And that is the major problem with dealing with something like this, the gun control is a necessary thing I think and it will help and it seemed like this would pass but what is so tough about this in my opinion is it being a constitutional right some people like the NRA just feel it is no good which is dumb.

It is the right of every american to own a small sidearm with which to enact the defense of self and property from malicious acts.
That said, this shit needs to fucking stop, or I swear I will punch these people so hard it will cause nuclear fusion of their face.

That they are selling rifles and shotguns, or that it is Wal-mart?

Yes.

Well, rifles and shotguns do have their uses. A lot of times, they can be less lethal than a side-arm. How much firearms experience do you have?

Also, just because it's a Wal Mart store doesn't mean they aren't subject to the same laws as an actual gun store. While I would go to an actual gun store to buy a gun, it doesn't mean that the guns they are selling are any different. It's kind of like, and this is a horrible comparison, but buying meat from a butcher vs buying meat from Wal Mart. You can probably get the same cut of beef at a Wal Mart as you can from a butcher. However, that butcher will be able to tell you more about meat, and will probably be able to recommend better what kind of beef you need for your stew, roast, cookout, etc. However, both stores are subject to the same rules and laws concerning the selling of beef.

The primary difference is that a cut of beef is not inherently dangerous. However, firearms don't have to be either. So long as people are safe with their weapons.

The point I'm trying to make here is that all stores that sell firearms are subject to the same laws, whether it be a gun store or a Target or a Meijer or a Wal Mart.

Perhaps I'm sticking my head in the lion's mouth here, but, what, exactly, are these measures supposed to accomplish?

The sense I'm getting from sitting on the other side of this fence is, to be completely blunt, the beginnings of a paradigm shift. People are just getting sick of the government(especially on a federal level) legislating more control, rules, and regulations on their lives. They're telling their elected officials exactly that. As career politicians, some of them backpedal and things stall. Nothing ever gets done.

Instead of doing the rational thing and actually sitting down, discussing, holding hearings, and investigating the actual causes and effects of these tragic shootings, there's a lot of emotional hand-wringing and knee-jerk reactions on both sides, legislation is drafted as quickly as teams of lawyers can bang it out on their keyboards and each side plays as hard as they can to either ram it through or block it completely. And you wonder why our legislative branch has continually had approval ratings in the single digits. Why? Because of this crap here.

And that's why I mention the paradigm shift. Because, people are now turning to the state governments to protect them from Federal overreach and hand-wringing ineffectualness. And I don't just mean the debate on the Second Amendment. I'm taking about marriage equality, the legalization of cannabis in Colorado and Washington, the list goes on...

This is exactly why I don't even look at national politics that much anymore. I've become more involved on the state and local level.

The thing is that the government hasn't been legislating more and more control- it's actually to the contrary. The gun control lobby has systematically dismantled our laws in place to make them virtually powerless. After the CDC released a report about gun deaths congress put a stop to such studies. Gun trafficking laws have been gutted; straw purchasers face minor penalties for putting guns in the hands of criminals and the government's hands are tied in investigating such. The ATF hasn't had a director in 6 years because the senate keeps blocking all the nominees because republicans now see the agency itself as anti-gun. States are passing laws to put guns back into the hands of felons. States are being negligent in reporting persons disqualified from owning a gun- the Virginia Tech shooter for example should have been flagged in the NICS under federal law. We have a system which has been intentionally broken by the gun lobby. Resolutions to correct these deficiencies by increasing penalties and making people who give guns accountable were shot down by the NRA and the GOP congressmen who fear it.

I'm against the dismissal of action because it's a "knee jerk". When the water in your shower gets hot you immediately turn it down, because that shit hurts. When you have more mass shootings than any other developed nation you make sure that it's harder for bad people to get guns. We're not just turning around here and trying to pass a bunch of bullshit, we're having the discussion and trying to start off with common sense legislation like what was shot down yesterday. We're not pounding out laws as fast as we can type them, it's the exact opposite. We milled over the idea when the system failed us in Virginia 8 years ago. We talked about it 2 years ago when someone tried to assassinate one of our politicians they didn't like. We talked about it a little more when someone walked into a theater gear up like he was invading Iraq. We're still talking about it over the bodies of dead schoolchildren, and we don't even have a congress anywhere near close to approving the kind of laws that would of helped prevent that. America's had the conversation and anyone who feels left out from that conversation wasn't paying attention in the first place. Now it's time for actions.

The people who are turning to the states to protect them from the federal are out of their minds; as they always have been. It wasn't state governments safeguarding colored citizens from the racism of their peers, it was the federal army sending in the 101st airborne division to littlerock to strong arm the governor and force the state to respect equal individual rights at gunpoint. Throughout history it's generally been the states which commit many of the greatest violations of individual rights and then the federal government who reigns them in. Inclination to the contrary is nothing less than absurd.

I also have to say that much has changed in the past fifty years. I'm thoroughly against any violation of our Constitutional as well as basic human rights.

I did verify that the ATF has been without a director for some time, which is curiously puzzling. I can also agree with severe punishments towards straw purchasers; personally my beliefs are that anyone who purchases a firearm for someone who uses it to, say, commit armed robbery or murder should be charged as an accessory to said crime. However, these are laws that are currently enacted; may I ask for sources as to how the teeth were taken out of them, as I'm curious to research it further. And, how are states passing laws to put weapons into the hands of felons? Last time I bought a firearm, I had to go through a telephone background check to do it. As far as I can tell that requirement hasn't changed, and having a felony conviction bars you from owning a firearm.

Yes, these incidents are tragic and scary. If I hadn't decided not to go to a furmeet a while back, I would have likely left early to see that movie premiere... at the same theater James Holmes decided to visit. That and my relative closeness to Columbine has made me aware that there are madmen out there. Yet, at the same time my question isn't how we should disarm them... my question is how do we identify these people in the first place? When is an appropriate time to take action? Holmes' school psychologist reported him to the police for stalking her and making death threats. Why wasn't this followed up on? Even if he hadn't purchased thousands of dollars worth of firearms, ammunition, and tactical gear, he was still a threat. Regardless whether they decide to commit mass murder or simply kill one person, these people are threats. It doesn't matter if they kill using an AR15, handgun, knife, or baseball bat... they're still a murderer. They are a statistical anomaly. Granted, one that needs to be stopped but a statistical anomaly nevertheless. However, what about the attempted mass shootings that have been stopped by law enforcement, armed security guards, or citizens with concealed carry permits? I can name several incidents off the top of my head. The mall shootings in Oregon and Salt Lake, or the kid who tried killing people at New Life Church here in Colorado Springs in 2007... none of those received that much media attention, but the shooters were wounded, killed, or pinned down by police, armed security, or private citizens.

I still stand behind the fact that according to FBI crime statistics, firearm deaths in this country have dropped by half in the past twenty years. Violent crime in general has also dropped. Since folks like to compare us to the UK, the Home Office statistics are also available. While firearm deaths are a rarity there, the violent crime rate in the UK is also three and a half times as high as they are here. These statistics are direct from the sources and about as unbiased as they get. And, considering the firearm death rate here in the US has been dropping independently of the AWB that passed in 1994 and sunset in 2004 and the fact that semi-auto versions of military issue rifles account for a tiny percentage of these deaths in total, I don't see how any future bans could do any good. Unfortunately, some lawmakers are still screaming out that it's the only way to protect people. I personally disagree with that. I do agree with enforcing existing laws, making the penalties for breaking them much stiffer, and training LE agencies as well as the general public in how to recognize mentally unstable individuals and act more seriously on these kinds of threats.

However, as far as that goes I still seriously doubt the competence of the federal government to enact changes that matter, mainly because of the reasons I discussed before. Career politicians, lobby groups, and the whole 'us against them' attitude on both sides of the aisle has pretty much made a farce of our political process on that level. That's why I say I have more faith in our governments on a state level, where changing the political climate seems to be far easier and more effective than it has been in Washington... on more levels than just the firearms debate. Yes, there exists ways for state governments to be abusive, I'm not downplaying that. But, considering states have started to address marriage equality and decriminalizing/regulating cannabis before the federal government has gotten off its hind end and started looking at those issues, I think that most of us have come a long way sine the 1960s.

Negative, these are not laws which are currently enacted. The NRA likes to tout that we need enforcement of current laws, not new laws. This would be all well in good if they weren't blatantly misrepresenting the facts. 8 U.S.C. S922 is the section used to prosecute straw purchasers. With the current law straw purchasers are only illegal if the prosecution can prove that an individual made a purchase of a weapon from a FFL with the express purpose of turning around and giving that weapon to another person. If the straw purchaser states that the bought the weapon for themselves and then decided they wanted to sell it to an unauthorized buyer after the fact, that's protected under the private seller laws. Very few states have laws about straw purchases, meaning that in the majority of this country you can sell someone you know to be a convicted felon a gun and 99% of the time get away with it.

Moving on, the law pertaining to felons and firearms isn't so black and white. Federal law does indeed ban a convicted felon from possessing a firearm, however we live in a country with a lot of fucked up state governments. In Louisiana for example an appellate judge ruled that this federal law violated the state's constitution. While most people would simply say 'too fucking bad', this is the country with states like North Carolina considering making a state religion on the grounds that they're sovereign. This is just one of those things where many states feel they don't have to obey federal code and make up their own rules to play by. Colorado was considering a bill which would allow persons convicted of non-violent felonies to own guns again. Additionally, the reporting matrix for NICS is all kids of fucked up. I mentioned V-Tech before. The reason why the V-Tech shooter wasn't entered into NICS is because the great state of Virginia in their infinite wisdom has a law regarding serious psychological treatment which differs from the federal government. While the shooter being committed to a psychiatric institution disqualifies him in federal law, Virginia law requires the treatment has to be involuntary. Since the shooter was offered the choice between voluntarily receiving the treatment or harsher court ordered actions, the state law let him own guns and go on to murder his classmates.

The reality of the situation is that lobbying from the gun crowd has resulted in the most asinine way of enforcing the law possible. The federal laws are weak and the state laws undermine the federal laws. When a GOP representative is on his podium telling a police chief to enforce the laws already on the books, that's a smoke screen. The current laws aren't being enforced because they're unenforceable by design. The system has been sabotaged from within.

I'm going to leave the assault weapons debate out of it here. This journal is addressing republicans in congress blocking S-649 which would have expanded background checks and fixed the straw purchaser laws. Nothing more.
What I will say though is that the number of people killed and the type of weapon used absolutely are important. We can't prevent all crime, but we can do our best to control the consequences. 2 deaths are worse than 1, period. A person shot to death is worse than a stab wound, period. A baseball bat does not constitute the same danger as a firearm, period.

You're making a lot of moot points here. This conversation is not about the AWB. This conversation is not about gun bans. This is about background checks and strawman purchases. S-649 which the NRA and GOP blocked.

As for your comment about state governments, that's crazy. Political corruption and fuckfuck games are the most out of control at the state level. Gerrymandering has carved out districts that best suits the party in power and leaves public sentiment out of the picture. We have states for all intent and purposes ignoring Roe v Wade, states trying to declare an official religion, blatantly racist police profiling laws, and entire counties being investigated by the FBI for misconduct within their agencies. If you think that most states in the US are better at protecting legitimate individual rights then the federal government then you're fooling yourself. The feds may suck, but the states are usually worse.

Riddle me this Batman but what the point of enforcing background checks on private sales when most rifles and shotguns are not registered? Our current system works well enough, so why spend more government money on a bill that does not work?

I think you're confused of the facts a little. Registration of long arms has no impact on this. The idea is to mandate that all firearms transactions require a NICS check to make sure the buyer is legally allowed to own a weapon. Expanding background checks has been endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police for a very simple reason: they work.

The current system doesn't work because if I know I would fail a background check I an just find a private seller on the internet to buy my gun from. It's like fishing with a net that has a massive hole in it.

And once again I make the point I made before; how do you expect to stop private sales and transfers of firearms without every weapon being registered by the federal government?

Nobody is suggesting that universal background checks would stop all private sales to people who aren't legally allowed to own a gun, but it sets up a deterrent that authorities can prosecute for. Under the current laws even if we track a gun from a crime back to it's last legal owner, there isn't really a way to prosecute that person under federal law if it passed from their hands to a criminal through a private sale.

S-649 would have established consequences which don't exist right now for people who are a party to arming criminals under federal law. Law abiding citizens don't want their guns in the hands of convicted felons so this would help them from unintentionally arming a career criminal. This also would create more liability for those who intentionally sell their guns to criminals, helping law enforcement charge them as well.

The bill's biggest failiure, like I keep mentioning, is that it will enforce background checks across the board. in turn, this would criminalize private sales and transfers that have not been done with a background check for the recipient. Not only would this technically criminalize private sale (since the term "private" referring to a sale off the government's books) and transfers, the law is vague enough to where even the passing of a gun from one family member to another for defense or hunting would be criminalized. As I also stated before, without these weapons and owners registered with the government, there is no way this law can be enforced. In the end of the day you have a bill written by individuals who know nothing about how firearms sales work which is both broken and will cost the taxpayers even more money to enforce, not to mention is a perfect shoo-in for mandatory registration in order for the bill to be enforceable.

And no, our current system does work. Every firearms sale already requires mandatory background checks, and depending on what state the sale is taking place in, a waiting period. Adam Lason himself tried to purchase a rifle from a nearby gun shop sometime before he shot up Sandy Hook elementary, and was denied because of the background check.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. S-649 didn't ban private sales, it just required that an FFL be involved to conduct a background check. I thought this was a great approach because it makes use of existing systems, keeps government out of an intrusive role, and promotes competitive capitalism. Right now to conduct a private sale that would pretty much involve the buyer and seller going down to a gun shop and having the FFL conduct the NICS check really quick. S-649 passing would have opened a market for FFLs who market their services to private sellers, acting as a middle man who can go out and conduct the required background check for two people looking to make a transaction. This is something which could easily work for gun shows as well where a FFL may be on staff to verify the identities of parties and handle NICS. S-649 would add a step that a seller/buyer need to take, but it would by no means end private sales. If anyone has told you otherwise they're either misinformed or not being truthful. The bill is available in it's entirety online; it may be wise to still read it as there's a good chance it will be back.

I caught on to your indication that you're concerned about these transactions ending up in 'the government's books'. ATF form 4473 isn't being used to create a database of who owns a gun or anything crazy like that; it's just on file so that they can be prosecuted for perjury if they lied in trying to obtain a weapon. The form was mostly useful for the days before NICS when a background check was conducted by local authorities. Some jurisdictions could be slow in responding to requests for a background check, so if a sale was made and later found that the buyer wasn't authorized to own a gun there would be ground for prosecution. The database that all law enforcement uses for most of their criminal information and registered firearms is NCIC. That system isn't tracking who purchased a firearm and there's absolutely no reason to suspect that it ever will. Speaking as to the nature of S-649 exclusively, there was an amendment to the bill which would in fact have made it illegal for the federal government to create any national database of gun owners. Any fears of a national registry coming from background checks is unfounded at best and delusionally paranoid at worst. You seem pretty reasonable, so I'm going to assume you just got some bad information on this one.

Clearing up another misconception, S-649 made a very clear exception for weapons being given to other direct family members. It's factually incorrect to suggest that a father giving his sun a gun to go out hunting with (or for any reason) would be criminalized under S-649.

I'm very glad that you agree background checks work. It's well established at this point that requiring gunshops to run a background check doesn't impede their business and makes everyone safer. It just makes sense to expand these checks to private sellers. Under the status quo if someone is a convicted felon they can just hop online, find someone in their area selling a weapon, and zip on down to pay cash and acquire it. If we required all transactions to conduct a background check a seller will be able to make sure their gun isn't going to be in the hands of a person who'll use it for the wrong thing. This is a very simple way that we could reduce the flow of firearms to criminals without compromising anyone's second amendment rights.