Posted on 02/26/2008 8:22:55 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
By putting guns into the hands of terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill, the NRA helped create a society where defense by guns becomes mandatory.
LET'S GET THIS out of the way. I am a gun owner and a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. What I do not support is extending the rights embedded in the Second Amendment to terrorists, criminals and children.
In the wake of a horrific campus shooting at Northern Illinois University, where 21 students were shot, we're reminded again that national gun laws must be strengthened.
Sadly, gun laws have only been weakened since the massacres at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. To be sure, these headline-grabbing mass shootings may not have been preventable. But beyond the headlines, consider this news: 83 Americans die each and every day from gun violence. And much of that violence is very preventable.
Current federal law allows an unlimited number of easily concealable handguns and military-style weapons to be sold privately in 32 states without a criminal background check or an ID. Why do we take such a hands-off approach to these dangerous weapons? The National Rifle Association and the gun industry lobby are a big part of the answer.
You have to show ID to purchase alcohol or cigarettes. But if you want a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle (capable of penetrating steel and taking out an armored vehicle from more than a mile) you need only to show up at one of 5,000 legal gun shows and fork over the cash -- no ID or background check required! It is well documented that al-Qaida, Hezbollah and IRA terrorists have exploited this loophole in U.S. gun laws to purchase military-style weapons from "private sellers" at gun shows.
In a recent radio debate with me, an NRA official confirmed that the organization is opposed to uniform criminal background checks for fear they will "shut down gun shows." The NRA says that not even people on the suspected terrorist watch list should be barred from purchasing guns because -- are you ready for this? -- "we do not know how people are put on the list" and "many times people are victims of mistaken identity."
Eighty-nine percent of Americans said they wanted mandatory background checks for anyone buying a gun, according to a 2007 Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and The Tarrance Group survey. But the NRA has continually blocked such common-sense legislation as mandatory background checks and five-day waiting periods to buy a handgun. NRA policies handcuff national law enforcement's ability to effectively regulate private gun sales, gun shows, and even the sharing of crime-gun trace data within the law enforcement community.
By putting guns into the hands of terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill, the NRA helped create a society where defense by guns becomes mandatory. Meanwhile, the bank accounts of the NRA leaders and lobbyists are enriched and congressional coffers are replenished. Gun manufacturers reinforce this cycle by investing in the NRA.
$22 million to influence candidates
According to Federal Elections Commission reports, the NRA has spent more than $22 million on congressional candidates in order to support its agenda during the past four election cycles. In 2004, the NRA spent nearly $4 million to reelect George W. Bush.
Immunity from lawsuits and freedom from consumer protection regulations and manufacturing standards are just a few of the benefits delivered by the NRA and provided by a complicit president and Congress.
Massachusetts stands out as an example of a state that has successful gun violence prevention legislation. Along with 17 other states, it has enacted background checks for all gun sales. Only Hawaii has a firearms fatality rate lower than that of Massachusetts. Hawaii is fortunate; bordered by water, it is less accessible to gun traffickers than Massachusetts, where more than 60 percent of guns traced to crime come from out of state.
Bay State neighbors New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine are three of the top four crime-gun source states for Massachusetts, where guns are easily purchased by prohibited buyers without a background check or an ID.
Most law-abiding citizens like me buy guns from federally licensed dealers required to perform background checks. Incredibly, federal law allows criminals and terrorists who can't pass background checks to easily buy guns from private individuals in 32 states without detection.
The bloodshed in our communities and schools is largely preventable. Of course, no law is going to stop violence completely, but shouldn't we help prevent the tragedies we can by weeding out the criminals? It is time for reasonable people to insist that Congress enact sensible and consistent federal laws that require criminal background checks for all gun sales in the United States.
[John E. Rosenthal is cofounder of Stop Handgun Violence, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, and Common Sense About Kids and Guns.]
What is your point? How do you propose keeping guns out of the hands of people who obviously should not have them? If every citizen can legally obtain a gun (if qualified) how is a card system somehow a better form of tracking?
Apparently you didn’t see that my suggestion decouples the qualified individual from the purchase. Pre-qualifying individuals as being capable of purchasing a gun does not imply they actually own a gun. At the point of sale the verification process is greatly simplified and as secure a mechanism as we have today and does not require linking the gun to the owner in any database (which I think is what you are apposed too).
It bolsters our cause to keep guns out of the hands of as many criminals as possible. I personally would like to mandate training for new gun owners given the level of stupidity I’ve observed at various gun ranges. People who routinely violate standard safety protocols do as much if not more damage to our rights than criminals.
Liberals would have far fewer talking points if there weren’t so many cases of gun ignorance in the news.
For the simple fact that it's the surest and least "scary" way. Surest meaning over a 99% chance of instant death. The idea is to die, not get crippled.
But most people probably choose it because it's less scary than jumping a building. I looked down once and never tried again.
They are a sheep in wolf's clothing that was discretely set up by Hillary, the DNC and the Brady Bunch.
Additional info posted here: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2005_08_01_johnrlott_archive.html
Scroll down to the article dated 8/03/2005 "Democrats set up fake organizations to support gun control policies:"
"By creating this made up group called The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), who will inevitably be used in future Democrat led anti gun campaigns in the near future as so called 'expert' witnesses or a 'sane' voice of sportsmen. just so the anti gun democrats can grandstand for gun control non-issues via their willing accomplishes in the press. I'd imagine the closer we get to the '08' presidential election the more (AHSA) will be in the news."
(There is also an update on the same page posted on 8/06/2005 "Democrats change registration of fake website used to support gun control policies.")
That’s a form of registration.
Alternatively, if we made drivers licenses have en endorsement for disqualification to buy, they could be used. And if we allowed anyone to call to verify the currency and authenticity of a license for any reason, then the fact that someone called does not mean that it was for a gun (it could have been for cigarettes, or a check-cashing ID.)
We can do it by keeping the crazies in a mental institution, and the criminals in jail.
Problem solved
Not a very realistic solution. I’d be happy to hear your solution.
This is what we are up against.
They will not stop until they have seized all guns from honest, law-abiding people and consciously left them in the hands of criminals.
They refuse to admit that making a new law will have NO effect on the criminal [criminals don’t obey laws].
It’s not registration to check an individuals competency to use a deadly weapon. Allowing anyone to obtain a weapon is no more logical than allowing a 9yr old to drive a Ferrari.
We require police and military to qualify with their weapons. I see no reason why citizens should not adhere to a minimum standard. “A well regulated militia” implies some level of competency with a firearm.
In an ideal world all men would have to undergo rifle training when they register with selective service (a database).
Allowing anyone to obtain a weapon...
Liar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.