Skip to main content

Four U.S. senators trying to hammer out a bipartisan proposal for expanding FBI background checks to most gun purchases are “95 percent of the way there,” according to an unnamed source cited by Greg Sargent at the Washington Post:
This isn’t to say that the last five percent can’t scuttle the emerging compromise. As one source put it, that remains the “hardest part.” But there is reason for optimism that the four Senators—Republicans Tom Coburn and Mark Kirk, and Democrats Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin—may be able to bridge remaining differences.
Expanding background checks to private gun sales is the new firearms restriction that gets the widest support from Americans, more than 90 percent according to numerous polls. Backers include a majority of gun owners and a majority of members of the National Rifle Association, though not the leadership of that gun industry mouthpiece. Currently, only federally licensed dealers are required to run background checks on potential buyers. What percentage of guns is sold privately is a matter of dispute.

The deal's parameters so far, according to several of Sargent's sources:

• agreement on the concept of expanding the background check to cover most private sales

• agreement on the concept of improving state mental illness data-sharing with the federal government

• discussions still under way about background-check exemptions that would include sales or other transfers

• discussions ongoing on altering how background checks are performed for private sales in certain rural areas

• discussions about exempting Americans who have undergone background checks to obtain “conceal and carry” permits

A Government Accountability Office report last July calculated the number of concealed carry permits issued nationwide at about eight million although their distribution is uneven. Florida alone has more than a million.

Opposition to creating any kind of gun registry remains strong. Under current law (Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3)), the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day. That means, on allowed transactions—which comprise 97-98 percent of all background checks—NICS records are destroyed within 24 hours. Destruction used to be required within 90 days. Sargent notes that despite current law, the four senators are trying to come up with additional safeguards against a registry, something that most gun-rights advocates vehemently oppose. They see it as opening the door to later government confiscation of some—or all—guns.

In the view of some critics, for background checks to really be effective, a registry is needed so that gun trafficking can be curtailed and guns more easily traced. Some gun-rights advocates say background checks can never be effective without a registry. They therefore oppose passing an expansion of background checks which they say will do no good. Ain't that the perfect Catch-22?

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 10:56 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sigh.... n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mapamp, RUKind, leonard145b, mythatsme
    •  Bet it gets filibustered /nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mythatsme

      "Let there be song to fill the air." R. Hunter

      by RUKind on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:11:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Keep up the pressure... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mythatsme, lyvwyr101, tytalus

        Sign my petition for a national gun registry.

        The "powers that be" will say that this is a simple-minded solution to a complicated problem.

        They'll say we should leave this issue to the experts to solve.

        How's that working out for our nation so far?

        A national gun registry is one common sense step we citizens can demand from our federal government.

        The "powers that be" in Washington need to hear from us that "business as usual" on the subject of gun safety is no longer sufficient.

        I ask you to sign my petition to create a national gun registry.

        •  I will sign. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus

          Just waiting for my new log-in info.

           I think a national gun-registrey is a great idea.

          And----yes----we do need to keep up the pressure.

          The gun-advocates told us---and repeated it---again----and again----and again---that we could say anything we wanted---and it wouldn't matter.

          Hoping for a defeatist mentality---would be my guess.

          They were betting on us rolling over---and they were betting on themselves bulldozing over--all of us.

          Not so fast--there---my friend.

          Not so fast.

          Boy---- the gun-control activists got gun-control legislation on the fabled table real fast---didn't they?

          Gun control legislation is being contemplated---even as we speak.

          And more to come.

          A lot more.

          People came out swinging.

          We moved a mountain---literally.

          We need to keep going.

          Don't give up---don't let up.

          We're gonna turn this mountain into a molehill.

          Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

          by lyvwyr101 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 08:19:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, but no. (0+ / 0-)

          One is either eligible to purchase a gun, or not.  Reigstration will do nothing to change that.

          The government has no need to know what firearms I own.

  •  Are there any dkos groups of gun owners (6+ / 0-)

    besides RKBA?  I'd have to guess that since the majority of nra members are in favor of some reform and regulation of guns, that that must hold true here too amongst gun owners.  It would be nice to see some diaries from such a group. Of course maybe there have been and I've just missed them -- if so, my apologies.

    Self-described political "centrists" believe the best policy is halfway between right and wrong. — @RBReich via web

    by BentLiberal on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:04:56 AM PST

    •  No group. But there are many gun-owners... (16+ / 0-)

      ...here (I am one) who are neither part of RKBA or the NRA.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:07:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have an opinion of the registry... (5+ / 0-)

        ... that you can share?

        I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

        by Hey338Too on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:53:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I personally have no problem with registering... (16+ / 0-)

          ...my guns.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:16:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  mine either. (13+ / 0-)

            i've never fully understood the opposition to a registry.

            I find it stunning that we have to be happy just to have gotten the opposition to agree to the "concept" of background checks. That sounds like "no details, just the broad idea that maybe checks would be good?"

            And then, of course, even the side that should want this are happy to let the perfect destroy the good. If this expansion fails, I'm sure all the people shot by untraceable illegal weapons will be thrilled we held out for stronger measures.

            Thank you for keeping us updated on where legislation is on this, MB. Good job as usual.

            If only Michael Phelps hadn't smoked that pot...imagine what he could have accomplished with motivation and good lung capacity.

            by papa monzano on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:52:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I understand why one might oppose a registry (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pengiep

              I find it similar to those who think that something such as a time/place/manner restriction on protests is a violation of first amendment rights.  I disagree, but I understand why.

            •  Perhaps one thing that needs to be considered is (0+ / 0-)

              Who it is that is opposing the registry?  

              I seriously doubt that the criminal and gang element is voicing any opinion in the matter as I doubt that they are anywhere near to being in tune with society to even care.

              No, it is the law abiding citizen who is in opposition.  Theoretically, such a citizen has no grounds to fear registration, yet a very many of them do.  Given the numbers of people who are opposed is it not logical to believe that there is some validity to their concerns?

              •  So, you're saying that the gang and crime lobby (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hey338Too, LilithGardener

                is silent? Typical of them!

                A lot of Republican individuals support

                “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

                by jeff in nyc on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:30:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  The number of people? (7+ / 0-)

                There are large numbers of people who sincerely believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya, is a Muslim, and belongs to the Communist Party.  There are also extremely large numbers of people who believe that this whole global warming thing is nothing but a big hoax.

                Should we think there's some validity to these "concerns" given the number of people who believe them?

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:14:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, no. It's not logical (5+ / 0-)
                Given the numbers of people who are opposed is it not logical to believe that there is some validity to their concerns?
                Since you brought up logic, I can answer with logic. The argument you present is actually a fallacious argument.
                The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.

                There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?

                It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A, this argument fails, because if opinion did determine truth, then there be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.

                “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

                by tytalus on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:32:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I plan on plagiarizing this answer... a lot. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tytalus

                  Great response.

                  I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

                  by Hey338Too on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:29:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, even I can admit (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hey338Too

                    that I very rarely see such an obviously fallacious argument presented, and presented as if it were perfectly logical to boot. But hey, if it happens again, feel free.  :)  At least noway2 made me lol.

                    “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

                    by tytalus on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:17:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  No, it is not logica - National Libary of Medicine (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tytalus, mythatsme, Hey338Too

                30% of households with children also have guns, and 40% of those households have unsecured firearms in the home.

                More than half of the accidental shootings are committed by children and teens. That means that almost half of accidental shootings are committed by adults.

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                https://www.nlm.nih.gov/...

                It doesn't matter why they object - casual and careless gun handling, lack of secure storage, and lack of tracing are all problems that a large number of supposedly responsible gun owners haven't had to pay directly for.

                When those who manufacture, sell, purchase, keep, and carry guns start to experience sanctions commensurate with the menace that widespread unsafe practices pose to the rest of us, then there will be a change in behavior.

                •  What do you mean they (0+ / 0-)

                  haven't paid directly for?

                  •  Directly pay for? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joy of Fishes, tytalus, Hey338Too

                    Loss of privileges, fines, restitution for casual, careless, accidental shootings, even if the one you accidentally shoot is yourself. Stiffer sanctions if the gun discharge occurs anywhere off your private property.

                    Guns are cheap, ammunition is easy to obtain. Training is not required.

                    There could be an escalating loss/fine structure.

                    Accidental discharges should all carry a fine, for starters.

                    Accidental shootings - loss of RKBA for X years.

                    Accidental shootings, injury to self - loss of RKBA for X + Y years.

                    Accidental shooting by child, no serious injuries - loss of RKBA for X + Y + Z years.

                    etc.

                    What I mean by "directly pay for" - There are far too many careless and irresponsible gun owners, and there are no or few sanctions for their "accidents." The costs are spread over all of us, gun owners and gun opponents, legal and criminal. If there were sanctions, fewer of those careless people would have easy access to legal and illegal firearms.

                    And that would cut into profits at gun manufacturer's, might reduce demand for ammunition, might reduce membership at gun ranges.  If both buyer and seller had to pass a background check with every sale, it would reduce the ability to make some cash under the table buying / selling weapons and ammo.

                    We must sooner or later face up to the fact that there is a large underground economy based on gun use, both legal and illegal. Irresponsible gun ownership is NOT RARE, not even in Newtown, CT. I'm tired of being expected to simply absorb the costs of all that easy, cheap access to a dangerous consumer product, which is also useful and sometimes necessary (in safe hands, with a clear mind)

                    •  Why should the loss of the RKBA be time limited? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      I would prefer a one strike and you're out approach.  An accidental discharge in a place like a restaurant, even without injuries, should be enough of a warning to society that this person should not be trusted with a firearm.  When you look at the GunFail diaries and see the number of times that charges aren't expected to be filed, it is mind boggling.  Certainly we can presume innocence until guilt is proven, but once it is proven, why give them another "shot"?

                      I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

                      by Hey338Too on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:38:40 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  While I totally agree with your logic, I (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hey338Too

                        think the loss of rights / privileges should be graded because otherwise no sanctions will ever be enacted. And sympathetic gun owners would help their friends/family skirt the sanctions.

                        Dick Cheney accidentally shot his friend in the face, but no charges, no loss of fire-arms for him. That's an example of how absurd our laws are.

              •  I own a gun and oppose a (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                noway2, PavePusher, KVoimakas

                registry for the reason of scope creep, and one that could lead to confiscation later, which I vehemently oppose as well. here is an example...Remember waaayyyy back when Republicans started clamoring over not wanting the taxpayer to fund public unions, that the ever increasing amount going to the public sector unions kept taxpayers on the hook with no say? And there was grumbling here and there, but a few could see their point, even if they didn't agree. Then all of a sudden, ALL unions were bad and needed to be destroyed. We went from a smaller number of unions that were public, to ALL unions overnight!! This is why people are afraid of a registry. If you can honestly tell me it is NOT the democrats goal to confiscate all guns, then maybe, maybe I could get behind it. But I don't think that they don't want all guns illegal for the public, otherwise why all the 'keep the pressure on' talk?

                •  I'm a democrat and it's not my goal (0+ / 0-)

                  And I know a lot of democrats and it's not their goal either. In fact, I don't currently own a gun but will stand up for the right to keep and bear arms.

                  And I support significant regulations.

                •  I am a Democrat. I don't support a goal... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hey338Too

                  ...of confiscate all guns and I will not oppose any politician who proposes such a move.

                  Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                  by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:17:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Gun rights are not on the Conservative Democrat (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher, KVoimakas, 43north

                    scale.  They are an issue on the Statist - Individualism scale.  This is part of why they represent such a sticky wicket for the party.

                    You may not oppose a candidate who want to ban and confiscate, I would.  I also think that the utopia that some believe would be achieved by such action would be a civil war instead in which case one side would have guns, the other side would have words.

            •  They oppose a registry (5+ / 0-)

              because they are paranoid.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              Who is twigg?

              by twigg on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 03:47:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It is funny how the same people who oppose (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                twigg, Hey338Too, tytalus

                a registry will point to Switzerland as an example of the benefits of wide spread guns in the home. The Swiss government knows where all the guns are and recently decided that it's better to keep track of the ammo by having the ammo at the nearest armory.

                Is that mission creep?  Oh Noooooes, the Swiss government is going to confiscate all guns.

          •  Me too. n/t (0+ / 0-)

            Alpacas spit if you piss them off. So don't do that.

            by alpaca farmer on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:32:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Not a member of either RKBA or NRA (or NSSA) (4+ / 0-)

        I'm not particularly concerned about a registry, in fact it might help if one of my firearms was stolen.

        One of the big problems with endemic gun violence is "straw buyer" transfers where people legally buy a gun and then do an "informal" sale to someone else - who often shouldn't have the gun.  It could be hard to prove a transaction is a "straw transfer" because the informal (cash) transaction leaves few if any records, and "I was just selling it to my friend - how could I know?" is an effective enough excuse if you only use it once.

        Transferring  a firearm without the background check - assuming this becomes the law - would imply that you are doing a straw transfer and really make it easier to shut down one route to gun violence.  This would work even without a central registry, as long as the FFL who does the transfer keeps his records like he is supposed to.

        The other thing I really want to see is effective safety research - Evidence based laws and recommendations are hard to ignore (though this hasn't stopped some republicans).

        •  How would it make it easier to shut down (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          one route to violence, or rather how would it impact straw purchases.  I assume your not trying to imply that a law will directly impact straw, cash, transfers and so you must be thinking of something indirect.  I think that homie would still just claim he found it lying around or whatever he did and it would still be impossible to trace back to the origin.  Chances are his gun would also be missing serial numbers for tracing anyway.  

          •  It gives law enforcement one more tool (4+ / 0-)

            It's already possible to trace back the purchasing much of the time (how else do they know where the guns in Chicago come from?).  It simply makes the level of proof for prosecution much lower.  Intermediates in the process, right now, are fairly immune because it can be hard to prove criminal intent (a straw purchase is only criminal because it is intended to avoid a legal restriction).  You really have to catch them in the act with several guns (which the ATF tries to do).  

            It raises the cost of doing business because the intermediates would now know that they could be convicted quite easily.  Similarly, if you suspect Joe of being a straw purchaser, say because he's purchased 20 glocks in the last six months, then you can see if he either has them (maybe he's a collector or runs a shooting gallery), or has legally transferred them.  If no one has done the background checks for the 19 ones he's sold then it is one less straw man to worry about.

            It probably won't catch a one-off, but if it reduces the rest then it will help.

            It's like the VIN numbers on cars, trailers and ATV's - they don't directly stop thievery, but they push it out of the informal amateur market and make it possible to, at least sometimes, prosecute the b**ds.

            It's quite hard to remove all traces of all serial numbers.

        •  Here you go on safety research (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joy of Fishes

          From the National Library of Medicine

          https://www.nlm.nih.gov/...

          One-third of all families in America that have children also have guns, and more than 40 percent of them don't keep their guns locked up. Children younger than eight can't tell the difference between a real gun and a toy, and 3-year-olds are strong enough to pull the trigger on a real gun. Children and teens commit more than half of all unintentional shootings.
          That means that 13% of households with children have irresponsible gun owners or illegal guns in the home.  Perhaps even worse, almost half of accidental shootings are committed by adults.
        •  what on earth does this throw away phrase mean? (0+ / 0-)
          in fact it might help if one of my firearms was stolen.
        •  Can you please explain how this would work? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas
          ...in fact it might help if one of my firearms was stolen.
          I had a gun stolen from me.  I had a record of the serial number and gave it to the police in the report.  The gun shop I bought it from has a record of my purchase that LEO's can view at any time.  The police enter my gun info into the NCIC system.  

          http://www.prweb.com/...

          How would a national registration database be of any further help?

    •  There is a group somewhere (7+ / 0-)

      called Gun Owners for Gun Safety Legislation (or something like that). But not here at DK, that I know of.

      I would join that group. The Obama/Biden Plan is very reasonable. Actually could go further: to require demonstration of safety training before gun could be purchased.

      Gun owners calling for gun safety legislation would be a strong voice. Biden makes a strong case for this legislation for just that reason.

      WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For Jan: Right-to-Work/Right-to-Live(?)

      by JayRaye on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:14:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And I'm against exemption for those who (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        j0em0mma, twigg, JayRaye

        previously passed a background check when they applied for a concealed carry permit.

        Given domestic violence and suicide by gun, that is an enormous loophole. Each purchase should have a current background check.

        •  I recently obtained a concealed carry permit. I'd (5+ / 0-)

          be fine with another background check and even with periodic background checks.

          I might add I don't carry a pistol around. I think carrying changes your psychology in ways that are not good and unless you have to carry one, you really shouldn't.

          "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens," -Friedrich Schiller "Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain"

          by pengiep on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:20:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  With regards to "having to carry one" (5+ / 0-)

            If you are going some place that you have to carry one, you shouldn't be going there in the first place.

            You are correct that carrying a pistol changes you.  You no longer have the freedom to act as you used to.  You must be more reserved, you must be more aware of your actions.  You no longer have the ability to 'flip someone the bird'.  

            With great power comes great responsibility.

            •  In my experience... (4+ / 0-)

              ...most people carrying a concealed weapon legally (i.e., in most states only with a CCW permit) are more muted.

              Part of this, as you suggest, seems to arise from the realization that escalation may end badly.

              Another part of the equation is that much escalation is actually the rational result of each party trying to "out intimidate" the other. This is a completely natural process that humans, like many other species, use to avoid actual physical combat which can harm one or both parties. Usually, one of the parties, after going through the posturing, decides they are weaker and backs down without a physical battle. But not always... Sometimes one (psychopathic?) party initiates an attack when they feel they are stronger -- perhaps because they want to take something or perhaps because they feel that doing so will elevate their position in their social group, or perhaps just because they are nuts (perhaps with that condition being fueled by CH3CH2OH).

              When a party in a confrontation knows they have the ability to defend themselves, they have much less reason to engage in the "I'm tougher than you and will beat the crap out of you" behavior in hopes of scaring the other person. They can simply fail to escalate and take the slight risk that the other party will, as a result, view them as vulnerable and attack anyway. A person who is unable to defend themselves effectively in such a situation has to avoid, often through escalation, giving the opponent any reason to suspect they are vulnerable.

              This is not dissimilar to the attitude of most responsible and skilled practitioners of "violent" martial arts. They will go to pains to avoid a "street fight" even though they are confident they would win such a fight. They do this knowing that if their passiveness is mistaken for weakness and results in attack, they can end it without much risk to themselves.

              As well, simply knowing that one can defend oneself gives confidence that allows one to think more rationally and long term by reducing internal stress levels. That confidence and rational behavior, alone, can be sensed by the opponent in some cases and can be enough to terminate the conflict w/o combat, in part because it can be quite disconcerting to the opponent and people are programmed to avoid dangerous situations they don't understand.

              The degree of somberness I've seen in CCW permit holders who are "packing" is not unlike the surprising degree of somberness I've seen when most people step into the jury room to deliberate a criminal case with serious consequences for the accused.

          •  "changes your psychology"? (0+ / 0-)

            Got any actual data to support that?

            I might actually agree with you... but not in the way you think.

        •  Huh? If the are convicted of domestic violence... (0+ / 0-)

          or commit suicide after getting a permit, they'd not be in the lawful gun market again.

    •  I have no problem with registry. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare, Joy of Fishes

      How would that work though?

      Would it be like a car? Would each gun have a 'title' that goes with it?

      Also, I can kill you with my brain.

      by Puffin on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:15:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It amazes me how folks are opposing (16+ / 0-)

    background checks.  But, they rolled over for the gutting of our Constitution when the Patriot Act was passed.

    That was their fight for freedom.  Not this.  And, they didn't care at all when the real fight was happening.

    "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

    by Rockydog on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:05:16 AM PST

    •  The thing is, most folks don't oppose this. (5+ / 0-)

      Like the article says, this has at least 90% support nationwide, a number that includes the vast majority of gun owners.  To hell with the remaining 10%.

      •  I think rockydog is referring to those (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rockydog, high uintas, twigg

        who actually DO oppose background checks.

        I have the same sort of question: how can you be opposed to something this basic for such a public safety issue?

        And at 10% of the population, they're going to be disappointed.

        Hell, a lot of people have to have a credit check to get a job, or happily pee in a cup. I fail to see the difference.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:15:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The difference is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg, PavePusher

          peeing in a cup is fucking pointless.

          "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

          by nosleep4u on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:17:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We agree completely. (0+ / 0-)

            But people do it cheerfully, unaware of their rights.

            A background check just seems like a no-brainer.

            Specifically, it's not ASSUMING guilt or innocence. It merely means before you can go home with this thing we really should have a look at any possible criminal history.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:19:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Heh. I don't know anyone who's done it cheerfully. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              Everyone I've ever discussed this with, even passingly (pun intended) regard it as personal invasion they only put with because they need a job.

              "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

              by nosleep4u on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:58:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  And re guilt/innocence: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              Good point ... a positive pee test carries a presumption of guilt. So yeah, that's a LOT more offensive than just asking for a gun registration.

              "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

              by nosleep4u on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:59:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  When I get a job I have to get fingerprinted (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nosleep4u

                and sometimes have had to pee.

                I understand the fingerprint/background check: they have to weed out child molesters, sex offenders, outstanding warrants, etc....

                Who would want any of those individual to have carte blanche with a gun, at least until questions are answered sufficiently....?

                The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:04:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I was referring to those who actually do (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, twigg

          oppose background checks.  

          My main thought right now is...  where were the 10 percent who oppose these background checks when their rights were actually being stripped by the Patriot Act?  

          "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

          by Rockydog on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:05:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They don't oppose (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            background checks...they oppose the registry.

            •  I stand corrected. (0+ / 0-)

              They are for background checks as long as the background checks are toothless and ineffective.

              "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

              by Rockydog on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 04:11:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  How are they toothless and ineffective? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher, ban nock

                If your check comes back with felonies or mental health history, you're denied gun ownership. How is that not effective? Unless of course, that isn't the goal, hence the reason folks have a problem with the registry.

                •  The mental health history is nothing more (0+ / 0-)

                  than having been committed to a facility for mental health reasons.

                  Most mentally ill people have never been committed to a facility, you have to admit that there are A LOT of mentally ill people who currently have easy and legal access to firearms.

                •  Asdf (0+ / 0-)

                  Without the national gun registry, there won't be the kind of change that is really needed.  Better yes, but substantially more effective... not so sure.   Background checks for private gun sales... Great.  But, the real aid to law enforcement is a national gun registry.  

                  However, there's not going to be a national gun registry. I will bet you a cookie.  

                  Law enforcement will not be able to use a national database to trace legally registered guns to a crime scene, if they need to raid a house, they can't scan a federal database to see what weapons might be in there, they can't use the registry to aid in the trafficking of guns, and the current registries will remain cumbersome and severely lacking.  (My run on sentence is admitted).  

                  The good news for you is that there's no way the government can somehow use the national registry to somehow confiscate 300 million guns from people who's mantra is: you can take my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands.  

                  I personally can't envision a scenario that involves a gun ban or a confiscation of all guns.  But, therein lies our difference of opinion.  .  

                  "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

                  by Rockydog on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 09:12:09 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I read the article again. (0+ / 0-)

              It does appear that the debate is about working out the kinks of the background checks. So, the fight is not about the gun registry, at least according to the article we're discussing.  

              I'm curious how it will end up.

              "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin

              by Rockydog on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 09:37:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  In my personal experience.... (0+ / 0-)

      the people resisting BC's for private sales are the same people who resisted the PA.

      And there doesn't seem to be a strong political party correlation.

      My observation is not definitive, of course, and YMMV.

  •  Sounds like a Harry Reid type "compromise." (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phil S 33, pengiep

    "They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip."

    by TofG on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:07:47 AM PST

    •  Sorta---seems like there are several loopholes in (5+ / 0-)

      there:

      "certain rural areas..."

      "most private sales.."  

      But, a beginning.....I think....

      •  lawyers, gubs, and money..../nt (4+ / 0-)

        Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

        by annieli on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:25:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rec for the Take the Money and Run reference. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, annieli, pengiep

          One of my favorite bits of all time.  Great movie, too.

          •  some folks even get (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            high uintas, twigg, PavePusher

            nervous with the correct spelling in DK

            (2009) Officials at an Arizona school suspended a 13-year-old boy for sketching what looked like a gun, saying the action posed a threat to his classmates.
            "My son is a very good boy [who] doesn't get into trouble," the boy's mother, Paula Mosteller, told CBS affiliate KPHO correspondent Mary Valenzuela. "There was nothing on the paper that would signify that it was a threat of any form."
            "He was just basically doodling and not thinking a lot about it."
            The Chandler Unified School District declined to give more details about the incident. Spokesperson Terry Locke said in a statement, "Federal privacy law forbids the school or district from discussing student discipline."
            There's nothing in a portion of the student handbook that addresses conduct to indicate the drawing of a weapon poses threat, KPHO reported.
            There is, however, a rule that says students should not engage in "threatening an educational institution by interference with or disruption of the school."
            The drawing, which is covered with smiley faces, did not show blood, bullets, injuries or target any human, the parents said. The East Valley Tribune reported that the boy said he did not intend for the picture to be a threat.
            "We're not advocates for guns," Mosteller said. "We don't have guns in our home. We don't promote the use of guns. My son was just basically doodling on a piece of paper."

            Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

            by annieli on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:18:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Exemption for prior background check - loophole nt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phil S 33
        •  Not necessarilly (3+ / 0-)

          Having a concealed carry permit or a pistol purchase permit (as my state uses) is record of a background check that exempts you from needing an NICS check when purchasing.

          •  And my point is that clearance should be good for (0+ / 0-)

            a certain period of time, and then an NCIS check should be required any additional purchase.

            •  What kind of time frame are you thinking? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, KVoimakas

              The concealed carry permit has to be renewed and they are also subject to revocation (though it is very rare for people to commit actions that cause this).

              •  I don't know, but something in the range of (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                twigg

                a day or two.

                There is no reason to give concealed carry permit holders a pass.

                Currently, you have no idea how many concealed carry permit holders have purchased guns and sold them to others, or how often. Anyone who wants to purchase guns OFTEN should be a licensed collector or licensed dealer, and have to pass a higher standard of record keeping.

                Anyone who wants to purchase or sell a gun occasionally should have a current background check each time.

                •  Why a seller? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener, PavePusher
                  Anyone who wants to purchase or sell a gun occasionally should have a current background check each time.
                  The seller is not acquiring any more "deadly force" -- indeed, they are relinquishing some.
                  •  Because no one in the NCIS database should be (0+ / 0-)

                    selling guns!

                    D'oh!

                    And it would be a potential way to spot straw transfers. Anyone who wants to sell firearms frequently should be a licensed collector or dealer, and should be held responsible for keeping records of what weapons they sold and to whom.

                    An occasional seller, can show that they are a lawful owner.

                    Currently, anyone who is not supposed to own a gun can very easily sell guns that they purchased illegally.  They only risk being charged if they are caught with it.

                    •  I wonder how that works... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher

                      ...if you own a firearm and have been charged with a felony. Do you need to get rid of your firearms before the jury reads the verdict -- in case you are found guilty?

                      What if you are found guilty but the verdict was overturned on appeal a year later? If you retained possession of firearms during the appeal period, are you now guilty of another crime even though you're not guilty of the first?

                      Again, I've got no idea, but it seems ridiculous that somebody should have to divest themselves of legal belongings just in case they are found guilty. So, I assume/hope the law must deal with these cases in some reasonable way. Perhaps putting them in the hands of a third party before the jury reads the verdict would suffice (although, with some of the restrictions proposed, that would become more cumbersome and possibly expensive -- I assume if the jury says "not guilty" the prosecutor would pay for the costs associated with that dance -- yeh, right...)

                      •  It depends on the felony charge (0+ / 0-)

                        I agree that being charged with a felony doesn't make one a violent criminal.

                        On the other hand, I think that being charged with a violent crime should involve at least temporarily surrendering one's firearms, perhaps all the way through appeal.

                        In other words, you don't have to sell your family heirloom, until your felony conviction is held up on appeal, but you can't keep it in the house, either, or your car, etc.

                        •  Surrendering firearms... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LilithGardener, PavePusher

                          ...is sometimes a condition of bail when prosecutors can convince a judge that it would be appropriate. Why is this not enough?

                          It seems like no new laws are needed here and the (appealable) judgement of a judge should be trusted. We trust them in much more important matters such as excluding evidence due to a technical issue and that excluded evidence can result in a violent criminal being found not guilty and released to maim or murder again.

                      •  I don't actually know, but was venturing (0+ / 0-)

                        that the felony yes/no is too black/white.

                    •  Also, isn't the goal... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher

                      ...to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of felons and mentally ill people.

                      Discouraging such people from divesting themselves of firearms they owned before the fateful day they visited their shrink and got diagnosed as "bat shit crazy" (what is the ICD code for that?) or the jury said "guilty" seems odd. Esp. when we are verifying the firearms are going to legal hands. Seems rather odd -- makes one wonder what the real goal may be here.

                      •  I would venture a guess that the vast (0+ / 0-)

                        majority of mentally ill people can legally purchase and own firearms.

                        And the vast majority of mentally ill people are probably at no risk of shooting someone.

                        The only mentally ill people prohibited from owning guns are those who have been committed, that is my understanding. And that means our definition of mentally ill is very, very tight.

                        But then we find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma, if someone who is depressed, or suicidal, or who has PTSD will lose their right to hunt, they are less likely to seek or get help for their problems.

                        •  Yes, I did mean "mentally ill"... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PavePusher

                          ...in the narrow sense of those who are legally prohibited from buying firearms.

                          This includes anyone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution".

                          I've got no idea what it takes to be considered as having been "adjudicated as a mental defective" - although I would hope that those who lack the mental capabilities to care for themselves to the point they have been put under conservatorship would be included.

                          •  Decision by a judge - that's my understanding (0+ / 0-)

                            such as papa can't handle is affairs anymore, but won't appoint a legal guardian for himself, so the family has to go before a judge and argue that papa is mentally incapacitated for someone else to be his legal guardian.  Papa can no longer legally purchase a firearm.

                          •  I think it's pretty hard (0+ / 0-)

                            to commit someone. It requires a physician, and the police.

                            I think that a lot of domestic violence has untreated mental illness underneath it. Many domestic partner/family murder/suicides have untreated mental illness as a factor, in my view.

                            So, do we tighten the standards for mental illness reporting to NICS to prevent unstable people from purchasing guns?

                            I think not, because it's more important that people be able to seek care, and speak to their doctors, and that loved ones be able to help their loved one get mental health treatment.

                            In that case, the risk of harm from lack of treatment outweighs the potential reduction in risk from reporting to NICS.

                          •  That is a tough call... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            ...because, admittedly without digging through the historical details, I can't recall a single "mass murderer" in the past  30 years who used firearms to commit mass murder who had actually been "adjudicated to be mentally deficient" or had been committed to a "mental institution".

                            So limiting the definition of "mentally ill" for the purposes of NICS to what it is now seems not to advance the safety of the public in any way. However, some of these mass murderers had crossed paths with mental health professionals, social workers, or police who thought they were unhinged in a way that was unsafe to society.

                            I don't have a good answer for this because, as you say, creating an environment where people are hesitant to seek help is also a Bad Idea.

                            Perhaps the current definitions are too absolute and permanent. Maybe seeking help and the mental health professionals you interact with feeling you are a threat to yourself or others should result in an "expiring" limit WRT to NICS. Maybe these incidents are reported and expunged after three years unless there had been an intervening "renewal".

                            I have known people who were prone to depression and brought their firearms to a friend saying "Please hold these for me, I don't feel safe with them right now" and, unfortunately, under some of the gun control proposals I have seen would have left the recipient with few options but to say "NO" as doing otherwise would have made them a criminal.

                            Also, some who are committed to a mental institution are not necessarily dangerous to others even if they had an nuclear weapon at their disposal -- some, of course, are. Thus the current definition is not only too narrow, but too broad as well.

                          •  It's a three horn dilemma, no easy answer (0+ / 0-)

                            right to privacy
                            need to access assistance
                            public health policy that protects others who may be at risk

                            Same problem for people in the police, and people in the military, who likely seek care in much lower numbers, because of the risk of losing their career or their job.

                            And you are so right, about the need to have an avenue for a legal gun owner to receive and securely store fire arms for a friend or family member. It's important that someone who recognizes a risk to themselves be able to easily access the support/assistance of people they trust.

                            No, I'm convinced most people who are mentally ill are not violent. It's the famous ones we hear about. The police are picking up mentally ill people up off the streets every day, and the vast majority are not violent at all, and that's a slice of severely mentally ill folks.

                      •  You are right that anyone charged with a (0+ / 0-)

                        convicted of felony or committed to a mental hospital, etc. should have a legal way to sell their fire arm (that they purchased before they were charged) to a legal buyer and get to keep the money.

                        I'm not advocating confiscation by the police, or that the police get to sell the firearm and keep the money.

                        But no, someone who is charged with a felony should not be able to buy or sell firearms, except in a tightly regulated setting.

                  •  And further, legal firearm sales are the (0+ / 0-)

                    responsibility of both the buyer and the seller.

                    Anyone who wants to buy a gun legally bears some responsibility for choosing a legal seller, and vice versa.

                    But it also is one more tool to notice and prosecute straw purchases.

                    E.g. range operator goes and purchases 20 firearms and thousands of rounds. 2 weeks later, same range owner purchases 5 more firearms and a couple thousands of rounds.

                    If instead the range owner has been buying firearms for the range and selling some of them in the parking lot to make a little extra under the table, without background checks, than a required NCIS check on the seller would prevent that, or at least make it easier to detect.

                    •  I don't understand this scenario... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher, KVoimakas

                      ...are you suggesting the range operator purchased the guns illegally and didn't go through a background check or failed the background check?

                      Anyway, NICS (FYI, not NCIS - that's a TV show and a part of the Navy) isn't a database of gun purchases so how would it catch the range operator in this case? It seems likely she would pass the check since she had when he bought the guns

                      I understand you want a national firearms registry - but that certainly wouldn't be called National Instant Criminal Background Check System - it would have a new name like National Firearms Registry

                      •  Thank you for the education (0+ / 0-)

                        I could never remember what NICS actually stood for.

                        I'm not quite sure what I'm suggesting, just brainstorming out loud.

                        The scenario I'm imagining is a gun-range owner who passes a background check and isn't making enough money with their business, so to make a little extra money, they occasionally offer firearms classes. What is currently stopping such a person from arranging a private sale, either from the range owner or from another customer of the range?

                        Responsible gun owners and others have to admit that there is a huge underground market for gun buying/selling and there are many ways for someone to cover what they are doing. The legal barriers to entry are pathetically low.

                        There needs to be some kind of registry or title, training and licensing, and traceability.

                        I recall reading one of the problems in Newtown, CT and the surrounding area was, a proliferation of unlicensed gun ranges close to residential property. The town met and couldn't agree on what regulations should include, so no or few regulations were enacted (YET). My guess is that an unlicensed gun range would be a fine place where private gun sales are occurring to make a little cash.

              •  Revocation (0+ / 0-)
                (though it is very rare for people to commit actions that cause this).
                You may be right - but I question the value of your observation.

                You have no way of knowing what concealed carry permit holders buy, what they sell, and what happens to those weapons, because they can do almost anything with the weapon legally, and can legally purchase as much ammo as they want, and as many firearms as they want.

  •  So a big fat nothing. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkp, FogCityJohn

    What a watered down piece of pablum.  

    Does nothing to stop straw sales, does nothing to stop the flow of street guns from "burglaries".  

    Universal background checks accomplishes NOTHING.  

    This is all kabuki.  NRA was all for background checks not too long ago, but comes out hard against it now - knowing that something would have to be passed, when they're totally fine with background checks because they are valueless.  

    Just like Heritage writing Romneycare which became Obamacare - then the GOP rants and raves against it, but in the end get a conservative bill framed as a far left one, moving the supposed center further to the far right.  

    The country is fucked.

    Keystone XL Pipeline - Canada gets the money, Asia gets the oil, America gets the toxic refinery pollution and potential for a pipeline leak ecological disaster.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:12:38 AM PST

    •  While this legislation,... (15+ / 0-)

      ...if it is passed the way the four senators appear to be headed, will have some big holes in it, none of the gun-control groups, some of which have been working on increasing restrictions on access to guns for two decades or more, agree that that universal background checks are worthless. For one thing, gun trafficking laws, like the one introduced 10 days ago, are useless without background checks.

      One possibly doable thing to stiffen the background check expansion is to reinstate the 90-day hold on NICS checks. In truth, these should be permanently held. But opposition to a registry, which will not clear the Senate, much less the House, in their current configurations, means a permanent hold is out of the question for now.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:24:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Taking registration off the table is like taking (0+ / 0-)

        single payer off the table from the get-go.   If nothing else use it as a negotiating point.  Dems always seem to start from what they think they might be able to get while the GOP starts at their furthest right - we will give you nothing.  

        Background checks are worthless because if you sell your gun in a straw sale it is impossible to catch because you never have to prove you still have the gun.  

        Something like 90% of street guns start off as legally purchased ones.  This does ZERO to stop guns from getting to the street.  It's a big fat nothing.  

        And simply increasing the penalty for having an illegal gun is just putting more low level broke ass inner city people in jail while the NRA and their Gun Companies keep using these same folks to gin up fears in suburban folks - and does nothing to track down and incarcerate the gun owners straw selling guns onto the street or being so bloody reckless with theirs not to properly secure them in their homes.

        Keystone XL Pipeline - Canada gets the money, Asia gets the oil, America gets the toxic refinery pollution and potential for a pipeline leak ecological disaster.

        by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:39:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This group contains Republicans as well as ... (12+ / 0-)

          ...Democrats, so it's no surprise that they're negotiating toward something that's not as strong as many gun-control advocates would like it to be.

          But there will be time to amend whatever proposal they come up with. One amendment could be to seek a permanent hold on data acquired from NICS background checks. Since that will undoubtedly not pass, not even in the Senate, a follow-up amendment can be pushed to reinstate the 90-day hold of all NICS. That might pass. That's not perfect by a long shot, but a survey has shown that thousands of gun-buyers would be blocked from legal purchases if the 90-day hold were in place.

          Statistics prove you're wrong about background checks doing "nothing." Some 1.9 million people have been stopped from buying guns legally because of them. Yes, many of them no doubt acquired firearms in other ways subsequently. And, as long as there are guns in private hands, this will always be the case.

          Are checks enough? Of course not. No single piece of legislation is going to greatly reduce gun violence by itself.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:01:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd rather try for something with actual teeth (0+ / 0-)

            and have it blocked - because then the GOP, the NRA, and the Dems who vote with them will own any and all coming murders and spree killing massacres and have to answer for them rather than passing this lame ass compromise that will do very little and then allow the GOP to say "well we worked with Democrats and passed a bi-partisan bill"  Any Democrat who votes for this bill is just giving the GOP and pro NRA Dems cover when there are more murders and spree killings.  

            Keystone XL Pipeline - Canada gets the money, Asia gets the oil, America gets the toxic refinery pollution and potential for a pipeline leak ecological disaster.

            by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:08:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So let me get this straight (14+ / 0-)

              Instead of a law that can reduce violent crime, now, you'd rather have more blood shed so you will have a political hammer to use to shame people into prohibition.

              Classy.

              ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
              My Blog
              My wife's woodblock prints

              by maxomai on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:10:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Some people believe the ends justify the means. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, maxomai

                If more babies have to die in order to have all guns banned, that's well within the agenda of some folks.  Collateral damage, don'tcha know?  Not that I'm saying that's where JJ here is coming from, mind you.  Not at all.  It's just that, well, you know....

              •  It depends (0+ / 0-)

                What if you thought that holding firm now would cost more lives in the short term, but potentially save more lives in the long run because it might bring about more ideal legislation faster by creating a vote record that could be used to get bad politicians out of office?

                •  Hell of a gamble, isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  Right now you have the public opinion and votes to pass something good. You also have some fairly pissed off conservatives on the other side, who are ready to primary anyone who votes for universal background checks, let alone an AWB or magazine ban.

                  A year from now, you might not have the first, and the GOP might be too scared of the second to do anything even half as meaningful as we can get now.

                  Sure, two years from now, you might have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a Democratic majority in the House, both set on passing licensing, registration, and a host of other gun control measures. But I doubt it. And it only takes one special election to change that.

                  Basically, we should be learning the lessons from health care reform.

                  ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                  My Blog
                  My wife's woodblock prints

                  by maxomai on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 08:14:28 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  It won't reduce anything. (0+ / 0-)

                It will just be a useless piece of legislation that will allow the pols to pretend that they took action.  

                The vast, vast majority of street guns are "acquired" from legal purchasers - this does zero in addressing that.  You don't see gangbangers going to gun shows to buy.  So all the inner city killings will keep happening, and Sandy Hook Shooter, the Aurora shooter, the Va Tech shooter, the Temple Shooter, the Arizona shooter all would have had the weapons they used with this now universal background proposal.  

                Keystone XL Pipeline - Canada gets the money, Asia gets the oil, America gets the toxic refinery pollution and potential for a pipeline leak ecological disaster.

                by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:18:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And you wonder why people fear (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  maxomai, PavePusher

                  confiscation? Really?

                •  Again (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher, KVoimakas

                  The vast, vast majority of street guns are "acquired" from legal purchasers - this does zero in addressing that.

                  These laws and regulations will give the BATF tools they need to clamp down on the flow of guns from legal purchasers to the black market. They don't need to have the gun registered. They just need to know that the gun was transferred without a background check. They can find that out by sitting nearby in a police van and recording the conversation. At that point, they don't even need intent, or to demonstrate that the seller knew that the buyer was ineligible. You just need to see that the sale happened sans background check. Boom.

                  That goes a long way towards shutting down the black market. And again - you don't need registration for any of that.

                  ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                  My Blog
                  My wife's woodblock prints

                  by maxomai on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 08:05:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I think you are missing the strategy (14+ / 0-)

              background checks are the jewel in the crown in the sense that law enforement says it's the single change doing the most good. However, other parts of it, including straw man sales, mental health system fixes, high capacity magazine and, yes, AWB will be introduced separately.

              Most or all will be voted on.

              That's about as good as you can get.

              Doing it that way gets something passed. Once something gets passed the idea that 'nothing ever gets passed' is stymied and broken.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:13:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  This: (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo, tytalus
                Doing it that way gets something passed. Once something gets passed the idea that 'nothing ever gets passed' is stymied and broken.
                The gun lobby continually bleats about "the thin end of the wedge" as a prime reason to introduce ANY change at all.

                They are correct in that assessment, because once it is established that change can happen, then it is inevitable that change WILL happen..

                Eventually we will get the change we need ... but it will take time and it will not happen at all if we hold out for too much at once.

                That does not mean that we give up fighting for more, it simply means that we have to know when we have got all we can for now.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 04:00:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  "... and the Dems who vote with them will own... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              xxdr zombiexx

              ...any and all coming murders and spree killing massacres and have to answer for them..."

              Can't wait for that next "spree killing" can you?

              As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

              by wishbone on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:20:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nope. Just stating the very obvious. (0+ / 0-)

                There is one every 3-4 months now it seems.  And a background check wouldn't do a damn thing to prevent the next one.  

                Aurora, Wisconsin Temple, Sandy Hook, and that teen down in New Mexico that was planning to to shoot people at Wal-Mart after killing his whole family - that's four (off the top of my head) in the last 6-7 months is it not?

                Keystone XL Pipeline - Canada gets the money, Asia gets the oil, America gets the toxic refinery pollution and potential for a pipeline leak ecological disaster.

                by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:22:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  No, you may not use that broad brush. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ban nock

              I am not responsible for the actions of criminals.

              Period.  End.  Fucking dot.

          •  of the 1.9 million denials I'd assume that most (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xxdr zombiexx, PavePusher

            were a glitch in the system. If you have a common name you can expect to have to appeal as someone with your name has a recent restraining order, different SS# doesn't help. There's a VAF (voluntary appeal file) which is fairly quick at catching obvious mistakes, other times things can get sorted out with a quick phone call. I've heard of many people being denied. I've never heard of a criminal trying to purchase a firearm, I'm sure they do, but I'd think the additional penalties disuade most.

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:29:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I had a client with a common name that was (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ban nock, high uintas, PavePusher

              turned down for an apartment because her name came up with a felony burglary charge.

              Middle names and DOB were different but the system wasn't catching that.

              I called various agencies and inquired about what to do and, of course, got a variety of answers. Mainly she needed to go to the police department and discuss it with them. Unsure if it ever got rectified.

              She's pretty sure she'd have remembered prison time....

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:28:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  single piece of legislation to greatly reduce (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            high uintas, PavePusher, KVoimakas

            gun violence

            Did legalizing booze reduce gun violence?

            Legalizing drugs, would go a long way because ~50% of gun crimes are tied to gangs & drugs

            Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

            by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:02:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Registration was always a non-starter (9+ / 0-)

          The 2A crowd regards registration as a first step to confiscation. If you think the assault weapons ban is seeing a bitter fight now, it's nothing compared to the fight you'd see after proposing federal registration of all firearms.

          And frankly, your argument is nonsense. The whole point of universal background checks is that it gives the BATF better, more effective tools to use against the very straw purchasers that put most of these guns into the black market. These rules are not going to stop the flow of guns into the black market altogether - after all, things "fall off of trucks" - but if properly written they should allow the BATF to shut down the 1% of FFLs that make the biggest contribution to the problem. Which means, we should see a huge reduction in black market firearms, and therefore of violent crimes committed with guns, over the coming decade.

          You simply don't need registration to give the BATF those tools.

          ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
          My Blog
          My wife's woodblock prints

          by maxomai on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:09:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What is happening now is like (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades, Eric Nelson, twigg

          putting up a tent in the middle of a hurricane.

          A few poles have to go in the ground first, even though it will take a lot of work to attach the other parts and before there will be even minimal shelter.

          And a single tornado could come along and defeat all the efforts.

      •  I think 90 days is a reasonable compromise at (0+ / 0-)

        this point.

      •  Just don't get opposition to registration. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, twigg

        Gun owners have this delusional fear that if they have to register their guns, the guns will be confiscated.  It hasn't happened with cars or pets, but somehow it's going to happen with guns.

        Frankly, this is ridiculous.  As I've said before, I'm HIV+, and as a result I'm on a government registry of all known HIV-infected people.  But somehow I don't lie awake in bed at night terrified that the government is going to come and ship me off to some kind of quarantine for poz folks.  And given the kinds of proposals we saw back in the 1980s for doing just that, I would be far more justified in my fear than gun owners are in theirs.

        It's difficult for me to see this as anything other than simple paranoia.  I just thank God I'm not troubled by such absurd fears.

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:25:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're fearful because (0+ / 0-)

          people are clamoring to make ALL guns illegal now! Have you read Dkos lateñy on this subject? And a registry would make it easy because we all know the dems don't stop until the government has total control.

          •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)

            I wasn't aware that the Democratic party actually behaves like the way we're depicted in right-wing talking points. "we all know the dems don't stop"...feh. You're sounding like a poor quality Democrat, sir.

            What some liberals are clamoring for, and what can actually be done, are two different things. Even the clamoring liberals understand that. At least, this one does.

            “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

            by tytalus on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 05:30:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Great snark! nt (0+ / 0-)

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:26:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  You take what you can get, when you can get it (10+ / 0-)

    That is the essence of politics.  Perfect is the enemy of the good, as some wise person once said.  

    If Obama had held out for single payer or Medicare for all, we would not have gotten the ACA, and would have been back at square one.  IIRC, every member of the RKBA group on this site has publicly supported better registration.  There will never be such a thing as perfect registration and tracking, because it is not logistically possible.  

    Here is an example: We have all kinds of laws about auto registration and driver licensing, but our local jail is full of people who were caught driving with no insurance, no license, no registration--and drunk to boot.  In fact, there are so many the ones in jail hardly ever serve all their time.  They have to be let go early to make room for new arrests.  The moral of that story is that if we hold out for some kind of perfect system, we are going to have a very long wait indeed.  

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:53:49 AM PST

    •  But that's the good news, too (5+ / 0-)
      our local jail is full of people who were caught driving with no insurance, no license, no registration
       They would not be facing legal consequences if there were no law requiring those things. As with the common bleating that criminials won't apply for a background check. Y'think? But if someone is found to have a gun when they didn't have a background check, or were disqualified, at that point there are consequences. We don't need to wait for them to utilize that gun in commission of some other crime.

      "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

      by Catte Nappe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:08:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, but my main point is (6+ / 0-)

        the bleating about the proposed registration is "not good enough."  If we wait for any legislation to cover all bases, nothing will be done.  It either will not pass, but more likely will never even reach the floor.  

        My dad had a favorite saying: "Take while the taking is good."

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:23:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your comment caused me to think of something (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OMwordTHRUdaFOG, LilithGardener

        Most gun crime is committed with handguns.  In some states citizens are allowed to OPENLY carry a handgun without a permit.  In only a few states are they allowed to carry a CONCEALED handgun WITHOUT a permit.  In several states one can not OPENLY carry period.

        What I driving at with this is that it is very unlikely that most criminals will openly carry a handgun, but do so concealed without a permit.  

        For this we don't need to wait for the utilization of committing a gun crime.  Just getting caught with a concealed gun in and of itself is a violation.

        No new regulation is required to change this fact.

        •  And "concealed" in the home or business? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          As in found in a drug bust, or a search of the property in process of investigating a crime?

          "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

          by Catte Nappe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:37:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That goes back to my proposal in the diary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            A smarter Approach to Gun Control

            If they have a gun and no permit, this needs to be addressed by the courts.  Lets assume it was found but not because they were doing something wrong, e.g. it belongs to a cohabitant.  If there is no reason they couldn't qualify for a permit, they should be made to get one and pay a fine for failure to do so.  Otherwise, they probably shouldn't have been allowed to have a gun for a reason.

  •  I don't get the link (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2

    That background checks mean we must have gun registration. To me, the more logical link is to gun owner licensing. The chack is on the user, not the gun.

    "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

    by Catte Nappe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:02:21 PM PST

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, Eric Nelson

      Unfortunately, licensing isn't on the table now.

      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
      My Blog
      My wife's woodblock prints

      by maxomai on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:12:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nor is gun registration (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson, noway2

        And thus, in part, my confusion about why people are going on and on about registration, when from what I can tell  such a thing is not being proposed.

        "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

        by Catte Nappe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:29:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree too. (0+ / 0-)

        The background check with the permit for the owner would be much more thorough than one for purchase based upon the practical procedural time frame alone.

    •  there is and will be no gun registration (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      there are backgound checks at gun stores now, with no registration. Registration wil be illegal.

      Why? To get it passed.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:14:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That wasn't my question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greg Dworkin

        My question was why gun rights supporters are so adamant that background checks won't work unless there is also a gun registry (and gun registration is unacceptable, and thus QED background checks are a waste of effort)

        "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

        by Catte Nappe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:31:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's part of their talking points. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catte Nappe, tytalus, LilithGardener

          We know this is a complex system, lots of inter-relationships. Each of these things - background checks, registration, licensing, etc. will have an individual effect. Combinations of them have synergies. These things are both true.

          Their talking points are designed to attack whichever is under consideration. Extoll the synergies, and their talking point is "well, those are great individually, but it's impossible, you can't do all that." Hail the individual uses, and they switch to "but it's useless by itself, you have to do it all at once".

          The intent is paralysis.

          "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

          by nosleep4u on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:49:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The viewpoint of the gun-rights advocates... (8+ / 0-)

      ...is that keeping on file what comes up in the NICS checks automatically creates a "backdoor" registry of all guns purchased (not, of course, of guns already owned). Licensing owners, however that might be done, does not add to the ability to trace the many firearms on licensee may own.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:21:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok, I get that part (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LinSea, Eric Nelson

        That the background check, especially if the application is held for some period of time, could become a de facto gun registry of sorts. However, what I keep hearing is effectively that background checks won't work without a gun registry.

        "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

        by Catte Nappe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:27:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. I think that's only partly true, as I have... (5+ / 0-)

          ...said. But it would obviously work better WITH a registry. As I noted in the diary, many gun-rights advocates argue that background checks won't work without a registry and there shouldn't be a registry so therefore there shouldn't be "worthless" background checks.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:40:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It would still be worthwhile (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Meteor Blades, Eric Nelson

            as the additional beurocracy will be another obstacle to buying a gun. The more obstacles, the better.

            But we need a registry. We need to track down the traffickers, for one. But we can also use it for large scale research on suicide and homicide trends, etc.

          •  Why not owner licensing instead? (0+ / 0-)

            I'd think background checks would work just fine with that (and not so well at all with a gun registry); and gun many gun owners are already having to get licenses or permits to carrry.

            Yes, the above circular argument is what has been driving me crazy, it makes no sense, and I can't figure why anybody thinks it would.

            "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

            by Catte Nappe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:05:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •   a "backdoor" registry of all guns purchased (0+ / 0-)

        Does anyone know how the Govt come up with figures on the folks on ''the terra watch list''  who were buying weapons, as recommended by OBL

        Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

        by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:12:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  what happens to the gun (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson, stevej

      is just as important as vetting the purchaser. We need to know where these guns end up. We need both background checks and registries for guns and gun owners.

      •  It really could start with the manufacturer (0+ / 0-)

        filing 5 rounds fired from each weapon, with the weapons serial number.

        A couple fired rounds would be like a sample of gun's DNA.

        The vast majority of those expended rounds will never be needed but for shootings where there are no witnesses and the gun is not recovered, it's sometimes the most important evidence.

        And yes, the cost should be born by gun manufacturer's and those who choose to buy their products.

  •  The Jesuit periodical "America" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, LinSea, tytalus

    has called for the real of the Second  Amendment in an editorial it published today!  That's change I can believe in.

  •  Good news, start at the basics and work up.. (6+ / 0-)

    ..one logical step at a time when that's what it takes.

      I get the sense that one of the reasons for such strong opposition to changing the status quo (that all information must be destroyed) goes beyond  the worry over 'confiscation of some--or all--guns'

    I wonder what percentage gun sales are illegal. (The sales that funnel to drug cartels etc.) It must be a considerable part of gun manufacturers market, something that a NICS database could threaten if all sales information were allowed to remain on the books in some kind of gun registry

    Just a simple addition and subtraction of inventory on the guns, gun parts, or even the raw steel/material, if added up then compared to the 'on the books' profit/sales of the gun manufacturer would show the difference between legal sales and how many guns must have been sold to straw purchasers. That's why I've been pushing the criminals vs legal/responsible gun owners argument.

    Who is the NRA protecting - sales to drug cartels?

    Some gun-rights advocates say background checks can never be effective without a registry. They therefore oppose passing an expansion of background checks which they say will do no good. Ain't that the perfect Catch-22?
    Sound alot like the Jevons paradox, republican catch-all for NO without having any real reason for it.
  •  what a country (0+ / 0-)

    things that should be a given, living wage, gun checks, womens rights, civil rights, all kinds of rights, in the land of the free and the home of the brave these things are only allowed if the 1% elites in our society agree, as i said what a fucking country.

  •  Make a registry (5+ / 0-)

    don't want to be in the registry? don't buy a gun.

    I'm in a "registry" for owning a car. Guns are not sacred. There is no right not to be identified as a gun owner.

  •  I don't know about that 'improved mental illness (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson, high uintas

    reporting' bit.

    That might necessitate SPENDING REVENUE on mental illness or might even accidentally show a need for even further increased spending on mental illness, and nobody wants that....

    Services for the mentally ill: what could be more ridiculous?

    /bitter professional snark.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:10:44 PM PST

  •  This is a good start and a great idea. (0+ / 0-)

    Rather than "hardware bans" which often (if not always) stem from ignorance about firearms, I would much rather see this extensive background check- repeated periodically.

    I would like firearms forbidden to anyone convicted of a violent crime and such rights to possess returned only after an extensive investigation and background check.

    Mandatory firearms safety and use training.

    Mandatory safe storage requirements.

    Revocation of all "stand your ground laws" nationally.

    Registration and licensing of all firearms.

    "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens," -Friedrich Schiller "Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain"

    by pengiep on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:18:20 PM PST

    •  Stem from ignorance .... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, KVoimakas
      Revocation of all "stand your ground laws" nationally.
      Do you understand the purpose behind stand your ground laws?  They were put in place for a very valid reason.  Most of what makes the news in claims of SYG are not really SYG.

      I am not even going to bother commenting on your registration other than to say it isn't going to happen.  

      •  There's a valid reason to not walk away? (0+ / 0-)

        Do tell?

        •  Your question is disingenuous (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, KVoimakas

          You are trying to imply that a person involved in a self defense situation was somehow responsible and it is like saying that a rape victim should have just kept their pants on.

          In succinct terms, the use of lethal force is (only) justified when faced with an otherwise unavoidable threat of grave bodily harm, sexual assault, or death.  Stand Your Ground laws are an extension of castle doctrine that says when someone who has not initiated or escalated a confrontation is in a place that they are rightfully allowed to be is attacked in a manner that justifies a lethal force response that they don't have a mandatory obligation to attempt to retreat before using such force.  More importantly, these laws eliminate the civil liability of the victim and offer an affirmative defense should the state still try to prosecute.

          Notice the important part above where i said, did not initiate or escalate a confrontation.  The stories about idiots going to the neighbors house with a gun to complain about music and then shoot claiming they felt threatened and were standing their ground do not apply.  These idiots get charged with murder as they should.  These are the types of cases where they should have just walked away and didn't.

          •  You already have the right to defend yourself (0+ / 0-)

            Stand Your Grounds Laws have nothing to do with self-defense.

              •  If I need to (0+ / 0-)

                I don't know what to tell you.

              •  I don't mean to be dismisive, but... (0+ / 0-)

                You already have a right to use deadly force to defend yourself if you have a reasonable fear for your life. Law originally stated that you had to have no reasonable means of retreat before that law was valid. Stand your ground laws remove that regulation, and allow you to get in a person's  face and then shoot them down if you start feeling afraid. The two concepts are worlds apart.

                •  I asked you to elaborate because I disagree with (0+ / 0-)

                  with you and wanted to give you an opportunity to state why you feel they are unnecessary.   Your comment:

                  allow you to get in a person's  face and then shoot them down if you start feeling afraid
                  Is not true and this won't work as a legal tactic much more often than it will.  Furthermore, it (again) denotes a prejudice against the concept, perhaps one born out of ignorance, perhaps one that is willful.  One can not "shoot them down" simply because you feel afraid.  Either you don't understand lawful self defense or you are deliberately trying to twist it to fit your objective.

                  What SYG does is twofold: one it places the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that it wasn't self defense rather than requiring an alleged victim to prove that it was.  I believe this to be correct order of things as I think the cases you see publicized in the media are more the exception than the rule.  Even after judicial committees and legislatures have reviewed SYG in the light of some of these media cases they have concluded that the laws are used properly and as they were intended in almost all cases.  

                  Also, and this is very important, just because someone claims SYG it doesn't mean they get off.  In many locations, it means that there has to be sufficient evidence to suggest that it wasn't valid self defense in order to arrest (and hold) someone.  After being violently attacked should a victim really face being arrested and held in jail?  If there is sufficient reasonable suspicion and evidence to suggest that it wasn't self defense, they will still be charged by the police.

                  The second thing SYG does, is as I've mentioned above, in cases of legitimate self defense it eliminates the ability of an attacker or an attacker's family to try to pursue the civil court lottery.

                  You may disagree with SYG and that is your right, however, overall it still appears that many state legislatures and the respective populations disagree with you as SYG has been repeatedly upheld.

                  •  Look, I can see you really care about this (0+ / 0-)

                    So I'll do you the courtesy of telling you I don't. I'm not remotely interested in your defense of "SYG." I don't want the burden of proving you shot someone in Self-defense to move away from you. If you feel that it should be easier for a person to justify killing another, I feel sorry for you.

    •  Anyone convicted of a felony is already... (6+ / 0-)

      ...banned from gun ownership.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:50:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which is why criminal (0+ / 0-)

        enclaves have such low crime. Seriously, can we dispense with the notion that banning means things don't exist anymore. The only thing banning guns will do is keep guns out of law abiding citizens' hands. The criminals will always have them just as they do now.

        •  Except for those that don't (0+ / 0-)

          Come on, you are cherry picking your facts, again.

          Are you one of those that cites Switzerland as an example of how an armed society is also a polite one? Guess what, the Swiss government keeps a registry of all those service rifles. Does that registry threaten the lives or rights of Swiss citizens?

        •  So the solution, because felons can get... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          navajo, tytalus

          ...guns anyway, is not to have background checks, not to keep certain kinds of weapons out of civilian hands? By that logic, we should repeal all anti-theft laws because there are two million burglaries every year and the majority of those crimes are not solved.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:13:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Background checks will help (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson, LilithGardener

    And gun registries exist in some states, so there's work that can be done at the state level while Congress remains dysfunctional. I don't mean to settle for a deal like this, but I'll take it. It's progress, however small.

    “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

    by tytalus on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:00:55 PM PST

  •   (0+ / 0-)

    An ablative absolute clause

    Censorship is rogue government.

    by scott5js on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:40:23 PM PST

  •  An ablative absolute clause (0+ / 0-)

    "A well regulated militia" would be in the ablative case if the Second Amendment is translated into Latin.

    Censorship is rogue government.

    by scott5js on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 02:43:35 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site