional Carry.

  15. avatar36IDRedleg says:

    How does a universal background check become anything other than federal registration? The only enforceable method for this check is that paper has to accompany every firearm (just like the title on a car or the NFA paperwork on Class III weapons). If you have no paper, then you become a criminal. It is a backdoor method to go around FOPA.

    Replies welcome.

    • avatarfull.tang.halo says:

      There is no such thing as a class 3 weapon, class 3 is a tax bracket. Stick to NFA or Title 2. A SOT 2 & 3 can deal in NFA items, hell, even a regular FFL can deal in them without a SOT if they wanna do all their business on Form 4′s.

  16. avatarNeil says:

    Some guy for a response posted that “only cowards carry guns”. So I guess that includes our armed forces and police? Only cowards rely on others to defend them, their family, and their rights.

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      Send that mamby pamby to Gunny for a week & he’ll be carrying a 50 bmg, lol. Probably can’t fit a gun in his man purse, Randy

      • avatarSteve says:

        Actually, a Murse (man-purse) is perfect for packing a Larger-than-average-CCW.

        Have murse, will travel, strapped!

        A Size Large Classic messenger is just right at 22.5in wide…
        http://www.timbuk2.com/tb2/products/classic-messenger/2238631

        …To fit a Romanian Draco pistol, which is 21.5in long.
        http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_4_98/125758_.html

        Fun factoid: In Maine, it is illegal to hunt with an AK pattern rifle (or any other semi-auto) if it is equipped with a magazine larger than 5rds, but it is perfectly legal to slap a 100rd drum mag into a draco pistol and hunt with that….because its a “pistol”.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          True story: my oldest offspring and I both carried our Maxpedition-clone bags into Disneyland over the holidays. Three day pass, perhaps 5 entries through bag check “security” screening.

          Number of times either one of us was asked to zip open the hidden-in-plain-sight holster compartment: ZERO.

  17. avatarPencotron says:

    I just love the 40-50% figure that is tossed around. I guess no one can dispute it because there are no factual figures to prove it otherwise?

  18. avatarLanceCriminal says:

    So, if EVERY gun transfer has to go through NICS/FFL, and it has been seen that the background checks and records aren’t destroyed, is this not a de-facto “gun registry”? I mean, they actually run the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. If the background check ONLY included your personal information, I’d for the most part be okay with it. That would only check your eligibility. But linking you to the firearm seems to breach that line of “gun registry”. Especially if that means they demand people present proof that they bought the gun with a background check. I’ve never been given a copy of the form I filled out at the gun store for my own records, just a sales receipt. If you can’t individually prove you bought it with a BG check from an FFL, it seems you’d be presumed to have bought it illegally. I don’t like “universal background checks” one bit.

    • avatarJeff the Griz says:

      Every Time I have bought a firearm from a FFL they give the FFL number, my info. and “Long gun” and how many said guns, currently only the FFL knows what type/cal. firearm you purchased.

    • avatarKat says:

      Maybe a Texas thing but every gun I bought they did not enter any information about the gun.
      In fact 4 were bought on-line shipped to FFL and didn’t even open the package until after NICS was done. If it becomes any other way, won’t be adding to my current arsenal.

  19. avatarCasey T says:

    Here is a compromise I’m willing to accept. Universal background checks are required and the NFA is repealed and no magazine capacity restrictions ever. So we all get to own a fully automatic if we desire but only have to go through a background check to get one, no tax stamp or stupid ATF bs.

    • avatarPhydeaux says:

      Yes, and no tying the background check to the purchase of a specific firearm.

    • avatarJon says:

      I’d be even more “reasonable”. Keep the NFA for fully automatic weapons, but open up the registry. Remove suppressors from the NFA. Then we accept universal background checks.

  20. avatarNate says:

    I could be off base, but without hard evidence or supporting their facts, 50% of sales not having a background check, unless they are assuming criminals in there as well. I know there are some private face to face sales at guns shows and on forums, but I find it hard to believe that 50% of all sales havent had a NICS or similar background check run on them.

    • avatarTim says:

      From my own experience, at least 90% of my own transactions are through an FFL and involved a background check.

      It would be an interesting poll…… RF, are you listening?

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        100% of my purchased firearms have been through an FFL… but I have some that came through intrafamily transfers, no FFL.

        RF, I second the idea of running a poll (today!) to see where the TTAG AI fall on the “percentage of firearms owned transferred through an FFL” spectrum.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Yeah, I’d be interested to see…

          Something like “Of the firearms currently in your possession, what percentage were transferred (purchased, loaned, traded, given) through an FFL with a NICS check?”

          Then it could just have 10, 20, 30%, etc. For me it’s 100%.

  21. avatarPulatso says:

    Civilian disarmament is like a hockey mask killer in an 80′s movie…you’re gonna have to kill it twice, wait for the jump scare, then kill it again…with the understanding that it will be back again in a sequel.

  22. avatarWill says:

    Seemingly good news for now. Maybe. Although, I’m not holding my breath or letting my guard down. That may be why they said this. We should keep calling and emailing until there’s no gun control on the books, in any state. Then if we get our way and have them “on the ropes” lets push to get the NFA overturned. I’ll relax when my FFL let’s me know my M249 has arrived. :)

  23. avatarsurlycmd says:

    I do a background check on every one of my guns that I sell or trade. I personally know the person or I require a driver’s license with a CHP or voter card. Good enough for me.

  24. avatarMike S says:

    I, too have been wondering where they are getting the 40% figure from. Anyone got a clue as to their “methodolgy”? With history as my guide, I’m guessing it’s quite an embellishment.

    • avatarTim says:

      I believe it came from the “study” that Bloomberg performed.

      • avatarMike S says:

        Thanks- gonna see if I can hunt it down. This has been driving me nuts as I haven’t seen it challenged (like most of what the disarmament crowd has been yelling about)

  25. avatarMark says:

    Here’s a “compromise”: support and defend The Constitution as your oath of office requires and you don’t get tried for treason.

    • avatarSilver says:

      +1

      Was scrolling down to post the same thing.

      Why do people not realize that the 2A IS a compromise, and the only compromise that’s needed? The government is allowed to exist, the people are allowed to own the means to oust them. Plain and simple.

  26. avatark4R-15 says:

    The Obamacare example is a great reminder that now is the time to make our voices heard in Washington. Don’t fall into the trap of complacency!

    Write or email your elected officials. Leave voice messages for them. Take the time to rally at your state Capitol on Saturday Jan 19th.

    These are small sacrifices to make but a far easier path to quashing this attack on our civil liberties than any option if we remain silent and legislation is passed. Remember that the anti-2a crowd has already stated their intention to ‘break the back of the gun lobby’ by overwhelming it with legislation. That’s what we are up against….

  27. avatarDyspeptic says:

    If you want to know what the real agenda is for the gun control crowd just look at Crazyfornia. Every year we get more and more draconian and indecipherable gun laws passed. There is apparently never enough gun restriction to please these people. Even if gun ownership was completely prohibited they wouldn’t be satisfied. They would just turn their attention to knives, sticks, crossbows etc. Everything they do should be resisted and fought back persistently, vigorously and with prejudice.

    We need to stay on offense. Why can’t we as gun rights proponents organize a massive, peaceful march on the District of Criminals. How come the NRA can’t manage that? Instead they just tell us to write our representatives. We need better leadership than that and we need it now.

  28. avatarRob Eide says:

    I say NO COMPROMISE with the gun grabbing anti’s at all. Why would any pro 2A citizen want to, knowing that whatever you give in to they will just want more and more.

  29. avatarPatriot says:

    Mayor napolean-complex-berg says that 50% of all firearms are purchased without background checks! OMFG! It was 40% yesterday, now it is up to 50%?! Outrageous!

  30. avatarRydak says:

    Just my two cents. I have no problem with mandatory background checks. But there should be no compromise on 1.) Registration, 2.) So called Assault Weapons ban, 3.) Mag capacity 4.) Repeal of gun free zones

    • avatarRalph says:

      That’s not the way gungrabbers work. You give them an inch, they take a foot.

      • avatarRydak says:

        Agreed, I am basically saying no compromise. Except for the background check, it never was a problem, but now with all the attention, more shitheads know about it and gunshows are going to end up attracting, thanks to the media and lefties, criminals to buy their guns without backgrounds. I know its not something that every gun owner agrees on. I just think that there should be a background, even passing it down to your kids, as we saw in CT, that woman’s kid was a nut. If she had passed away, he would have legally received all the guns without a background. I say either all background checks or no background checks, one way or the other.

        • avatarRalph says:

          I understood your point and never implied that you were wrong. I did say that there can’t be any compromises.

  31. avatarSteve says:

    I would be fine with universal BG Checks with a few conditions.
    1. The information would be limited to Name and identifying info of buyer. Seller’s info not provided.
    2. Law written such that the records are destroyed after a suitable time frame.
    3. The NCIS system upgraded to utilize things like smart phones. This way the seller can call NCIS, report buyer’s info, hang up and get a YES or NO text back. Done. Performance guarantees for the NICS system and funding tied to maintaining that performance.

  32. avatarSilver says:

    No compromise. Ever.

    Anyone who thinks you compromise with an anti is delusional. Can any of you honestly believe they won’t keep coming back for more, illegally if they have to? That’s how the tyrant mind works. They’re insane, inwardly violent, irrational, and above all, dishonorable and lacking in morals. How can you compromise with that?

  33. avatarLance says:

    While its possible Obama will look for other fish to fry he may find way still to register all semiautos (pistols too) and get ready for a defacto ban after another shooting. I do say say thanks for the GOP and some progun Dems like whats her name from ND. But like after our first win in Illinois do not let up keep the pressure in congress to kill the ban!!

  34. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    I’m an advocate of background checks for everyone who wants to buy a bible, koran, or torah. Also, we should require a license to attend religious services involving more than one person.

    What? Folks won’t compromise their right to practice their religion? Interesting. Neither will I compromise my right to property, especially the property expressly protected by the Constitution.

  35. avatarGS650G says:

    The real concern are databases and registration policies. That sets the stage for future actions when they once again control all three branches of government. They already control the 4th, the media.

  36. avatarJWhite says:

    “Nearly 50% of buyers never get one, and that is the dominant problem in gun policy in this country.”

    What about those of us who have a bunch of guns? I think if this is the case they should eliminate the waiting period.

  37. avatarTotenglocke says:

    I love how stating facts from multiple government reports that the AWB had no effect is “his view”. It’s despicable how corrupt our “journalists” are.

  38. avatarJay Dunn says:

    More states should be like Kentucky–once you have your CCDW card no more background checks ever. What’s the point of doing them once you’re (not your) cleared by the FBI, the state police, and the county sheriff’s office?

  39. avatarIn Memphis says:

    How abiut a new regular thread topic? Idot Politician of The Day:

    Biden Eddition,
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/biden-no-silver-bullet-against-gun-violence-212503247–politics.html

  40. avatarJason says:

    Make them prove 50%. They have now way of proving any number of people that do not get checks. I say they are wrong and the real figure is that 0.05% do not get background checks. You cannot prove I am wrong unless you know exactly who bought what and when.

  41. avatarJason says:

    I think we should register to use the right to speak, see how long the media takes to speak up on that one. Obama thought he was hot stuff by passing Obama care, by the skin of his teeth. The next election his demos in congress were shown that the people do actually listen. The votes came and the control changed. That grand moron Biden is getting one thing kind of right, bringing the VIDEO GAME community into this. Heaven forbid it be something other than a gun issue. Sit your child in front of a giant screen with a controller and a bazooka and wonder what went wrong? Although nothing will come of this, a bigger label on the box and agreeing that it’s the guns fault, its something I’ve seen little brought forward by the pro gun community. Music would also be an issue.

  42. avatarBrian says:

    I’m not in anyway suggesting we are free and clear now but, we can see the 2nd amendment doing exactly what the founder designed it to do. When a leader is considering crossing a line that limits his or her authority, the people arm themselves and the “would be” tyrant backs down. Our founders were so intelligent and our system WILL WORK IF we force the leaders to follow it. LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC!

  43. avatarChas says:

    Prohibition to alcohol just made things worse.

    Anything this guy tries with weapon bans will meet with same results. Folks will find ways around it, and it’ll only strengthen criminals.

  44. avatarBud Downen says:

    The Marxist Obama Regime needs to get country back and quit worrying about banning guns an OBEY the Constitution that they swore to uphold and they continue to violate with no concern to what we the people want! Wake up America it is time for a Revolution because the Wash DC Idiots do not LISTEN!!

  45. avatardon holmes says:

    Also , can any one show us where the constitution gives the congress the power to regulate arms or the states, It says shall not infringe arms, and the way I read it ,the 10th ammendment leaves it to the power of the people. I am going to live by my interpretation of the 2nd and 10th.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.