To read the vitriol directed at Congress for refusing to pass heavy-handed special interest gun control legislation you'd think that the White House wasn't lobbying as hard as the NRA and other freedom-oriented organizations.
This is a Congress that needs to feel proud of itself. Not because they passed or didn't pass legislation, but because they did not buckle under White House/Bloomberg/Chicago pressure to support that which is little more than knee-jerk emotional responses to the latest rounds of psychologically disturbed terrorists...allowing a few individuals to dictate to the rest of the country that which has failed time and time again to pass.
Folks, if you're angry that duly elected officials performed their jobs according to their constituent's wishes, then you don't like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or a long-standing history and tradition of 2nd Amendment rights. How could you expect any other outcome? To blame the NRA's influence, calling elected officials cowards...this is all sour grapes whining. Congress did it's job according to their constituent's wishes.
To be honest, I don't think the White House is singularly upset that the latest round of 2nd Amendment stifling didn't pass. I do think that they are in a frenzy because with the exception of ObamaCare, this administration has failed to produce very much legislation that everyone, every American, could get behind. Further, with a little time, they know ObamaCare will be dismantled piece-by-piece or de-funded because it was forced down America's throat in a blinding hurry, and as more and more information is learned about the harm and bias ObamaCare contains, even those who were for it are having severe second-thoughts. The White House is deathly afraid that this landslide President could likely go down in history (if not in flames) as the least effective President in recent history. Jimmy Carter is about to be unseated for that title.
Make no mistake: Congress did the right thing in doing what they knew the people who elected them wanted and demanded. It wasn't lobbyists that convinced Congress of the direction they needed to go, it was a grass-roots email, phone call and letter writing campaign to senators' and representatives' offices that swayed their minds.
A week ago when Mrs. Obama made the comment about how she could understand rural America feeling safer with a gun around, the President's own veracity was undermined like no strategy group could have engineered. No amount of "spin" or lobbying efforts could have sabotaged this latest round of gun control legislation more effectively.
This isn't liberal versus conservative, it's not Democrat against Republican, it's not rich versus poor. It's about an entire country refusing to buckle under zillionaire Bloomberg theology; refusing to be force-fed another irrational and emotionally driven directive. It is about the majority of Americans standing up for rights protected by our constitution and vehemently disagreeing with those few who have the money and position to attempt to sidetrack the 2nd Amendment. If this legislation was the only remedy to heal family and friends of those unfairly slain by mentally disturbed individuals then you must find another way to heal without finessing an entire country to succumb to your emotional pain. It's unfair that this happened. It's unfair that you must bare this sorrow. It is unfair that you feel unprotected with "all those guns out there." But it was very fair that the majority of Americans refused to allow your sorrow to dictate our freedoms.
To my very honored members of the U.S. Congress: you have shown backbone and resolve in the face of blithering unfairness. You have renewed my faith in the government of America. You have done the job the majority of Americans elected you to do. Be proud that a grateful America is behind you, and those detractors of your performance on April 17, 2013 must find another axe to grind in order to assuage their righteous indignation.
David D. Fihn
* * *
Clappity, clappity. Thank you, Mr. Fihn.
* * *
I had to re-read your post, because I thought maybe you were joking, but sadly, you are just misinformed.
The Senate did not show backbone, they showed cowardice...fear of the NRA...fear of special interest groups and failure to protect our children and families.
Why would anyone not want more/better background checks? This was not about taking anyone's guns away from them, or infringing upon anyone's second amendment rights, however they may interpret them. This was about protecting Americans from gun violence.
A very small number of constituents wanted no, or more background checks. The vast majority of Americans, over 90 percent, are for more background checks, including many current NRA members. Not as you had stated.
It is a sad day for America, when gun lobbyist control our senators. Maybe we can show more backbone in the upcoming elections and vote those that voted no, out of office.
This is not the wild west.
* * *
This is not the wild west, Mr. Fricke? Tell that to the citizens in Boston right now.
* * *
Raise your hand if you want guns in the hands of felons and the "mentally defective." The 1968 Gun Control Act makes it unlawful for these two groups of people to possess guns. However, background checks are not required at gun shows or on the internet, so this common sense law is not enforceable.
The Senate failed to pass an amendment that would have fixed this problem, one that 85 to 90 percent of Americans think should be fixed. Kudos to the spineless do nothings in the Senate for not passing this amendment on to the House where the even bigger failures would have done the same.
Through the threat of withdrawn support, the nuts at the NRA have basically assured that people whom our legal system has declared unfit will continue to have unrestricted access to weapons that will make our streets just that much more dangerous. And for what reason? Because the boogey man government is coming to take our guns and this is the first step on a slippery slope. Get a grip.
So congratulations, to our cowardly representatives and the rest of the sheep out there who buy into the NRA's bunk, on throwing common sense to the curb and not making our world safer, because you're so paranoid that someone's coming to get you. Americuh.
* * *
We have more guns in this country than we have people, and your answer is to applaud stopping legislation that would merely attempt to make sure all gun purchases have a background check of the buyer?
How is it that two bombs going off in Boston have something to do with this?
* * *
I don't know what the answer is. I'm not sure anything less than banning guns entirely would have a measureable affect. Yes, I know - a ridiculous idea. At the same time, I cannot reconcile the idea of a violent convicted felon walking into a gun show at the convention center and buying a gun.
Now I may be wrong about this, but it is my understanding the background check to work at McDonalds or for me to get service from EPB is more in-depth than one to legally purchase a gun. Clearly I'm an idiot, but EPB actually has my Social Security number.
As I said, I don't claim to know what the answer is, but I have to believe doing nothing isn't it. I simply do not understand why a background check is a bad idea. I have friends tell me it won't work - that it won't help. That's where they lose me. I know two people - one in Memphis one in Chattanooga - both convicted felons. They purchased some sort of military machine gun-type of weapon at their local gun show - not for protection - not for hunting - but for fun. Come on - even the NRA would have to agree something is wrong here. Apparently it is illegal for convicted felons to own a gun. It is also - as I understand it - illegal for a gun dealer to knowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon. How would the seller at a gun show or on the Internet know if they aren't required to check? Two convicted felons walked into a gun show and both bought assault rifles for fun. How can a background check on these two clowns be a bad thing? The technology exists to conduct the checks in an efficient way.
Am I naïve? Probably. Am I wrong? I don't know - maybe - maybe not. I realize people who actually know and truly understand the Constitution will have a much more informed opinion than mine. But doesn't common sense have a place anymore? We seem to have two primary parties in Washington ready to prevent any idea from the other side - regardless of how good it is - simply because they didn't come up with it. Maybe it's time our lawmakers check their egos at the door and spend a little less time worrying about where the ideas come from and more time focusing on and implementing the good ones.
* * *
You stated that 90 percent of Americans are for more background checks and gun control, that simply is not true, those are numbers that the media made up. Okay, so maybe they did a poll at some super liberal college, but either way not true and accurate numbers.
We already have background checks and laws to prevent criminals from owning guns, if only we could enforce the laws. The new laws the senate just tried to push upon law abiding gun owners would have done absolutely nothing that would have prevented the Newtown shooting.
What we need is to stop being so politically correct and start telling it like it is. If someone is unstable then say so, if someone is a thug then so be it. We need to stop thinking everyone is good, there are evil people and there will always be evil people. Our job is to identify the evil ones and remove them from the public.
* * *
I certainly wish people would do a fact check before believing everything they hear concerning gun laws.
Mr. Parker's assumptions are completely wrong. An individual can't simply walk into a gun show and pick up "some sort of military machine gun-type of weapon." First, a machine gun is a highly regulated class three weapon and there are already strict laws and fees associated with owning one. Gun show dealers must follow the exact same rules that local dealers do. Second, you can't simply open your web browser and purchase a firearm like ordering a fishing rod from Bass Pro Shop. Online sales and gun show sales are both regulated and require a background check just like purchases from a local dealer.
I can assure you that the background check is very thorough and you are checked against several databases including Tennessee Criminal History Repository, State of Tennessee Orders of Protection, National Crime Information Center, Interstate Identification Index, and National Instant Check System.
The proposed legislation was intended to restrict sales between private gun owners and had nothing to do with dealers. All dealers are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. No matter if their sales occur in a local store, at a gun show, or online a background check is required.
Criminalizing private sales would never work without a national gun registration system. Let me explain. There is currently no database that tracks individual ownership of firearms. Without registration information it is impossible to know if firearms are transferred between individuals. Individuals would be on the "honor" system. How many criminals do you know who would obey such a system?
A problem exists when individuals begin selling substantial quantities of firearms at gun shows while claiming it is their "private collection." The BATF is the agency that is supposed to monitor and prosecute illegal dealers. There are already laws stating that buying and selling guns with intent to make a profit is illegal without a Federal Firearms License. Enforcement of these laws would close the so called "gun show loop hole."