Shame on Republicans, and by the way they are not too bright either

My Opinion 31 comments

Let’s be honest, increased background check requirements are not gong to stop gun violence, the criminals and the mentally disturbed will find a way to get a weapon if desired, but so what?

That does not mean we don’t try to minimize the risk, just maybe making it a slight bit more difficult will prevent one tragedy, even one. Without being able to pick up a gun from the nightstand maybe a few minutes reflection will get a nut to think about something else.

More scrutiny before you are allowed to buy a gun, will what, keep you from adding to your arsenal for any extra week or two? As long as there are any background checks, why not apply them to all purchases, gun shows, mail order or your local pharmacy? None of that makes it illegal to own a gun or violates the holy grail of the second amendment.

I continue to be baffled by the term “pro-gun lobby” What a society, we have managed to praise and condemn simultaneously the pro-gun and pro-life lobbies.

Republicans in the Senate are short-sighted and out of touch. They are so obsessed with opposition to the Administration they are blinded to opportunity and beneficial long-term strategies (Democrats are equally guilty on other issues).

They have made it clear, they are first Republicans and then Americans followed someplace in the rear, by thinking individuals.

31 comments

    1. I agree, Dickk – why won’t our congress members at least try to help our citizens avoid the incredible sorrow of their children being murdered in classrooms? – the proposed new and approved laws regarding gun control are not a 100% guarantee that there will never be another Newtown, but it’s a start and no law-abiding citizen gets hurt – felons and the mentally will will find it more difficult to obtain firearms – the NRA-led radical right is either totally misinformed and/or ignorant of the facts, the Constitution, Federal laws and history – “By the people, for the people and of the people” is NOT congress members cowering in fear of the NRA lobby supported by millions from gun manufacturers! – when NRA “grading” and millions of dollars from firearms and munitions manufacturers causes our elected congress members to cower in fear, our great nation is shamed – thank you for speaking up

      Like

      Reply

    2. Please refer to paragraphs 4, 5, and 8 under Experts Divided. I think they outline that all is not well with the background process in Florida and I agree that needs some major overhauling nationwide. Para 8 really says it all as the individual had a mental issue that was on record but not divulged through the current process.

      With regard to your April 21 response to me, I did not mean that you did not do a good job describing the nuances of Obama Care. I think you have done a marvelous job walking us through the law and it’s pitfalls. I wish you would put the same fervor into discussing how this god-awful law was cast upon the American People in the middle of the night and how the Senate got away with it. Not a single Republican vote on something so crucial to our Nation. I am certain that your comments on this would generate considerable interest.

      Like

      Reply

  2. rdquinn,

    All the background checks in the world would not have prevented the Connecticut killings. The mother had all the appropriate credentials to legally purchase her firearms. Unfortunately what she also had was a mentally challenged son who she did not deal with properly and look what happened to her first.

    I agree 100% that some form of enhanced checks needs to be implemented and that includes for those persons that have mental issues. Unfortunately, and I say this carefully, Liberals seem to not want to include that group because of privacy issues concerning their medical information. Well, it would seem to me that we all can’t have it both ways. We can’t protect medical privacy (mental) and get the level of security we need to complete a real universal background check. Something will have to give. We can blame anyone we want to but at the end of the day it’s government.

    Your comment to Tim about what he is going to do with all these guns (not personal please) is none of your business and that is the very point of all this bluster about gun rights. Every individual has the legal right to own and in many cases carry a gun. That is their legal business and should not be questioned by neighbors, friends, etc. I have a legal concealed carry permit and yet I chose not to carry. So why did I get one. Because I was concerned the Government under Obama was working on somehow preventing me from doing this if I so choose. It’s also the reason I have ordered 3 more handguns which I do not need and frankly didn’t want to have to pay for. But I did this before my rights to do so would be take from me by our government.

    I am going to agree with Jack B and Tim on the distrust of government issue. And, you are right “we are in trouble” on the distrust issue. This administration in particular has really given us no choice but to distrust them. Let’s take a look at this week alone: Interrogation of Boston Bomber, stopped before necessary and before the FBI got all the go forward intel they may have gotten. Why and by who? It appears as though the Attorney General authorized this. Will we ever find out? The issue of Bomber one leaving the Country and then coming back after 6 months. How did we lose track of him and look at the apparent results of that debacle? Could Boston been averted if certain people did their jobs? Listen to Napolitano song and dance around the issue, take no responsibility and probably never be held accountable for the disgraceful performance of her people. And we sit back and ask if we should trust this group of, I don’t know what to call them, perhaps armatures. We are seriously in trouble as a nation.

    Finally, I am going to agree with Bill M regarding gun show purchases. I have been to many in my home state of Pennsylvania and many but not all of the dealers do background checks via a laptop or cell phone. Many, not all, and that should be stopped. All sales need prior approval.

    Like

    Reply

    1. But WHY do you feel you need for a gun or guns, especially a hand gun? Do you need a gun walking down the street or in the mall? Forget the right to have a gun for a moment. I am trying to understand the place people are in when they conclude our society requires self protection to this degree.

      As a society we protect ourselves from second hand smoke and drunk drivers with laws, but we have no right to protect society from a trigger happy hot head that may not deal well with road rage and just happens to be carrying a gun?

      I just don’t get this obsession. I get hunting, or target shooting or collecting valuable arms, but I don’t get buying as many guns as possible because you may not be able to nor do I get carrying a gun just in case. That’s the way they lived 150 years ago. Have we regressed?

      Like

      Reply

      1. Well, I can’t answer for anyone else but for me I see it as possibly my children not being able to acquire guns in the future and the fact that I personally like guns even though I have not fired most of mine in years. But I do clean them at least twice a year whether they need it or not. Call me stupid but that’s what I do.

        With regard to second hand smoke, I defer to the illustrious Mr. Bloomberg who feels that smoking in the park is dangerous, drinking 32 0Z. coke is dangerous, see where I’m going with this?

        Like

      2. For your own sake, Dan, stop posting. Your every keystroke reveals more of your ignorance and stupidity!

        Like

    2. But what if she had no guns at all in the house? Did the easy access facilitate his action? Would he consciously have sought out guns had they not been part of his life? Who knows, but it’s a valid question is it not?

      Like

      Reply

      1. It is and I do not have an answer for that. What I do speculate is that he was not sitting in his house thinking about how quickly he could kill so many people with a gun. Rather, if he did not have a gun my guess is he would have thought of some other method to hurt as many people as he could like a bomb or fire to mention a few. Who knows the capabilities of mentally unstable people?

        Like

  3. The will of the people?

    • Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013: “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?” Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent.

    • CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013: “Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. … If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show.” Favor: 83 percent. Oppose: 17 percent.

    “If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them.” Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.

    “If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift.” Favor: 54 percent. Oppose: 45 percent.

    “Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for anyone who wants to buy ammunition for a gun.” Favor: 55 percent. Oppose: 44 percent.

    • Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. “Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?” Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

    • CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. “Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?” Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

    Like

    Reply

  4. You are wrong on this and here is only one reason why: Nowhere in the Toomey papers is there sufficient language covering the inclusion of mental capacity as part of the background check. The ACLU and others (Democrats in particular) say it’s an infringement on privacy rights to include this information. Look at the major shooting tradgies and you will see that almost all of them have been committed by persons with mental issues. As a 40 year plus member of the NRA, I am 100% for universal background checks but only if they include everyone (the well and the not well). All of my NRA friends feel the same way so let’s stop with the persecution of this organization who, by the way, has offered to help draft appropriate language and train anyone who wishes in the safe way to handle firearms. Over 200 teachers in Arizona turned out to receive NRA training several months ago. I’ll bet that pissed off the likes of Feinstein and the president.

    You poke fun at the Pro-Gun Lobby and yet you leave out something more damaging to our Country and that is the pro Obama Care lobby. We don’t call it that but anytime government (one side of it anyway) makes decisions in the middle of the night that affects millions of Americans, businesses, etc.. and then beats their chest about it that’s a pro whatever lobby. To me and most all of my business friends that’s highway robbery only legal. We will all pay the price for this travesty in the long run.

    Like

    Reply

    2. Dan – apparently you are ignorant of the fact that the NRA profits from the sales of firearms and ammunition and that is their sole purpose for existence and executive compensation – they don’t give a damn about the safety and security of American citizens – it’s all about the money – you are ignorant of the real world and a perfect loud-mouthed proponent for organizations such as the NRA which promote violence and death in America!

      Like

      Reply

      1. Wilson, obviously you are much better versed about an organization I have been a member of for over 40 years than I am. I am not aware of the NRA making money from gun sales and certainly of their involvement in promoting violence and death in America. If I thought that for one moment, I would resign my membership. If anything, they have been the stalwarts of gun safety and training in our Country. The problem with people like you are that you are ignorant of the facts and “shoot from the hip”. What this country needs is fewer people like you falsely making accusations you cannot support. Come up with something factual we can discuss like grown ups and I am certain that myself and others reading this blog can discuss intelligently rather than casting aspersions like you have written.

        Like

      2. If you haven’t learned what the NRA is really doing in 40 years, you can stop trying. I hope the majoritiy of NRA members are not similiarly intellectually challenged.

        Like

      4. Thanks, Mr. Quinn – 40-year NRA member, Dan doesn’t know that:

        This is not to say that the NRA does not benefit from gun sales. It does. Not only does it receive contributions from willing gun customers at the point of purchase, but gun manufacturers are major contributors to the NRA. Smith & Wesson in May became a member of the NRA’s “Golden Ring of Freedom,” which is for donors who contribute more than $1 million. In 2008, the Beretta Group — another “Golden Ring of Freedom” member — exceeded $2 million in donations.

        In one case, the gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Company tied its donations directly to gun sales in a program called the “Million Gun Challenge.” According to an April 2012 press release, Ruger promised to donate $1 to the NRA-ILA for each gun it sold over the course of a year, from May 2011 to May 2012. The “Million Gun Challenge” exceeded its goal and raised $1.25 million.

        Is it any wonder that everything that Wayne Lapierre says, all of the lobbying and advertising of the NRA and all of their proposed “solutions” involve the sale of more guns in America?

        Mr. Wayne LaPierre:
        You are the epitome of evil in this world. You are earning millions promoting killing and violence in our great nation in order to enable your gun manufacturing sponsors to sell more guns.

        You are a thoroughly disgusting human being and a puppet for the gun and ammunition manufacturers who are making you wealthy.

        Your ranting and raving is consummately ludicrous when you specify background checks for your proposed armed school safety guards and teachers while opposing background checks to stop felons and the mentally unstable.

        Your ranting and raving is also consummately ludicrous when you state that assault rifle magazines can be changed in only one second, but you oppose smaller gun magazines.
        You and your kind are the scum of the earth and you do not deserve to live in our great country.

        Like

  5. FYI, I can’t account for your suggestion that the bill would have become law, but for Republicans. In fact, they had enough Republican votes, just not every Democrat. There was bipartisan agreement on the Toomey/Manchin bill, even though few had read the law, just not enough Democrats. For other major facets of the proposed gun legislation, the only side of the argument where there was bipartisan agreement was to reject the proposed legislation.
    Why is it that you don’t criticize PPACA in the same way since there most, but not every D voted for it, and no R voted for it? Perhaps you did, and I missed it. The problem with Toomey/Manchin was that few understood how the bill would work in operation – sounds familiar? “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
    The purpose of that law was stated as: To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process.
    Really? We are going to capture every American (and every illegal alien) in a data base that will ensure those who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are identified in advance? They are going to release all mental health records to such a system?
    Specifically:
    The Republicans who voted for the Toomey/Manchin bill were Sens. Pat Toomey (PA), Mark Kirk (IL), Susan Collins (ME) and John McCain (AZ) –the same number as the four Democrats who voted against it – Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Max Baucus (MT), Mark Begich (AK) and Mark Pryor (AR)
    Fifteen Democrats voted no on an assault weapons ban proposed by Senator Feinstein (D-CA): Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (AK), Michael Bennet (CO), Joe Donnelly (IN), Kay Hagan (NC), Martin Heinrich (NM), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joe Manchin (WV), Mark Pryor (AK), Jon Tester (MT), Mark Udall (CO), Tom Udall (NM), and Mark Warner (VA). Sen. Angus King (ME), an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, also voted against the ban.
    Your NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg (D) proposed a limit on high-capacity magazines. Among the Democrat senators who opposed an assault weapons ban, five showed support for a ban on high-capacity magazines: Bennet, Heinrich, Johnson, Mark Udall and Tom Udall. So did King. Ten voted against it: Baucus, Begich, Donnelly, Hagan, Heitkamp, Landrieu, Manchin, Pryor, Tester and Warner.

    Like

    Reply

  6. I’m solidly with Mr. Quinn. Most Republicans in Congress are concerned only with preserving their jobs in the next election. They are not representing their constituents and they cower in fear before the NRA. I’m not afraid of a firearms database. I have nothing to hide and I have firearms. I think a firearms database would be a great help to law enforcement and I’m all in favor of helping the police in any way possible. What a great job law enforcement did in Boston! Those bombers were Muslims and there are a lot more of them embedded in this nation and planning attacks like the one in Boston. That’s the published new Al Qaeda strategy. Let’s all do whatever we can to assist law enforcement with their efforts to protest us. And, vote those cowardly obstructionist Republicans out of office in 2014.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Jerry, Just keep in mind that the concern over keeping ones job in the next election is not in any way confined to Republicans. Democrats are no better, just on a different side of most issues. Politics have become so corrupt in many ways, it’s a wonder how we function at all. I had no particular affinity for Johnson, or Kennedy or Clinton, but now they seem like the good old days. Where are Tip O’Neal and Moynahan when you need them?

      Like

      Reply

      1. OK, Quinn – I’ll give you that – Democratic congress members also want to remain in office -(why, I will never understand – what a s**t job) – I’m certain that they find ways to accumulate great wealth while in office – however, we are now in the 5th year of Republican obstructionism in Congress! – for the love of God and for the love of our nation, can’t these obstructionist Republicans find it in their hearts and souls to “ask what you can do for your country”? – let’s please get things done on gun control, immigration, the debt, income tax reform, etal! – the first goal of these thoroughly disgusting Republican obstructionists was to make Obama a one-term president – they failed! – they are now dedicated to oppose anything that our president tries to accomplish during his second term – these Republican congress members are paralyzing our country – nothing is getting done! – senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are highly educated raving idiots! – Rand Paul is saying that he may run for president!? – he would not be elected dog catcher in Dog Patch! – (thankfully, Ted Cruz was born in Canada) – we will prevail and the obstructionist anti-patriots will be gone, but it will take too long!

        Like

    2. Dan, Well Wilson, once again you have shown that not only due you shoot from the hip and speak false statements, but you have a way of interpreting facts, as Mr. Quinn researched, to suite your needs. Obviously you do not have the intellect to read but to do have the ability to twist words. Nowhere is there any verification that the NRA uses these monies for salaries or bonuses. Rather they are principally used for education and other Organization expenses. Regardless who donates money to the NRA none of it appears to be used for pay related purposes. Now, they do use some of these monies to defend members and the gun owning public from bureaucratic strangulation and infringements to the Second Amendment on all our behalf. You need to, read the Second Amendment and you will find that we all, as Americans, have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms which the Supreme Court has up held. It does not say that the government has the right to limit the number and kinds of guns we can have and it does not say that the government can have a gun registry to keep tabs on us. So, unless and until the Constitution is changed that can not happen and it won’t. Sorry but I will no longer respond to you. You are exactly the kind of individual we do not need in this Country. La Pierre may not always choose the right words but he is a person of high integrity and honesty and therefore what he says is from the heart and lot’s of people don’t want to hear things said that straightforwardly. He need some coaching and counseling in this area and he would make a terrible politician.

      In closing, as an ignorant member of the NRA, I am 100% behind background checks as long as everyone gets one and it includes those who are mentally challenged. I believe that whatever the check is it needs to be included at gun shows but not for transfers between family members. A national gun registry is a no no.

      God buy and good riddance Mr. Wilson.

      Like

      Reply

  7. I guess you have never been to a gun show. The dealers at gun shows do require background checks. In these, if you are out of state, you need to have the weapon sent to a bonefide gun shop in your state. You are correct in saying background checks will not deter a violent criminal visa vie the bombers in Boston or the stabbings that occur daily. There are laws on the books that need to be enforced not add to the cobweb of useless verbage in useless legislation to block the majority of honest citizens who wish to or need to protect themselves and their families. See how long it takes for law enforcement to respond to a plea for help while you stare down a gun barrel. You a d others are not attacking political parties, you are attacking the rights of freedom. Remember there are 44 states that allow honest god fearing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Thank you for your point of view but many do not support the removal or reduction of our freedom. Find solutions to stop the criminals.

    Like

    Reply

    1. One of our most valued freedoms is the vote and yet barely half of the population excercises that right regularly … better we should all carry a concealed gun? How does a background check or perhaps a delay in acquiring, remove or reduce a freedom? Bill, I hope that gun barrel is not in the hands of an honest citizen who thinks you are not.

      Like

      Reply

  8. Dick- I have a little different take on the subject. As far as a background check slowing down the acquisition of a firearm, here in Florida, anyone who has a concealed carry permit (and many do) is considered to have been vetted and may legally purchase and take possession of a firearm immediately. I’m not sure how or if the Manchin-Toomey bill would have affected that.
    On the broader issue of universal background checks, I would be in favor of them but I also understand the growing distrust of government. I am aware that the bill specifically forbade the use of a database which might be used in the future to confiscate firearms, but if you distrust the government, you know a law can be changed and the database becomes the bell that can’t be unrung.

    Like

    Reply

      1. There is that much distrust in government. They screw up everything they touch. I’ll cling to my guns and buy as many more as I can. And I’m not alone, gun sales have been through the roof and increasing for years.

        Like

Leave a Reply