Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers after Aurora massacre

[detroit_fan]

white house must have felt the heat from his statement, they are already back out to

The White House signaled Thursday that President Barack Obama would not be seeking new gun control laws in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. But press secretary Jay Carney said Obama would try to find ways to work around the "stalemate" in Congress to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-plays-down-prospect-gun-laws-224057070.html

imo, if obama is reelected he will continue to use his judicial appointments to enact his anti-gun agenda. if he has a chance to flip the SCOTUS to a liberal majority i believe heller and mcdonald will be overturned.

 

[Michigander]

I suspect it won't be long before some gun owners/carriers who say they support the right to bear arms will be suggesting that restricting the right to bear arms is Ok as long as the restrictions (background checks where the gov. has the power to deny IS a restriction on the right itself simply because the power to deny IS an "infringement") are "reasonable", "appropriate", or.............. "acceptable".

I rather like it how it is now, especially now that Bronson posted proof that attempts to buy illegally are criminal too.

FFL sales MUST be government approved, and private individuals making a sale have the ability to call NICS if they want to. So long as the private sales stay okay (and yes that should include handguns too in Michigan like most of the rest of the US) a national instant check system for FFL sales is okay by me.

No objections to opposing view points either, just saying I think how we have it now is quite good. Especially if there would be more enforcement on illegal buyers.

 

[DrTodd]

NICS works pretty well. Maybe it could use a bit of tweaking, but it's pretty effective.

The biggest problem I've seen is that there isn't a harsh penalty for someone who fails a NICS check trying over and over at different shops. I'd say it'd be good to send jokers like that to prison, because if they're that determined they'll almost inevitably try to talk a non gun person into straw purchasing for them, or seeking out a private sale.

I failed an NICS check once; I wouldn't like it if I had to go to prison. Don't forget not every exclusion is regarding something you actually did and/or was convicted of.
My ex had a ppo entered against me and, according to the paperwork, there was a section regarding firearms which was NOT checked. I thought I could still purchase because it wasn't checked; I was wrong. I fought it but the judge stated, "there is no harm in issuing it" even though I hadn't done anything listed as a reason for one. After the 1st expired, ex tried to get a second one, same judge said "What was I thinking when I issued the 1st one... renewal denied" but it did make me a bit PO'd that I couldn't go deer hunting that year...after arranging for time off, paying for cabin rental, etc.

 

[stainless1911]

Just curious, what is wrong with it? I haven't seen any major issues.

If you have a Michigan CPL, you are exempt. Right now I can walk into a gun store and buy everything as long as I have the credit or cash without a background check. If you don't have a CPL, the system still works well and keeps guns out of the hands of known felons.

There is nothing in the 2A that talks of background checks, but does say shall not be infringed.

Walkingwolf pretty much nailed it.

 

[Michigander]

Good points as usual drtodd, but I would again say that in terms of delusional daydreaming about a more perfect world (since that's what I'm basically doing in expressing my opinions) that the law should be better applied to those who are attempting to buy illegally in spite of knowing they are prohibited, and that harsher enforcement against actual violent felons would be prudent, at least if we're going to talk about improvements that could be made.

I bet in your case, and in plenty of others, that after some phone calls and inquiries were made that the matter got resolved. There is a large difference between that, and a guy who robbed 3 banks trying to buy a gun knowing he'll never be able to lawfully have one.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Good points as usual drtodd, but I would again say that in terms of delusional daydreaming about a more perfect world (since that's what I'm basically doing in expressing my opinions) that the law should be better applied to those who are attempting to buy illegally in spite of knowing they are prohibited, and that harsher enforcement against actual violent felons would be prudent, at least if we're going to talk about improvements that could be made.

I bet in your case, and in plenty of others, that after some phone calls and inquiries were made that the matter got resolved. There is a large difference between that, and a guy who robbed 3 banks trying to buy a gun knowing he'll never be able to lawfully have one.

If violent felons are kept in prison they cannot buy guns. Simple really.

 

[stainless1911]

I dont believe felons should be denied their rights either.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I dont believe felons should be denied their rights either.

I agree, why should they not be able to protect their family, and themselves. Besides if they are bad people they will get the guns anyway.

 

[Ezerharden]

I agree, why should they not be able to protect their family, and themselves. Besides if they are bad people they will get the guns anyway.

Would they be protecting their families or killing someone elses? No, violent felons with prior weapons charges do NOT need to be allowed to buy guns, sorry, they gave that right up when the committed their first crime with one.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Would they be protecting their families or killing someone elses? No, violent felons with prior weapons charges do NOT need to be allowed to buy guns, sorry, they gave that right up when the committed their first crime with one.

I disagree, one does not give up their rights after they have completed their sentence. Otherwise they would lose all of their other rights as well including due process. Besides the fact that criminals do not obey laws that is why we call them criminals. Once they return to society as law abiding citizens they should be treated that way. If they can't be trusted they should stay in jail. By not allowing them to buy guns legally government forces them to get them illegally thereby creating more crime.

 

[Ezerharden]

I disagree, one does not give up their rights after they have completed their sentence. Otherwise they would lose all of their other rights as well including due process. Besides the fact that criminals do not obey laws that is why we call them criminals. Once they return to society as law abiding citizens they should be treated that way. If they can't be trusted they should stay in jail. By not allowing them to buy guns legally government forces them to get them illegally thereby creating more crime.

I see the point you are getting at and academically it is logical. Problem is though, most violent offenders are also REPEAT offenders. Lets see, use a gun to rape a woman, go to jail, get out of jail, legally go buy another gun, rape a woman, etc...

How many offenses does it take until you deem that they "can't be trusted"? And they will never stay in jail unless it is a life without parole sentence because jails are already overcrowded. Many are released early, then commit another crime and go right back again. I know about the 3 strike rule, but to me that is 3 violent crimes too many for life in prison.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I see the point you are getting at and academically it is logical. Problem is though, most violent offenders are also REPEAT offenders. Lets see, use a gun to rape a woman, go to jail, get out of jail, legally go buy another gun, rape a woman, etc...

How many offenses does it take until you deem that they "can't be trusted"? And they will never stay in jail unless it is a life without parole sentence because jails are already overcrowded. Many are released early, then commit another crime and go right back again. I know about the 3 strike rule, but to me that is 3 violent crimes too many for life in prison.

Well if we spend our money on prisons instead of spying on citizens, and shut down BATF and most of the FBI seems we could keep them in jail. There are many reasons they are repeat offenders, some come out of prison as hardened criminals after getting an education in crime in prison. If we would put the emphasis in due process, instead of violating the constitution I suspect much less problems with crime. There is a saying that those that sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. By now people should know that warm and fuzzy laws generally do not work. If society does not like the constitution there are measures built into it to change it. Just cause it sounds good is not a good reason, and it is the reason we are headed down the Marxist brick road.

 

[stainless1911]

I disagree, one does not give up their rights after they have completed their sentence. Otherwise they would lose all of their other rights as well including due process. Besides the fact that criminals do not obey laws that is why we call them criminals. Once they return to society as law abiding citizens they should be treated that way. If they can't be trusted they should stay in jail. By not allowing them to buy guns legally government forces them to get them illegally thereby creating more crime.

+1

If they can;t be trusted with a gun, why are they out of jail?

 

[davidmcbeth]

Allow me to clear this up for you.

Journalist's Guide to Firearms Identification

Ooops,, forgot one ... GLOCK I guess

lol great poster !

 

[Ezerharden]

+1

If they can;t be trusted with a gun, why are they out of jail?

Because they were only sentenced to 20 years. Just because they are released doesn't mean they are law abiding citizens now. Just means they did the time for what ever crime was committed. Is that an automatic guarantee of trust? Tell you what, a felon gets out of jail, stays out of trouble for say 3 years, then they can have their rights back because then they have established they can be trusted.

 

[PFC HALE]

you know what irritates me, everyone on both sides continues to dance around the issue.

No matter what law is made/enforced/created etc etc and no matter what time a person has spent in jail for a crime, no matter if someone got guns legally when they were sane, human beings will find a way to get the tools they need to do what they have chosen to do to other human beings laws be damned.

Its the human condition that cannot be changed and knowing this is why everyone that isnt a ex-con or mentally instable etc etc needs to be able to defend themself in the same manner.

Like drugs, make all drugs legal and the street value will drop, no one will be fighting for drug control. With guns, let all legal people be allowed to have them no questions asked and carry with them open/concealed the same and those wanting to commit crime wouldnt want to be shot for doing so.

Although common sense and logic lacks in our society....

 

[stainless1911]

I have to agree with PFC here.

Not to mention that "giving rights back" is an oxymoron. If they can be lost, they aren't rights.

 

[PFC HALE]

I have to agree with PFC here.

Not to mention that "giving rights back" is an oxymoron. If they can be lost, they aren't rights.

look at it from this point of view.

War

the enemy will use whatever means they can to defeat an attacker. They will follow no rules. They will use whatever they can and do whatever they can to kill you.

The good guys, they are governed by nato laws of warfare. They cant use a tank cannon to kill one person. they cant use .50cal to kill people. there are rules of engagement to follow.

making rules for the good guys inhibits or impedes their ability to wage ware on an even playing field and in order to win, many casualties will be incurred.

now relate the enemy above to criminals/ex-cons/sane legal people that snap for some reason, basically they bad people that murder.

now relate the good guys to us everyday man woman who is governed by laws upon laws and even more laws to fight back. We are on the losing side of the battle from the start because society thinks guns are the problem. Its people that is the problem and that will never change.

seeing that it is impossible to keep weapons (guns) out of the hands of those that mean to do harm to others the only logical and sane step to counter this threat is to empower those with the means to defend themselves with no questions asked, no fear of litigation, no fear of arrest for doing the right thing. And if someone does end up doing the wrong thing then justice will handle that, but that is a risk we will have to take.

Like Einstein stated, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
It is insane to make more guns laws that only affect law abiding people when we all know and have proven it does nothing to those that will not follow laws. and because of this we must allow those that do follow laws have the means to play on the same level as the enemy.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Some of the worst crimes are committed by people who have never been caught, up until. The same government that makes a law that mental patients cannot buy a gun, also makes it against the law for health workers to divulge the information. Duhhhhhh?

Once a felon completes their sentence they are a law abiding citizens until they commit another crime. If a twenty year sentence is not long enough to convince them then add more time. All of us know law abiding ex-cons, we all know criminals who have not been prosecuted. Our own president admitted to possessing drugs and using them. He also lied on a federal form to collect student aid which is a felony. If a once criminal cannot be trusted then neither should a admitted criminal be trusted. But the most important thing that puzzles me is how people who supposedly claim they support 2A can then condone acts or laws that are directly against it.

 

[Bikenut]

I will never understand the mentality that believes words on paper (laws) will have any kind of control over... or provide any measure of safety from.... the criminal who doesn't give two farts in the wind what words are written on paper.

Oh.. and then there is that little thing called "shall not be infringed" that doesn't mention anything about "except if the infringement is considered "reasonable", "appropriate", or "acceptable".