Quantcast
  

Thursday, April 24, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 84 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Senate rejects expanded gun background checks

By Alan Fram & David Espo

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 02:05 a.m. HST, Apr 18, 2013


WASHINGTON >> Senate Republicans backed by a small band of rural-state Democrats scuttled the most far-reaching gun control legislation in two decades Wednesday, rejecting tighter background checks for buyers and a ban on assault weapons as they spurned pleas from families of victims of last winter's school massacre in Newtown, Conn.

"This effort isn't over," President Barack Obama vowed at the White House moments after the defeat on one of his top domestic priorities. Surrounded by Newtown relatives, he said opponents of the legislation in both parties "caved to the pressure" of special interests.

A ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines also fell in a series of showdown votes four months after a gunman killed 20 elementary school children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary.

A bid to loosen restrictions on concealed weapons carried across state lines was rejected, as well.

That last vote marked a rare defeat for the National Rifle Association on a day it generally triumphed over Obama, gun control advocates and many of the individuals whose lives have been affected by mass shootings in Connecticut and elsewhere.

Some of them watched from the spectator galleries above the Senate floor. "Shame on you," shouted one, Patricia Maisch, who was present two years ago when a gunman in Tucson, Ariz., killed six and wounded 13 others, including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Vice President Joe Biden gaveled the Senate back into order after the breach of decorum.

Gun control advocates, including Obama, had voiced high hopes for significant action after the Newtown shootings. But the lineup of possible legislation gradually dwindled to a focus on background checks, and in the end even that could not win Senate passage. Chances in the Republican-controlled House had seemed even slimmer.

By agreement of Senate leaders, a 60-vote majority was required for approval of any of the provisions brought to a vote.

The vote on the background check was 54-46, well short of the 60 votes needed to advance. Forty-one Republicans and five Democrats voted to reject the plan.

The proposed ban on assault weapons commanded 40 votes; the bid to block sales of high capacity ammunition clips drew 46.

The NRA-backed proposal on concealed carry permits got 57.

In the hours before the key vote on background checks, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., bluntly accused the National Rifle Association of making false claims about the expansion of background checks that he and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., were backing.

"Where I come from in West Virginia, I don't know how to put the words any plainer than this: That is a lie. That is simply a lie," he said, accusing the organization of telling its supporters that friends, neighbors and some family members would need federal permission to transfer ownership of firearms to one another.

The NRA did not respond immediately to the charge, but issued a statement after the vote that restated the claim. The proposal "would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution," said a statement from Chris Cox, a top lobbyist for the group.

Said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, "Expanded background checks would not have prevented Newtown. Criminals do not submit to background checks."

Even before the votes, the administration signaled the day's events would not be the last word on an issue that Democratic leaders shied away from for nearly two decades until Obama picked up on it after the Newtown shootings.

Biden's presence was a purely symbolic move since each proposal required a 60-vote majority to pass and he would not be called upon to break any ties. Democratic aides said in advance the issue would be brought back to the Senate in the future, giving gun control supporters more time to win over converts to change the outcome.

Obama, standing near Giffords and relatives of other shooting victims, said at the White House public opinion was strongly behind expanded background checks. Despite that, opponents of the legislation were "worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money" at the next election, he said.

"So all in all this was a pretty shameful day for Washington," he added.

The day's key test concerned the background checks, designed to prevent criminals and the seriously mentally ill from purchasing firearms. Under current law, checks are required only when guns are purchased from federally licensed firearms dealers. The proposal by Manchin and Toomey called for extending the requirement to other sales at gun shows and on the Internet.

On the vote, Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska and Max Baucus of Montana joined Pryor and Heitkamp in voting against the proposal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a supporter of the plan, switched his vote to the prevailing "no" side to permit him to call for a revote in the future.

Begich, Pryor and Baucus are all seeking re-election next year. In an indication of the intensity of the feelings on the issue, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal group, swiftly announced it would run ads contrasting their votes with polls showing overwhelming popular support for gun curbs.

Among Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona and Toomey sided with Democrats.

Numerous polls in recent months have shown support for enhanced gun control measures, including background checks, though it may be weakening.

An Associated Press-GfK poll this month showed that 49 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws, down from 58 percent in January. In that recent survey, 38 percent said they want the laws to remain the same and 10 percent want them eased.

Obama has made enactment of greater curbs a priority on his domestic agenda in the months since the massacre at Newtown, making several trips outside Washington to try and build support. Last week, he traveled to Connecticut, and he invited several parents to fly back to Washington with him aboard Air Force One so they could personally lobby lawmakers.

To an unusual degree for professional politicians, some senators said afterward that they had not wanted to meet with the mothers and fathers of the dead, or said it was difficult to look at photographs that the parents carried of their young children, now dead.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said before Wednesday's vote, "I think that in some cases, the president has used them as props, and that disappoints me."

Without referring to Paul by name, Obama rebutted him firmly. "Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue?" he said.

At the White House, press secretary Jay Carney said some of them had met earlier in the day with lawmakers, who he said should "consider who they're representing.

"Ninety percent of the American people support expanded background checks," he said.

The NRA told lawmakers it intended to keep track of how the votes were cast, and consider them in making decisions about its efforts in the midterm elections for Congress next year.

An opposing group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said it would do likewise.

The NRA has a long track record in electoral politics, and is viewed by lawmakers in both political parties as unusually effective. Bloomberg's organization has yet to be tested.

In the AP-GfK poll, among independents, support for stricter gun laws dipped from 60 percent in January to 40 percent now. About three-fourths of Democrats supported them then and now, while backing among Republicans for looser laws about doubled to 19 percent.

The survey was conducted from April 11-15 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,004 randomly chosen adults and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

___

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman, AP Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta and news survey specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this story.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 84 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(84)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
serious wrote:
Reid, who got government funded (our tax dollars) for a shooting range in Nevada. There are so many loopholes in the background checks it's an impossible law, but, follow the money: the NRA has the deep pocketbooks. No profiles in courage in this Senate.
on April 17,2013 | 09:31AM
environmental_lady wrote:
Most of all blame Harry Reid for not abolishing the filibuster when he had a chance at the first day of the new Senate this year. He was cowardly, that's why he didn't bring Elizabeth Warren's proposal up to the floor of the Senate. With a Democratic majority he could have abolished the filibuster. Now he has no right to complain that he didn't get the 60 votes he needed when he got 54. If he had been in our state I would have called for all of us to vote him out. But since he is from Nevada, we are powerless to do anything. At best you can ask all your Democratic friends and relatives in his next election to vote for a more progressive candidate in his place. We need a "Give'm Hell Harry," not a "Give'm all they want Harry."
on April 17,2013 | 12:01PM
OldDiver wrote:
Reid did not have the votes to change the filibuster rules.
on April 17,2013 | 12:07PM
Mana07 wrote:
He didn't even get 54. You have it backward he got 46..LOL. Libs lose
on April 17,2013 | 02:41PM
Mana07 wrote:
My apologies he did get 54...the senate is even worse than I thought it was.
on April 17,2013 | 03:12PM
environmental_lady wrote:
No, I don't have it backward. But I just learned that Harry Reid was one of the 46 who voted against. Now that takes the cake! I can't believe it.
on April 17,2013 | 03:13PM
OldDiver wrote:
You sure about Reid?
on April 17,2013 | 03:24PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
It is explained in the article why he voted against it.
on April 17,2013 | 05:00PM
environmental_lady wrote:
I did get it wrong about Reid. I was misled by Moms Demand Action and pointed out their mistake and now I correct my own mistake. Harry Reid did vote in favor of background checks.
on April 17,2013 | 10:20PM
frontman wrote:
A great day for American Freedom Rights.
on April 17,2013 | 03:15PM
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
..and if the rest of us don't agree with you, you'll shoot us, right?
on April 17,2013 | 03:44PM
OldDiver wrote:
What does building a shooting range have to to with background checks?
on April 17,2013 | 12:06PM
copperwire9 wrote:
Thanks! A much needed comment.
on April 17,2013 | 12:52PM
frontman wrote:
So now are you going to have to register pressure cookers and the owners get a background check????
on April 17,2013 | 03:17PM
allie wrote:
NRA owns Congress. Same as Israel.
on April 17,2013 | 10:51AM
environmental_lady wrote:
I wouldn't mention Israel in the same breath as NRA. Israel is a haven for the persecuted Jews all over the world, including Holocaust survivors. I know since I lived there at one time. I may not agree with all its policies against the Palestinians as I deplore the uprooting of their orchards in the West Bank for settlements, but I wouldn't go so far as to abandon Israel to its fate. We are all shades of gray and a good example is Harry Reid who now supports gun control but is also a card carrying member of the NRA or even Obama who sometimes stands up for our rights and sometimes caves in to the big corporations. Nobody is perfect, Allie.. But Israel as a nation is nowhere near as wicked as the NRA. Many people in that country do stand up for Palestinian rights, but is anyone in the NRA standing up for the rights of our children not to get randomly shot by trigger-happy gun owners? For them guns are more sacred than any child's life.
on April 17,2013 | 12:07PM
saveparadise wrote:
Are the guns that protect Israel wicked too? Do guns have a mind of their own? Are guns self righteous as you are if used with good intentions or evil as the criminals that use them? Your intentions are good. Let's put the criminals behind bars and keep the crazies in check without infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens of who you are insulting with your insinuations of "trigger-happy".
on April 17,2013 | 01:05PM
allie wrote:
good points. But I insist that we recognize the role that Israel plays in enforcing its will over our pathetic Congress. Same as NRA. One wonders why the Congress cannot act or pass legislation good for Americans.
on April 17,2013 | 01:06PM
hawaiikone wrote:
well, if you insist that changes everything....
on April 17,2013 | 02:55PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Start with the Democratic senator from ND, who vote with the republicans! Vote him out! They want their guns up there, but also want their welfare.
on April 17,2013 | 03:24PM
frontman wrote:
A great day for American Freedom Rights.
on April 17,2013 | 03:15PM
juke wrote:
good
on April 17,2013 | 03:35PM
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
Do you mean that the NRA owns Israel?
on April 17,2013 | 03:45PM
silvangold wrote:
A slap in the face; people just wanted background checks to go a little further to keep the unbalanced ones out there in check. So now there is NO safety checks.
on April 17,2013 | 10:54AM
Fred01 wrote:
Are you really that ignorant? No safety checks?
on April 17,2013 | 11:48AM
frontman wrote:
So now are you going to have to register pressure cookers and the owners get a background check????
on April 17,2013 | 03:18PM
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
har-de-har-har! You have a GREAT sense of humor!
on April 17,2013 | 03:47PM
silvangold wrote:
WTH are you talking about................I am talking about the more intense safety checks...........you the ignorant one.
on April 18,2013 | 02:15PM
Mana07 wrote:
Safety checks? What the heck are you talking about. Ignorance such as yours is a driving force behind the destruction of our Bill of Rights
on April 17,2013 | 02:43PM
frontman wrote:
A great day for American Freedom Rights.
on April 17,2013 | 03:16PM
kainalu wrote:
Now, can we get something done about that ridiculously long process of trying to get a gun-permit in this State - are you kidding me? Let's start off small - the line. Nevermind the 3-visits required with the purchase of a new firearm - 1) you pay for a new firearm, then you stand in line for a permit - gun still with the gun retailer. 2) Go back and get your permit once you've been cleared. 3) Bring proof that the firearm you purchased matched the permit you applied for. Come on, man! At least open another permitting office in Kapolei, Darn it!
on April 17,2013 | 11:07AM
cojef wrote:
Actually the blast in Boston indicated that gun control is a dead issue if an issue at all. Anyone can make a homrmade pressure cooker bomb and kill and maim a large number of people so it makes the background check issue moot, because a large number of school children were gunned down. Well, what is the difference between the two tragic events, both killed and maimed a large number of individuals. For PR purposes the assault rifle was used against children and influenced a number of Senators to change their views on mass killings, then the 2 bomb blast, involving mass maiming of over 170 and killing 3 including a child. Controlling weapons, be it pressure cookers or firearms do not deter mass killings. Human behavior is the issue. Thought control anyone??
on April 17,2013 | 11:26AM
OldDiver wrote:
Come on now, those are two different issues.
on April 17,2013 | 12:02PM
blkdrgn wrote:
They are not two different issues. The point is that if a criminal or let's say a crazy person wanted to kill, there is nothing that is going to stop them. No background checks, clip restrictions, etc. is going to stop or even slow them down. Pressure cookers, knives, guns, baseball bats, pellet guns, cars, planes, chopsticks, etc. can be used to kill. What makes you not kill anyone when you have access to all types of weapons?
on April 17,2013 | 01:10PM
OldDiver wrote:
Nonsense. How many school age kids bring a pressure cooker bomb to school to show their classmates. How many people are killed in their own homes with their own pressure cooker bomb. How many people commit suicide with a pressure cooker bomb. This NRA nonsense is nauseating.
on April 17,2013 | 01:30PM
saveparadise wrote:
OD, killing people is a single issue. Whether it was done by a gun, bomb, sarin poison, etc., are not even issues but methods.
on April 17,2013 | 01:11PM
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
That's such a simplistic argument that you must be a first grader.
on April 17,2013 | 03:49PM
allie wrote:
faulty argument used by the anti-American Tea party and NRA
on April 17,2013 | 01:07PM
peanutgallery wrote:
BINGO.
on April 18,2013 | 03:33AM
Anonymous wrote:
Can some Republican tell me where I can get my constitutionally guaranteed BAZOOKA?
on April 17,2013 | 11:21AM
false wrote:
I'm still awaiting work who to contact about my RPG.
on April 17,2013 | 11:54AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
The simple fact is that this legislation would not stop the criminals and crazies from committing the heinous crimes. We all realize that the solutions to gun violence are far more nuanced and complex. But, hey, it made great theater for people hoping to win votes in their next elections.
on April 17,2013 | 11:26AM
MakaniKai wrote:
Your comment Maneki_Neko SUMS this issue up Purrrfectly.......meow!
on April 17,2013 | 11:43AM
OldDiver wrote:
Most people shot by guns in this country are not killed by criminals.
on April 17,2013 | 12:04PM
peanutgallery wrote:
Where did you pull that bit of Kool-Aid news from? That's one of the most absurd things you've said yet OD.
on April 18,2013 | 03:34AM
OldDiver wrote:
60% of the guns used in crimes are purchased at gun shows or online where no checks are required.
on April 17,2013 | 12:09PM
bekwell wrote:
Most criminals in this country are shot by citizens.
on April 17,2013 | 12:16PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
I though most criminals shot in this country are actually shot by other criminals.
on April 17,2013 | 12:46PM
blkdrgn wrote:
no, those are rappers. lol
on April 17,2013 | 01:13PM
blkdrgn wrote:
More people are killed by cars than guns. What's your point?
on April 17,2013 | 01:12PM
Leinanij wrote:
Statisticians say that in just a few years kills by guns will surpass cars.
on April 17,2013 | 01:53PM
hawaiikone wrote:
A theory based entirely on less miles driven combined with incredibly safer automobiles. Remove suicides from the equation and car deaths lead over 2 to 1. Statistics can say just about anything you want them to.
on April 17,2013 | 03:15PM
Goodmedivice wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on April 17,2013 | 03:27PM
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
According to census.gov, the present US population is 315,690,000 people and counting. So how can there be 380,000,000 gun owners in the USA?
on April 17,2013 | 03:53PM
saveparadise wrote:
OldDiver, I guess you have solved all crimes committed with guns and identified the owners and where the firearms were bought....Hmmm in the last 24years, hours, or minutes? You better than the whole FBI organization! You are a great story teller. I won't use any other adjectives for some of your statements.
on April 17,2013 | 01:17PM
peanutgallery wrote:
Nonsense.
on April 18,2013 | 03:34AM
false wrote:
Its got a name and its called politics
on April 17,2013 | 11:55AM
environmental_lady wrote:
I bet you would change your tune if that had been your child. Why don't people have more empathy for the Sandy Hook victims' families?
on April 17,2013 | 12:09PM
saveparadise wrote:
el, but we do! Any perpatrator should pay with punishment according to the crime. It is YOU that is trying to punish the wrong people and entities that YOU portray as evil and group as one. Your intentions are good so try to understand your own opinions.
on April 17,2013 | 01:23PM
environmental_lady wrote:
Background checks wouldn't punish the wrong people. It is intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies. What could be so wrong with that?
on April 17,2013 | 03:15PM
pcman wrote:
Criminals and crazies don't need to buy weapons legally, so they do not get background checks. Illegally purchased weapons would not be registered, so a weapon used in a crime may not be in the weapons data base. Illegal and unregistered owners also would not be in the data base if it is a voluntary-by-purchase type of data base. .If a national data base is needed, everyone, not only gun buyers, need to be included in the national data base. If this is true, would all non-gun owners also want to be forced to register in a national background check data base? Would you also be willing to buy additional insurance to protect oneself from possible gun crimes? That would be the onl;y way to protect oneself against underinsured and uninsured gun owners. This would be a boon for insurance companies. They always need to develop new insurances to make more money for themselves. Be glad the Senate gun registration bill did not pass.
on April 17,2013 | 04:47PM
environmental_lady wrote:
No, I"m not glad. I don't own a gun and don't plan to own one so the onus of registration or background check wouldn't affect me. I'm actually sorrier that assault weapons were not banned. They should never be in the hands of citizens, especially not the crazies. Had assault weapons been illegal, Lanza wouldn't have had access to one even though his mother purchased it legally. This gun madness will only expand and who knows if any of us could be the next victims? Sure, cars kill, too, but at least you can drive defensively or choose not to ride with a drunk driver. But when a crazy confronts you with a gun suddenly, you can't even defend yourself. Just hope we don't live to regret that these bills did not pass.
on April 17,2013 | 10:19PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Judge in Texas shoots a prosecutor, a judge and his wife! Huh.........he had 20 plus guns! Huh? Who woulda thought a freaking judge!!
on April 17,2013 | 03:29PM
frontman wrote:
A great day for American Freedom Rights.
on April 17,2013 | 03:16PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
Really, all I know is that about 77,000 times per year someone fails a federal background check and is denied the opportunity to purchase a weapon. Right now about 40 percent of gun transactions happen without a background check, mostly private transactions and stuff like gun shows. If you don't think background checks save lives you are simply wrong, expanded background checks would have saved more lives. No one wants to deny good American citizens from owning and using a gun (I have three), I just don't want people who should not have guns to have access to them.
on April 17,2013 | 04:39PM
false wrote:
Special interest prevails again and common sense takes another lose.
on April 17,2013 | 11:50AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
On the other hand, permits are now required to buy pressure cookers.
on April 17,2013 | 12:08PM
Ripoff wrote:
now i gotta wait longer for buy a new rice cooker! LoL
on April 17,2013 | 12:59PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
HPD announced its "Cash for Cookers" program. You bring in a rice cooker in any condition - no questions asked - and you get a voucher good for shave ice.
on April 17,2013 | 01:30PM
hanaboy wrote:
"The proposal would have required background checks for all transactions at gun shows and online. Currently they must occur for sales handled by licensed gun dealers" Let's stick to the issue.......all "we" wanted is the same background check for individuals purchasing guns online and gun shows. Why are those here opposed to that? It doesn't take away your right to bear arms, it just make it harder for those intent on harming others to obtain these weapons. Those who are responsible gun owners should not care if it takes longer to get your gun, because you will eventually get one. For you to oppose this measure like the idiots in the Senate did, then I question the real reason you own a gun in the first place....
on April 17,2013 | 01:54PM
frontman wrote:
So now are you going to have to register pressure cookers and the owners get a background check????
on April 17,2013 | 03:18PM
peanutgallery wrote:
You can't buy a gun on-line without using one of Hawaii's gun dealers as a broker. That Hawaii gun dealer has to comply with laws that mandate backround checks. It's the law!
on April 18,2013 | 03:36AM
kahuku01 wrote:
No one wants to take away your rights to protect yourself with a firearm. There is a consensus in research, however, the military/law enforcement style weapon appeal to the mentally unstable, high capacity rounds are excessive and not efficient for safe civilian use, and that to stop illegal trafficking, there needs to be an accountability and responsibility as far as gun shows-i.e. universal back ground check. What reasons could there be for voting "NO" to this? Unfortunately if your family, relatives or friends were shot down in cold blood by these sick individuals using these assault weapons, maybe, maybe your way of viewing this change in gun control would be considered.
on April 17,2013 | 02:16PM
Mana07 wrote:
And the list of the ignorant and gullible grows....
on April 17,2013 | 02:47PM
pcman wrote:
IRT kahuku, actually if my family was cut down by a guy with large ammo clips, I would want a larger weapons clip so if I ever ran into the guy I'd have some advantage for self defense. I have been in the US defense business for over 45 years and evidently we think differently. During the Vietnam war, the Cold War and the Gulf Wars, I always thought about being stronger than the potential enemy so that we would deter any war, and if deterrence failed we would be able to destroy the enemy before he did it to us.
on April 17,2013 | 05:00PM
kahuku01 wrote:
IRTpcman: So big deal for you being in the US defense business for over 45 years but you're talking about the wars and no problem about being stronger than the enemy and would be able to destroy the enemy before he did it to us and I don't see anything wrong in that situation. I guess you're either John Wayne or Rambo that you would take it upon yourself if your family was cut down by a guy with large ammo clips and you would be so brave and strong with a larger weapon clip so if you ran into the guy, you'd have some advantage for self defense but the damage to your family is history and your larger weapon clips won't be of any use. By your admission, having and owning all these larger weapon clips makes you feel stronger and that is the mentality of majority of people that own these assault weapons.....look at me I'm Rambo and ready to take on the enemy. Cowards hide behind assault weapons and large ammo clips but in the end they will never outrun or out shoot the law.
on April 17,2013 | 06:58PM
cunfuzd4 wrote:
Whether you are for or against the bill, the good news is that now that the grandstanding is (hopefully) done for now maybe they can get back to the budget?
on April 17,2013 | 02:32PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
A freaking sheriff is showing off his guns, a grandchild grabs the gun and shoots grandma dead in the head? Huh? A freaking sheriff? Bob Marley laments " I Shot the Sheriffs Wife, But I didn't shoot the Deputies Wife, oh no no."
on April 17,2013 | 03:34PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
I don't think you should joke about that.

Regardless, law enforcement is exempted from ALL these laws and nothing proposed in congress would have prevented that death.


on April 17,2013 | 04:45PM
frontman wrote:
A great day for American Freedom Rights.
on April 17,2013 | 03:15PM
frontman wrote:
So now are you going to have to register pressure cookers and the owners get a background check????
on April 17,2013 | 03:17PM
environmental_lady wrote:
All this opposition to background checks stems from the opposition of a gun registry. Why is it that the same people don't decry registration of vehicles? Had guns been registered it would be easier to track them down if they were stolen or used in murders just as much as it is easier to track down stolen cars if they are registered. At least their serial numbers are in a database. All those who oppose registry of guns would be consistent if they opposed registry of cars and other types of licenses.
on April 17,2013 | 03:18PM
hawaiikone wrote:
e lady, if, God forbid, the "government" should come for you and I, it won't be for our cars. Sometimes incredibly obvious positive things, such as background checks, come with undesirable side effects. A national gun registry, available instantly to whomever is authorized, or with the ability to hack into the database, is absolutely essential to the subjugation of a citizenry. Impossible? In today's America? It sure seems far fetched. But with our economic, social, and spiritual decline, with new levels of intrusion into personal liberties so easily accepted, is it really beyond imagination? Personally, I'm old, and support the concept of background checks, as I feel we have more to gain than to lose, as we seem to be legislating ourselves into socialism anyway.
on April 17,2013 | 04:48PM
tsboy wrote:
there were about 24,000 people killed in car accidents last year, some ten thousand more than killed with guns. which is more dangerous? and not all those killed with guns were murders, many were suicides, or criminals killed by law enforcement or citizens protecting themselves. none of these new proposals would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings. if Obama really wants to protect children, why doesn't he put an armed guard in every school? why doesn't he propose legislation that provides the records of mentally ill people be shared with law enforcement? he's full of BS, thats why. what, no money for armed guards in schools? yet he wants to "invest" hundreds of millions for free pre school for all children. there were 15,000 applicants who were rejected for gun permits after their background checks came back. many because they were felons and lied about it on their applications. the justice department prosecuted just 44 or those and got a measly 13 convictions. 44 prosecutions out of 15,000? thats pathetic. the democraps want to give us more laws that they can't even enforce.
on April 17,2013 | 03:25PM
808comp wrote:
Wonder how the leaders of the NRA would feel if any of their friends or family members were shot by someone with an assault weapon,that hold 30 rounds of ammuniton, and later finds out that the person that did the shooting had a criminal record.The politicians are to worried about getting re-elected to office if they go against the NRA. If you're clean you have nothing to worry about going through a back ground check,unless you're buying the weapon for a criminal.
on April 17,2013 | 03:26PM
pcman wrote:
IRT 808comp, we already have a background check law in Hawaii, and most other states. Anyone who wants to buy a gun is checked. The only limitation of the data base is the lack of the rest of the population who currently do not "legally" own guns. Would you like to be included in the data base along with the thousands of people who own weapons and are not in the data base, so that background checks can be done compeletly? It would only take you 3-5 hours in line, if you are lucky. Cool, huh? I wish you good luck and happiness. Just hope the fingerprinting ink doesn't run out or the camera doesn't break down while you are in line. I am already in the data base.
on April 17,2013 | 05:21PM
engineersoldier wrote:
A combat veteran, I support any and all reasonable measures to control ownership of guns in out country.
on April 17,2013 | 04:52PM
kuroiwaj wrote:
Outstanding.
on April 17,2013 | 07:03PM
entrkn wrote:
There is no place in the US Senate or the Congress for cowards.
on April 17,2013 | 08:12PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Bad day for Republicans, Red State Dems, and their sponsors, the NRA, for 2014.
on April 17,2013 | 08:32PM
Papio001 wrote:
Does anyone wonder how our Hawaii Senators voted? All your comments should be directed to them...
on April 17,2013 | 10:08PM
RYMATS wrote:
Gun control, knife control, baseball bat control and now pressure cooker conrol..We live in a free society, we cannot control every accident, every tragedy, every child's death..but boy, do we try. To the point of invading the very foundations of what living in a free society was built on, and I am 'not' referring only to the second amendment. When a person or family is hit with a tragedy they strike out blindly in their grief and helplessness at what they percieve is the cause. Others that share their pain aggressively pick up the banner and voice their opinion, which is their right. In their rightful endeavor they lose sight of how their actions and obsessions affect the others, innocent of any transgressions. People, you cannot control by law every tragedy that occurs..But you can push for stiffer penalties for any crimes committed with a gun, you can push for better registrations of the mentally ill and altho a member of the NRA and a gun owner I support a form of background checks that will not infringe on the currently existing rights of the law abiding gun owners.
on April 18,2013 | 07:15AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News
Blogs
Warrior Beat
One last fling

Political Radar
Phased in

Political Radar
Palolo v. Pauoa

Political Radar
Palolo v. Pauoa

Career Changers
Must Sea TV

Political Radar
HB 1700 — Day 4

Political Radar
Pass