Who could possibly be opposed to closing the "gun show loophole"?
What individual or group would try to stand in the way of legislation that would make it harder for convicted felons and other dangerous persons to obtain all sorts of dangerous weapons?
Whose interest does it serve to allow "private sellers" at gun shows to sell AK-47s, TEC-9's, Mac-10s and other types of high-powered and semi-automatic guns to buyers, without requiring them to undergo a Brady background check?
These were the kinds of questions that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), asked over and over at a Congressional forum on "The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act" in Chicago on August 19. Make no mistake. The NRA bosses and their allies oppose closing the "gun show loophole." They have complained on their blogs and in press releases about it, while ignoring the testimony of law enforcement officials who report that huge caches of guns are bought by, or supplied to, criminals from gun shows.
The bill to close the "gun show loophole," introduced by Representatives Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Michael Castle (R-DE), has more than 100 cosponsors, including U.S. Senate Candidate Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL).
Last week's forum was chaired by Bobby Scott (D-VA), Subcommittee Chairman on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and attended by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL.), and Rep. Conyers.
Fellow Judiciary Committee Member Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), convened the forum, which -- like the one held in Washington, D.C. July 14 -- was an opportunity for the public and congressional representatives to learn more about this huge threat to the safety of our families and communities.
Weeks before the Chicago forum, opponents to this commonsense legislation were contacted by House staff and invited to testify. Opponents had protested about not being invited to weigh in at the D.C. hearing. And yet, when extended the opportunity in Chicago, they and their protests suddenly evaporated. As Rep. Conyers pleaded for opponents of the legislation to speak up, a representative of the Illinois Rifle Association stood up. Rep. Conyers insisted he come forward and make his case. He declined to speak publicly, saying only that he would prefer to talk to the congressman in private.
I'm not surprised. After the testimonies of gun violence victims such as Colin Goddard, who was shot four times at Virginia Tech, and Annette Nance-Holt, whose 16-year-old son, Blair, was killed in Chicago while shielding a friend from gunfire, members of the Chicago and Illinois police departments, and Thomas Mannard of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, the IRA rep must have realized that the flagrant flaws in his logic would have been exposed.
It's not easy to speak after hearing Colin Goddard talk about why he was there: "I learned that while I'm associated with the worst mass-shooting in U.S. history -- 32 dead -- there are, on average, another 32 people killed by gun violence every day in America. And last year, out of the 258 public school students who were shot in Chicago, 32 were killed. But more importantly, I've understood the hard way how even just one homicide, one dead family member, can change the life of that family forever. And this is why I do what I do: to give a voice to those who've already been silenced and to those family members who are still too overwhelmed to speak out."
Congressman Quigley is to be commended for pursuing this forum. Although Illinois has effectively already taken sensible steps to close the "gun show loophole" problem, Rep. Quigley understands that residents of his state are affected by weak laws in neighboring states and that communities across our nation would be even better off if we made it harder on a federal level for dangerous people to stockpile guns.
Chicago has seen some of worst gun violence of any city in America in recent years. This July, according to a report from the Chicago Tribune, more than 300 people were shot, 33 of them killed. The easy access to guns by dangerous people continues to exist because of our nation's weak gun laws and the weak guns laws of so many states. The anemic laws in neighboring jurisdictions make it hard for cities to see the kind of progress that they could be seeing. And these anemic laws make it hard for residents of those communities to experience the kind of safety that they deserve a right to.
Help us prevent more gun violence. Click here to find out how you can help us close the "gun show loophole," and answer the closed-door arguments of those who would oppose it.
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter.
According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in the nation declined in 2009 for the third consecutive year. Property crimes also declined in 2009, marking the seventh straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses dropped below the previous year’s total.
And w/ more firearms in circulation than ever before, the BC believes crime should be increasing. Why isn't it?
Nevertheless, it's the bullets not the words. You may have heard the basic training NCO shout to a recruit: "Point that weapon down range!" Nobody cares about pointing the recruits mouth down range. Or his typing fingers. Just his weapon. Any one misusing words -- which you call "disruptive behavior" -- can easily be dealt with peer "censureship" -- not censorship. You can't be complaining about the kind of paternalism that would define "disruptive behavior" with gun regulations the way you don't want it to be defined without at least thinking about paternalism as it applies to words.
I have no problem with standards addressing the misuse of firearms. Likewise I have no problem with standards addressing the misuse of speech. And in the military, they also teach that if you do not establish and enforce standards, you have just established and enforced standards.
__A
____1
______a
____2
____3
__B
II
__A
____1
______a
______b
____2
__B
____1
____2
______a
If I-A-1 is deleted, why should and how could I-A-1-a remain?
____________________________________________________________________________
The...uh...question I asked to which the above is your response is, "Are you okay with that?"
A yes or a no might have sufficed.
Just to point out a way to save comments even if one is like totally abusive: You (the software) could leave the box of the comment and just delete the text and maybe post a stamp saying "this comment has been removed" and maybe giving the reason, language or what). That way everybody else could go on dicussing what they've been dicussing without being affected.
Richmond (somewhere below) is absolutely right: A lot of comments were deleted that did not contain any foul language or nasty remarks, just disagreement. A long debate between him/her and me went away, and I can swear to it we both were fighting on issues but not insulting each other.
Regarding Richmond's revelation, it would be helpful to have a separate blog devoted to such questions.
I'm having trouble communicating today. Whatever ToS is, I want it changed. I don't want to give "implicit approval for such behavior." I want to give explicit approval. These are words, just words. If it were bullets, of course, I would want to regulate it. After all, words can't kill.
"After all, words can't kill. "
Most killings escalate from words.
FYI, ToS is "Terms of Service". Nearly all web forums and websites have them. They are mostly very similar to the ones here.
dreamweaver2nd:
You're a tiger. So, debating you can be pretty exciting. Possibly too exciting for some.
I'm sorry I missed the missing comments. However, outside perhaps their orchestrated mob behavior, nothing emphasizes the poverty and barrenness of their arguments so much as the oppressive silence the totemists love to impose on others.
Here's the gun, uh, enthusiast* version of the childhood adage, "if you can't say something nice, don't say it": "if you can't say something WE think is nice, we won't LET you say it."
*Hoplocrazies, that's MY construction, not DW's, not that it matters to you, of course, in the broad brush you use to paint all opposition.
Speaking of which, you folks who love to invoke the Brit law tradition, etymology, and centuries-old usage in your highly-selective (to some; to me, deeply dishonest, manipulative) attempts to legitimize your stances might also investigate the post-Cromwell concept of "enthusiasm." You might end up preferring I call you one of the other completely accurate tags you earn yourselves -- addict, animist, etc.
Why? Could it be she's a tiger?
And what are you doing on a liberal web site? The proprietor, it could be argued, is a radical. You could be on Free Republic, for example. You could bemoan the progressive positions on gun control and you'd get a whole bunch of Freepers ready to sympathize with you.
The fact is, you don't want that. You're itching for a fight. You want to devastate your opponents with the clarity of your logic. You want them to fight back so that you and your colleagues can declare victory and do high-fives. Hunting deer is fun, but hunting tiger -- nothing like it.
If dreamweaver2nd, guffman, and others didn't show up, you'd be looking for other game. Hanging around other hunters gets old.
You're sitting on your tree platform waiting for prey. Not the easy kind. It's the kind with sharp teeth. Thank her for the fire in her belly.
You enjoy this! Admit it. This is the high point of your day! So, treat your opponent with respect. The alternative is Freeperland. And you don't want that.
grossmont328 "Jack--I would love for this debate to be based on facts and logic--but for guffman--his last 2 posts to me were demands that I unfan him backed by his calling me "A PROMOTER OF SOMETHING UNPLEASANT OR DISCREDITABLE" AND A "SIMPLETON."
I derived the synonyms from the dictionary. And, while I'm teasing you a bit, I do want to point out how arbitrary intervention can induce an atmosphere that promotes some other unpleasant and discreditable phenomenon.
Consider this: You and I are waiting in line at Starbuck's. You're packing; I'm not. A bad guy comes in and aims a gun at my head. You see his finger begin to squeeze the trigger. I know what you would do. Of course, I would be eternally grateful.
But if that same guy came in and quietly aimed some insults in my direction, you wouldn't feel the need to undo your holster. The police officer in the corner with the pile of Starbuck donuts in front of him would probably not want to censor him. You and he believe my skin ought to be thick enough to withstand mere words. And, you'd be right.
Wannabees and CSU/DeVry graduate back-and-forths are all part of the scrimmage.
Too bad. It had the potential for an interesting discussion.
I don't recall that the discussion violated rules. There must have been another reason.
I understand that in Iran, the judges are empowered to declare some act is an offense when the law doesn't specifically exclude it. Of course, that's Iran. We don't have any authoritarian Ayatollahs here, do we? It leaves open the possibility that that "principle" was applied to this discussion and the guffman's expulsion.
Yes, my friend "guffman" is not posting and his profile is gone. I agree with your surprise and confusion about how and why ... Thank you for writing.
I have been insulted in dramatic fashion. The temptation is to flag the insulter. I decline to do that out of a concern that such actions place me on a slippery slope. Where does it all end? Well, as proof of that, we see here that the mere insult-free, profanity-free discussion of such activities is eliminated, as was the case when the subject was brought up a couple of days ago. As this offering may be.
Given a choice between insults and paternalism, my choice is to accept the former and oppose the latter. They're just words being hurled at you, not bullets (sorry I couldn't resist).
You aren't banned. "guffman" didn't flag you or complain to the moderators -- as is the gun lobby's habit. He never flagged opposition. He believes in free speech, I suppose that is the difference: although there are other huge differences as measure of integrity go, and character and honesty.
NRA Snubs Harry Reid: Lessons Learned?
grossmont328
Commented Sep 8, 2010 at 12:15:14 in Politics
"guffiethebuffoon--you & your buds are proof positive of the hoplophobic civilian disarmament advocate hive mind"
Share it
Permalink
Actually you can find pro-Second Amendment/right to keep and bear arms, and pro-firearm articles in a great many venues. Just not this particular one. Even the most extreme liberials and progressives know that this is a very biased venue.
OdinsEye: Your comment is wrong, and biased.
I couldn't reply to your post below. I know you'll see it here because you track my posts.
The NRA gun lobby publishes to safe and select audiences. The gun lobby does not welcome public scrutiny. This website is a public forum. Not biased. Articles represent diverse opinions. The gun lobby does not welcome diverse opinions. As evidenced in the comment sections on gun threads where the gun lobby dominates in large numbers.
Your comment sounds like another NRA gun lobby sales pitch for "special rights"- rights not in the Constitution, nor given to anyone else.
The NRA gun lobby is a propaganda machine trying to sell the erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment as a right "higher" than other rights. Most Americans disagree with your idea of "special rights" and your sense of "entitlement." No Sale.
Which explains why the BC shut down comments on their blog.
Prove it.
"The NRA gun lobby is a propaganda machine trying to sell the erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment as a right "higher" than other rights. Most Americans disagree with your idea of "special rights" and your sense of "entitlement." "
Strawman.
Semper fi
Other than SB1070 one other bill passed in Arizona this year allows ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon , anywhere without a permit...that coupled with the gun show loophole is a recipe for future tragedy but of course Republicans don't give a flip it is more important to them to pander to the crazy "second amendment remedy" crowd than make responsible contribution to public policy
Arizona has become the state no one wants to visit. I feel for the good people who live there. The lax gun laws and hyped rhetroic is leading Arizona and our nation toward a future tragedy. I hope more people see through the manipulators and the panderers, maybe before November.
It's good to see you.
They don't seem to have lost any visitors. The Grand Canyon remains a very popular destination, as does Phoenix and other locations.
CC = Open or concealed carry without a permit. No permit to buy. No registration. No magazine limits. No limit on how many guns citizens may buy in any arbitrary time period.
1. If one does not oppose most existing regulation of gun sales, why would one resist a law that ensures gun show sales meet the standards of gun store sales?
2. If, as some here state, the existing law makes no distinction between gun shows and gun store sales, what would be so bad about a redundant law?
3. If gun show sales are under-enforced, is there anyone here that would oppose stepped up enforcement?
4. What is the basis of NRA opposition to gun show sales undergoing the same process as gun store sales?
5. What would be the justification for not requiring private owners of guns to meet the same standards of gun store sales when transferring ownership of their guns?
2. Redundant laws are a drag on our legal system. Try googling ANY law/regulation you can think of. You'll find plenty of redundant laws. Do you really think our police and courts need this kind of confusion?
3. Gun shows are not under-enforced. Attend one, and you will see uniformed police. You will likely see identifiable ATF agents. You may assume, correctly, that the police are there out of uniform, and that ATF is probably there. What stepped-up enforcement do you have in mind, and from where will the assets come?
4. Gun show sales go through the exact same processes as gun store sales, provided that the seller is a FFL dealer. He/she is the only one with access to NICS. You and I don't have that access.
5. What would be the justification for not requiring private owners of automobiles to meet the same standards of automobile dealer sales when transferring ownership of their cars?
Semper fi
Your description of the enforcement activities differs from those who believe it is insufficient. But if it is as you described, there would be no need to step it up. If it isn't as you describe, then I assume you'd not think it would be a waste of assets to bring it up to the standards.
Oh, no!
Well-regulated gun sales!
Your pose excellent, reasonable, questions that deserve rational discussion.
--> stop trying to turn the existing NICS system into a de facto registration system by pushing for retention of records of those who past;
--> stop trying to merge NICS and the GCA prohibited persons list with the Bush Administration's unconstitutional secret blacklists;
--> stop trying to expand the categories of prohibited persons to include millions of currently lawful owners;
--> stop using *existing* gun licensure laws to demonize those who have chosen to be licensed;
...then maybe requiring all sales to involve a check wouldn't be so controversial. As it is, however, the same people pushing for private-sale background checks are the people trying to abuse the existing dealer-sale background check system, so understand if I am skeptical of their motives.
There might be ways to institute a private-sale background check in a way that (1) could never under any circumstances be used for registration or tracking, and (2) that would not increase the cost or hassle of the transfer to the law-abiding, but from where I'm standing it seems to me that the gun-control lobby wouldn't be particularly interested in such an approach.
--Garen Wintemute