HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I think one of the reason...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:18 AM

I think one of the reasons the NRA is harping on the 'background check' issue is because...


... it sucks up a huge amount of the TV airtime and keeps the focus off of the 'assault weapons ban' issue.

It's a 'Lookie over here and not over there' strategy.

The main focus needs to be put back on the actual weapons and magazines/drums.

Just my opinion.

47 replies, 2412 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 47 replies Author Time Post
Reply I think one of the reasons the NRA is harping on the 'background check' issue is because... (Original post)
Tx4obama Feb 2013 OP
Hoyt Feb 2013 #1
Deep13 Feb 2013 #2
Tx4obama Feb 2013 #3
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #7
Deep13 Feb 2013 #9
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #14
Deep13 Feb 2013 #17
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #20
Recursion Feb 2013 #39
CTyankee Feb 2013 #18
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #19
CTyankee Feb 2013 #21
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #23
CTyankee Feb 2013 #25
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #35
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #4
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #6
Deep13 Feb 2013 #10
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #13
Deep13 Feb 2013 #16
applegrove Feb 2013 #5
Lizzie Poppet Feb 2013 #8
Tx4obama Feb 2013 #12
Lizzie Poppet Feb 2013 #15
krispos42 Feb 2013 #11
CTyankee Feb 2013 #22
krispos42 Feb 2013 #24
CTyankee Feb 2013 #29
krispos42 Feb 2013 #37
CTyankee Feb 2013 #38
krispos42 Feb 2013 #40
CTyankee Feb 2013 #41
Hoyt Feb 2013 #31
krispos42 Feb 2013 #36
Hoyt Feb 2013 #43
krispos42 Feb 2013 #44
liberal N proud Feb 2013 #26
Hoyt Feb 2013 #27
Recursion Feb 2013 #32
Hoyt Feb 2013 #33
Recursion Feb 2013 #34
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #28
Recursion Feb 2013 #30
CTyankee Feb 2013 #42
Recursion Feb 2013 #46
CTyankee Feb 2013 #47
moondust Feb 2013 #45

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:23 AM

1. +10000. Merely enacting stricter BG checks, while better than nothing, still ignores these weapon

including handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:04 AM

2. The background checks will prevent unregulated straw men...

...from funneling guns to organized crime.

Honestly, I don't care what the guns look like. I care about high-volume functionality and I really care about ending unregulated transactions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:15 AM

3. I'm not saying that back ground checks aren't important, they are. But ...


the majority of folks in Congress already agree that the back ground checks loop hole should be closed/fixed.

I think that the since most folks already agree on that (other than the NRA) the main focus needs to now move on to the other issues - the issues that do not have as much support as the loop hole issue.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:55 PM

7. The current Federal laws against straw buying aren't working now

and the penalties are supposed to be 10 years jail and a $250,000 fine. Of course if the ATF actually started enforcing that law, it'd probably do a lot more good then that botched operation in Milwaukee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:15 PM

9. But you can still do it by calling it a personal transfer.

It's not about making it illegal. It's about making it very hard to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:22 PM

14. But if nobody enforces the law

it's a waste of time.

We need to enforce the existing laws, there is certainly plenty on the books and start putting people in jail. Two recent examples that took place in CT of why the system is broken.

A part time employee of a gun store was convicted of stealing 33 guns from the gun store. He was given to probation and a suspended sentence.

A 26 year old male stole 11 firearms from the same store and was given to probation and a suspended sentence. He was arrested AGAIN trying to steal a 12th gun when he was caught and arrested.

The store has had it's FFL suspended (rightfully so) and the last I heard, the owner may even face charges (again, rightfully so if he committed a crime).

It is the same store the legally sold Nancy Lanza the guns used at Sandy Hook

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:20 AM

17. It is enforced. The FBI check is a precondition for a lawful...

...commercial transfer. If we require the check for all transfers, it will greatly reduce the number of criminals and others with weapon disabilities able to get guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 10:52 AM

20. I disagree as to the effectiveness of a NICS check

in keeping the guns out of criminals hands. I think criminals are getting guns either through theft or straw buying and a NICS check will not stop a straw purchase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 05:04 PM

39. Anyone who can get heroin will also always be able to get a gun. That's not what this is about

The people who smuggle the one can smuggle the other. That said, the frustration factor this introduces will marginally reduce the amount of guns sold, which is on the whole a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:25 AM

18. Please stop with these worn out arguments. They are used by the NRA and we don't need

to see them here. Most of us know damn well that this argument is a way that the NRA wants us to believe that "nothing can be done" so let's not even try.

Of course, laws should be enforced. But we don't shrug and say we can't when it comes to other times that laws are not enforced properly. This is a straw man argument. No one is saying our laws should not be enforced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 10:50 AM

19. I'm not saying nothing can be done,

I am saying that local, state and Federal law enforcement are NOT enforcing the laws we already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:01 AM

21. but what I'd like to not see you stop there. It implies "oh, too bad..." and nothing more.

It would be good to hear your statement augmented with YOUR suggestions on how to improve enforcement.

Now, having typed that sentence I note that you include "local, state" when obviously enforcement will be difficult in some areas. Do you have any suggestions about THOSE laws that are not enforced? For instance, Pres. Eisenhower had to send the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce desegregation and it wasn't pretty but it made change happen, didn't it? And I don't think there is any serious person today who would characterize that action as a "takeover" of (white) people's rights. (Note that I said "serious.")

I'll await your suggestions on getting enforcement of existing laws more firmly established and stronger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:40 AM

23. Release non-violent drug offenders

and instead of prosecuting them, make it a civil offense with a fine, a huge fine if you are against drugs and use the resources to put straw buyers and any criminals that attempt to buy a gun and fail the NICS check in jail.

"enforcement will be difficult in some areas" if I understand what you are trying to imply, I disagree, I think law enforcement, especially local and state* would love to see illegal gun buyers put in jail, but using the CT examples I
already mentioned, it seems the prosecutors would rather give them probation and a suspended sentence.


* One hears stories, which may or may not be true, that many Federal law enforcement officers and many Federal prosecutors are more interested in solving the "exciting" high profile cases that gets one promoted and into the papers. The ATF mess in Milwaukee does seem to suggest there is at least some truth to the stories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:03 PM

25. Good ideas!

As for prosecutors my son is a senior prosecutor in Brooklyn (tho not a Federal prosecutor) so I will ask him about your theory...he may or may not know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:17 PM

35. It isn't so much my theory, but

something I have heard some retired local law enforcement talk about on other discussion boards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:12 AM

4. And . . . it wouldn't be effective.

Plus, depending on how it was organized and implemented, it might not hold up in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:52 PM

6. Yup, if Congress tries to regulate in state, private sales through the Commerce Clause,

and it holds up in court, the legal precedent should lead to some interesting long term unexpected consequences, especially under a future Republican president (which will happen sooner or later).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:19 PM

10. It only has to have an effect on interstate commerce.

If I buy a gun in state A that was made in state B, it will in some small way increase the demand for that state B product. And if the raw materials came from state C and the truck that delivered them drives through state D with tires made in state E....

SCOTUS has taken this view for about 200 years now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:05 PM

13. We're getting deep into legalese with this,

I'm not sure all the states are going to agree with Congress trying to assert it's authority on instate firearms sales between individuals, less because of the firearms and more because they are concerned about legal precedent.

Mostly a moot point, if a universal background check law passes, it'll be fought out in the court system. I have no particular objection to that law, although I have serious doubts as to the effectiveness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:02 AM

16. The states don't have to agree.

And compared to the legalese that exists, we haven't even gotten our an feet wet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:44 PM

5. Bingo. They know they will lose on something. So they offer that issue up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:59 PM

8. I think the opposite.

The weapon/magazine bans under current discussion seem unlikely to accomplish much of anything in terms of reducing gun-related homicide. Extending background checks to all firearms transfers would be far more likely to produce a noticeable result, especially over time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:53 PM

12. But my OP wasn't about which is more useful, it's about how the NRA is trying to put ...


focus on 'only' the back ground checks in order to take the focus off of all the other proposals.

I DO believe a universal back ground check law will be very important to have but it is not the only thing we need.

Like another DUer said on this thread the NRA probably already knows they will lose the fight on the back ground checks.

WE need to keep the focus on ALL of the proposals that President Obama has outlined.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:39 PM

15. I know. I was just commenting on that particular statement.

I certainly hope the NRA loses the fight on background checks. The other two measures you brought up...not really concerned about them, personally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:43 PM

11. If you think an AWB is useful, you'd be incorrect.

Universal background checks will save far more lives than banning pistol grips from being attached to semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines.


Of course, so would legalizing pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:05 AM

22. Let's not get into drug laws here, altho there is a huge connection in inner city violence. I just

want to keep away from any argument that makes people say "Oh, I give up! There's too much to be done so we can't do anything."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:57 AM

24. Why not?

People don't commit crimes because they have a gun; they commit crimes using a gun as a tool.

In other words, guns are among the tools used, they are not the motive.

Legalizing drugs will noticeably reduce the direct aggregate motive to commit crimes. And by putting fewer people in jail every year, we will be having fewer career criminals exiting jail, reducing the indirect aggregate motive to commit crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:08 PM

29. THis falls under the "art of the possible" which is what politics is.

Of course, it would be a big step if we legalized certain drugs or at least decriminalized them. Your logic is fine. But waiting for the day when this is politically acceptable for us to do anything else is not helpful. I think we ARE moving towards more rational and sane drug law policies, as a society. But there are things right now.

What are some of your ideas that we could do right now, while still working on our long term goals of straightening out our gun laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #29)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 04:46 PM

37. Here is what is driving me absolutely up a wall.

We would get far more immediate and far better results if the Democrats had THE GODDAMN STONES to take on the private-prison industry and the pharmaceutical industry!

But no, the Democrats can't DO THAT, now can they? No no no. So they wait for a tragedy, puff themselves up real righteous-like, and announce they're taking on the NRA!

Yeah, fuck the NRA!

And we're going to put all their political will and capital and PR into TAKING ON THE GUN LOBBY...


...and banning pistol-grip rifles and shotguns. FUCK YEAH!!! Fuck those protruding pistol grips!!!!

And maybe they'll get a limit on magazine capacity. Because having to make mass killers change magazines more often, thus giving his intended targets more time to tackle him, is the solution that we're all seeking here, right?


And they, if they get that, they'll sit there and preen and pat themselves on the back and beg for your money and mine, your vote and mine, because THEY TOOK ON THE GUN LOBBY, and won't you re-elect them in 2014? See how STRONG they are, advocating for you?





There are about a half-dozen issues that the Democrats effectively don't have a spine on. A half-dozen issues that would do major good for society but that they won't touch, even with an enraged public on their side. Reimposing Glass-Steagall. Medicare for all. Recreational drug legalization. Getting out of NAFTA and the WTO. Universal free higher education. Repealing Taft-Hartley.

Things that will actually make us smarter, richer, safer, healthier, and better able to govern ourselves.

And they're crowing about protruding pistol grips being banned from shotguns and rifles.





I would rather they bowed down before the NRA and gave us Medicare-for-all, because THAT would save far more lives, improve our economy, and break the stranglehold that shitty, abusive corporations have on their workers. Outlawing protruding pistol grips won't quite do that.






But you asked what I think we should do for gun laws. Thank you for doing that; few people actually bother to ask. They prefer to tell me instead, then argue when problems with their idea were pointed out.


1) Universal background checks. The ATF should create a special kind of license. This license, which I'll call "Firearms Transfer Agent License" or FTAL, would be issued by the ATF to people that would make money acting as a transfer agent from a private seller to a private buyer. An FTAL would not be a stocking firearms dealer, but would have access to the NICS system and would have all the appropriate forms to purchase a firearm. The fee the FTAL could charge would be no more than 3x the federal minimum wage (currently, $21.45) to transfer a gun.

I think that there would be a lot of people that would make some extra money on the side by doing these transfers. A nice little kitchen-table business. Currently, only federal firearm licensees (FFLs) can access NICS.

I guess we could call the permit "FaTAL", too...

2) A purchase limit of 12 guns a year. After your 12th gun is purchased in a calender year, the NICS system will not approve any more transfers until January 1st of the next year. If you want to buy more guns than that, get a permit.

I'll even go lower, down to 10. I based the "12" on the fact that some states have a one-gun-a-month policy, or 12 per year total.

This should cut down on trafficking.

3) A sale limit of 12 guns per year, unless the sales are to a federally licensed dealer. Again, after you sell your 12th gun, the NICS system refuses to approve any more transfers until January 1st, unless you're selling them to an FFL.

Again, if you're selling this many guns to private individuals, you're really a dealer and should be licensed as such.. This also should cut down on trafficking.

4) The ATF should keep records of what guns are sold by who. Not bought; that would be national registration, which I am not for. But if the ATF knew a gun's sale history, they could track down the last owner of a gun recovered in a crime by paying a visit to the last seller of the gun. This would keep the DoJ and the various police forces from trolling through databases (or the newspapers from printing lists of gun owners), yet still provide them with the ability to quickly find the owner of a gun. And if the last seller didn't know... then they've collared a guy feeding guns illegal to criminals.

5) Start denying transportation funds to states that are not in compliance with reporting mental-health and criminal records to NICS. If you don't want to spend the money to keep NICS current, you can maintain your own damn highways. Give the money as a bonus to states that ARE compliant!


How's that for a start?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 04:55 PM

38. good. Have you contacted your own reps/sens with these suggestions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #38)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 05:21 PM

40. No,I do all my griping and such on DU.

It's my outlet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #40)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 05:25 PM

41. well, we're not going to change the laws here at DU, are we?

My congresswoman, Rosa DeLauro and my senators, Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy are all on my wave length and have recieved my support and my vote. But others don't have that luxury. That's where our voices come in to play. I don't know your situation, but it would be time well spent, IMHO...think about it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:08 PM

31. Yes they do commit crimes because they have a gun. Zimmerman would have sat in his car without a gun


Homes, Stawicki, Lanza, Loughner, etc., wouldn't have killed many with a knife, or bat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 04:02 PM

36. So says you.

Since we still don't know what the true story is with Zimmerman/Martin, you're just guessing. It might well be that, absent a gun, Zimmerman would be dead and Martin would be on trial for murder. Or that Zimmerman would have been carrying a knife instead and stabbed Martin. Or run him over with his car when Martin tried to pull Zimmerman out of it. I'm guessing, too. But at least I admit that.

The other people you mention were people in a psychotic rage. They killed for their own sick reasons. They didn't pick up a gun and all of a sudden get inspired to go turn a bunch of people into hamburger!


And the level of effort that we, as a nation, would have to go through to try to get your dream (unable to get a gun at all, having to resort to a non-gun weapon) is impossible on a multitude of levels.

And even if they didn't kill a bunch of people all at once, these people are sick enough that they might well have become serial killers. Mass murders in the politically-acceptable way, killing one at a time, over the course of months or years, with an edged weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 07:56 PM

43. Despite your support for Zimmie, I think he was just another chicken chit bolstered by his gun.

I think that sans guns the other mass murderers would have lived there pitiful lives without ever shooting a bunch of people.

You are just guessing too, but from perspective of one steeped in guns and scared to death you might lose access to more of the friggin things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #43)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 09:25 PM

44. My support for Zimmerman?

Really?

I have a record of expressly stating my opinion that Zimmerman was out of bounds when he shot Martin. It goes back to the time of the shooting. In fact, I've also consistently stated that it was Martin that was "standing his ground", not Zimmerman.

So I think you need to stop with your fact-free smears, which, let's face it, is pretty much your record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:05 PM

26. They are relying on everyone having ADDHD...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:06 PM

27. I agree. Zimmerman, Loughner, Holmes, Stawicki, etc., had legal weapons and some had permits.


Background checks are good, but only about 15% of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #27)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:09 PM

32. Right, but the AWB addresses 0% of the problem

I'd much rather address 15% than 0%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #32)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:14 PM

33. No, a new AWB -- "A" defined as semi-autos -- will all but shut down the gun industry.


People buy the dang things -- and multiple units -- because they appeal to their baser instincts.

The old definition of "assault" weapons needs to be changed.

And, we need to start treating people who promote and celebrate guns like the drain on society they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #33)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:18 PM

34. A semi-auto ban would accomplish something. Get somebody to introduce one (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:06 PM

28. Actually was listening to an NPR program where they had an NRA supporter

and state rep. He was clear as water. He will do all he can to stop any and all regulations, including background checks. He is an Indiana State Senator.

This is not distraction. They intend to stop any, and I mean this, any regulation... period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:08 PM

30. Background checks are much much much more important and a much better idea

Short version: the AWB doesn't do what you think it does, and isn't worth spending energy on.

Universal background checks on all sales is a very good idea, and is something we can accomplish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #30)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 07:28 PM

42. Fine. Get to your reps/sens and let them know EXACTLY what you have said here!

Call them and badger them about doing it! Be a royal pain in the ass! Do it!

No more talk! Now is the time for ACTION! Get going!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #42)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:03 PM

46. My Rep can't vote and I have no Senators

I leave this to you who are fully enfranchised

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #46)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:31 AM

47. That is a shame. And a national disgrace.

When I worked in D.C. and lived in NOVA I found myself in a state that helped engineer the defeat of the ERA. I couldn't get out of that state fast enough...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 11:00 PM

45. It would hurt sales to Mexican drug cartels.

And other criminals. IMO it's all about the $$$$$$$.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread