7,000 Gun purchases slip through the system

[michaeledward]

I found this article interesting. What are your thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5519382/

WASHINGTON - More than 7,000 people who should have been barred from buying guns were able to buy them anyway in 2002 and 2003, according to a Justice Department review released Monday.

The government rarely prosecutes such cases, the report said.

Federal law stipulates that gun buyers wait three business days before receiving their weapons so background checks can be conducted by the FBI. Of the 17 million gun purchases in the last two years, 122,000 were denied because of the checks.

If the background check isn’t completed within the period, however, the law says the purchase must go through. In 2002 and 2003, there were a combined 7,030 “delayed denial” cases in which the FBI found that a prohibited person was able to get a gun after the period expired, according to the review by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department’s inspector general.

 

[KenpoTex]

I can't speak to the accuracy of their figures (7,000+ delayed denials) but MSN did screw up a couple of facts. For example, they said in the article "Federal law stipulates that gun buyers wait three business days before receiving their weapons." They only have to wait three days if the transaction is delayed. In other words, if you go to buy a gun the dealer makes the call to NICS, if you're approved you walk out with your new gun. If you're denied, you don't walk out with a gun (and the dealer should call the cops since, more than likely, you just commited a felony). If you're delayed you have to wait a maximum of three business days for them to either approve or deny the transfer. If you wait more than three days you can pick up the gun b/c it took them too long. If after you get it they find out that you shouldn't have (the delayed denial that the article talked about) then the FBI gives the ATF a "request for firearm retrieval," in other words, they tell them to go take it back.
In 2002, only 1.73% of the 4,248,893 NICS transactions were "default proceded" (firearm automatically transferred after 3-day wait) of that number only 3,429 (about 1/10 of 1%) were "recalled." The number of "requests for retrieval" has actually been decreasing as the system improves. And considering that between November of 1998 (when the NICS replaced the Brady bunch's mandatory waiting period) and December 31, 2002, there were 35,938,513 background checks processed. I would say they're doing pretty well, not perfect, but pretty darn good.

here's the link for the FBI/NICS site where I got my figures: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/index.htm

If the article is correct, and there were 7,030 delayed denials out of 17,000,000 that's only about 1/2 of 1% (if I did the math correctly) sounds to me like a pretty good track record.

 

[MA-Caver]

If the article is correct, and there were 7,030 delayed denials out of 17,000,000 that's only about 1/2 of 1% (if I did the math correctly) sounds to me like a pretty good track record.

Yeah, unless you're shot by one of those 7,000 who shouldn't have gotten a gun.
I understand and appreciate the need for background checks because it can help minimize (just a tad) a gun getting into the wrong hands. The three day wait I believe was intended to cut down the number of "crimes of passion" incidents by allowing a person to cool off. Theory being that they'll re-think about "shooting the sum-beetch" and cut the brake lines on their car instead.

7,000 out of 17 million... ya pretty good but again not good if you take my meaning.

 

[KenpoTex]

Yeah, unless you're shot by one of those 7,000 who shouldn't have gotten a gun.
I understand and appreciate the need for background checks because it can help minimize (just a tad) a gun getting into the wrong hands. The three day wait I believe was intended to cut down the number of "crimes of passion" incidents by allowing a person to cool off. Theory being that they'll re-think about "shooting the sum-beetch" and cut the brake lines on their car instead.

7,000 out of 17 million... ya pretty good but again not good if you take my meaning.

I take your meaning, I have no problem with background checks because I don't think felons or people convicted of violent crime should be able to own firearms. However, waiting periods are not the answer. The theory that they prevent "crimes of passion" (crimes commited in a moment of rage by a spouse, friend, family member etc.) is flawed. The logic is that if a man gets mad at his wife (or vise-versa) and decides to go buy a gun to kill her he would have to wait for 3 days. As a result he would probably "cool down," in fact, many places refer to the waiting period as a "cooling off" period. However, most crimes classified in this manner occur between the hours of 10 pm. and 6 am. (actually I think the window was smaller than that but since I don't have the info. in front of me I'm erring on the side of caution.). This is significant because I can't think of anywhere you can legally buy a gun at 10:00 at night (everything is closed, wal-mart won't even sell ammo after 10 or 11). Also, calling this time of situation a "crime of passion" is misleading because the very act of going to buy or attempt to buy a gun in order to kill someone makes it premeditated murder, not a crime of passion. If someone was really that mad they would probably use a knife or a frying pan, of for that matter, their bare hands.

The NICS system is not perfect, I don't know of any system that would be, and as I said earlier, I don't have a problem with this type of system (provided there is not a permanent record, but that's another discussion) because criminals should not be allowed to possess firearms. However, restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens will NOT keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.

 

[CanuckMA]

Federal law stipulates that gun buyers wait three business days before receiving their weapons so background checks can be conducted by the FBI. Of the 17 million gun purchases in the last two years, 122,000 were denied because of the checks.

If the background check isn’t completed within the period, however, the law says the purchase must go through. In 2002 and 2003, there were a combined 7,030 “delayed denial” cases in which the FBI found that a prohibited person was able to get a gun after the period expired, according to the review by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department’s inspector general.

I don't know which scares me the most. 7,000 sold to denied individuals, or 17 million guns sold in 2 years!

 

[Stick Dummy]

Don't worry, if you stay RIGHT THERE in Canada everything will be fine..........


Anybody who takes the Washington "COM"Post as a definative text on ANY subject needs serious help. Its the U.S. version of what used to be called "Pravda" in the USSR.

Like Winston Churchill said "Theres Liars, Damned Liars, and STATISTICIANS."

 

[Seig]

Ya know, this is exactly the kind of idiocy that allows governments to turn citizens into subjects. Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say the article was even remotely accurate, which it isn't, and 7000 people that should not have been allowed to buy guns were able to through legal gun dealers that properly followed laws and the ATF procedures. So what? How many people last year bought guns out of the back of a van or the trunk of a car? Those are the ones that scare me, there is no record of them even owning a gun. That alone shows premeditation and a predisposition to perpetrate a crime. People need to quit decrying LEGAL gun ownership and sales and worry about the guns being sold down the block from their kids schools out of a duffel bag.

In the meantime, I will continue to carry my legally purchased and licensed firearm to defend those I hold dear and to prevent others from illicitly gaining from the fruits of my labor.

 

[Cryozombie]

Ya know, this is exactly the kind of idiocy that allows governments to turn citizens into subjects. Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say the article was even remotely accurate, which it isn't, and 7000 people that should not have been allowed to buy guns were able to through legal gun dealers that properly followed laws and the ATF procedures. So what? How many people last year bought guns out of the back of a van or the trunk of a car? Those are the ones that scare me, there is no record of them even owning a gun. That alone shows premeditation and a predisposition to perpetrate a crime. People need to quit decrying LEGAL gun ownership and sales and worry about the guns being sold down the block from their kids schools out of a duffel bag.

In the meantime, I will continue to carry my legally purchased and licensed firearm to defend those I hold dear and to prevent others from illicitly gaining from the fruits of my labor.

Yeah. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[sma_book]

DAMNIT ... POSTED UNDER MY WIFES ID AGAIN.

This post by michaeledward

Anybody who takes the Washington "COM"Post as a definative text on ANY subject needs serious help. Its the U.S. version of what used to be called "Pravda" in the USSR.

Like Winston Churchill said "Theres Liars, Damned Liars, and STATISTICIANS."

Yeah ... who needs a free press anyway!

Ya know, this is exactly the kind of idiocy that allows governments to turn citizens into subjects. Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say the article was even remotely accurate, which it isn't, and 7000 people that should not have been allowed to buy guns were able to through legal gun dealers that properly followed laws and the ATF procedures. So what? How many people last year bought guns out of the back of a van or the trunk of a car? Those are the ones that scare me, there is no record of them even owning a gun. That alone shows premeditation and a predisposition to perpetrate a crime. People need to quit decrying LEGAL gun ownership and sales and worry about the guns being sold down the block from their kids schools out of a duffel bag.

In the meantime, I will continue to carry my legally purchased and licensed firearm to defend those I hold dear and to prevent others from illicitly gaining from the fruits of my labor.

You know, oddly, there is no record of the 17 million people who legally purchased weapons either, as all information searched during a background check is destroyed within days of the transaction.

I don't believe anyone is 'decrying legal gun ownership'. And I will continue to fight for your right to bear arms, because a well regulated militia is a necessary for the security of a free state.

But what of those, who through their own actions, have forfeited the right to own a weapon, but manage to slip through the cracks of the system anyhow? If the number of 7000 is not even 'remotely accurate', what number is? How should we deal with it.. and how should we deal with those selling guns out of the back of cars ... and where are they coming from?

Curiously, Mike

 

[Seig]

DAMNIT ... POSTED UNDER MY WIFES ID AGAIN.

This post by michaeledward




Yeah ... who needs a free press anyway!



You know, oddly, there is no record of the 17 million people who legally purchased weapons either, as all information searched during a background check is destroyed within days of the transaction.

I don't believe anyone is 'decrying legal gun ownership'. And I will continue to fight for your right to bear arms, because a well regulated militia is a necessary for the security of a free state.

But what of those, who through their own actions, have forfeited the right to own a weapon, but manage to slip through the cracks of the system anyhow? If the number of 7000 is not even 'remotely accurate', what number is? How should we deal with it.. and how should we deal with those selling guns out of the back of cars ... and where are they coming from?

Curiously, Mike

A free press is fine, but the Washington Post is anything but unbiased. A lot of people are "decrying legal gun ownership", like, oh say, John Kerry; but that is not the topic of this thread. There are always people that slip through the cracks of our legal system, it isn't perfect but right now it is the best out there. There is NO WAY to stop people from buying guns that is complete, total or falesafe. There have been and always will be Arms dealers, either legitimate or illicit. How do we deal with it? Let the Law Enforcement branches do their jobs under the existing framework of the law without muddying the waters by adding more laws faster than the average person can learn them.

 

[Stick Dummy]

Let the Law Enforcement branches do their jobs under the existing framework of the law without muddying the waters by adding more laws faster than the average person can learn them.

Very Good Point!!!

Janet Reno was once asked if the Brady Bill could actually be enforced as a deterant to crime. Her answer was NO! It is not enforceable.

Then why the F#$^%, did it pass???????

It was just another CLINTON democrap party "feel good" regulation forced down the US Citizens throats to restrict and hinder the ability of lawful citizens to acquire firearms.

Waiting periods are bullschick, again doing nothing to PREVENT or Deter crime. All 'Brady" did was create another internal branch of a certain regulatory agency, who maintains PERMANENT electronic records of all firearms transactions conducted by law abiding citizens and licensed dealers.

 

[KenpoTex]

Very Good Point!!!

Janet Reno was once asked if the Brady Bill could actually be enforced as a deterant to crime. Her answer was NO! It is not enforceable.

Then why the F#$^%, did it pass???????

It was just another CLINTON democrap party "feel good" regulation forced down the US Citizens throats to restrict and hinder the ability of lawful citizens to acquire firearms..

Precisely, although it's not limited to the Clinton's and their ilk, it's the majority of the liberal-Dems. (Kennedy, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer etc.). it's the same story with the "assault weapons" ban. even the gun-grabbers admitt that it hasn't had any impact on crime (gee, ya think) yet they're going to continue to try to have it made permanent.

Waiting periods are bullschick, again doing nothing to PREVENT or Deter crime. All 'Brady" did was create another internal branch of a certain regulatory agency, who maintains PERMANENT electronic records of all firearms transactions conducted by law abiding citizens and licensed dealers.

They're not permanent, they're destroyed within 24 hours (and if you believe that I've got a beach-house in Phoenix that I'll let you have real cheap)

 

[michaeledward]

A free press is fine, but the Washington Post is anything but unbiased. A lot of people are "decrying legal gun ownership", like, oh say, John Kerry; but that is not the topic of this thread. There are always people that slip through the cracks of our legal system, it isn't perfect but right now it is the best out there. There is NO WAY to stop people from buying guns that is complete, total or falesafe. There have been and always will be Arms dealers, either legitimate or illicit. How do we deal with it? Let the Law Enforcement branches do their jobs under the existing framework of the law without muddying the waters by adding more laws faster than the average person can learn them.

1) This story is not from the Washington Post - the byline is 'The Associated Press'.
2) John Kerry is a gun owner & hunter ... how is he 'decrying legal gun ownership' ... I know it is not part of the thread, I only ask because you brought it up.
3) If 'the system isn't perfect, and right now it is the best out there', is there no way that we can do better?

I believe this article is informing us that there are existing laws, that they are being enforced (after the waiting period, the sale is completed), and yet still weapons are getting into the hands of people who have surrendered their right to keep and bear arms. This article does not seem to be proposing new laws that the average person needs to learn.

Would someone please inform me which new Federal Agency keeps a permanent record of all firearms transactions, I would like to use the Freedom of Information Act to request the purchases in my home town?

Thanks, Mike

 

[MisterMike]

Kerry's stance on guns here:

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Gun_Control.htm

 

[Stick Dummy]

Now thats SCARY, another politician talking out the side of his face......

Simply put, He believes (as most east coast politicals & "intellectuals") that they know what is best for the rest of the USA based on their abjectly failed and flawed systems.

The "haves" (rich socio-politicals) can carry/own firearms/ have physical protection, but the "have nots" (everyone else) have to have choices mandated for them.

A firearm is a tool, regardless of what it "looks" like, or how many projectiles it holds. To say otherwise is a crock.

He should take that product liability crap and apply where its really needed -to the auto & alcohol industries for failing to prevent drunk driving through safer "smart" vehicles that won't start if the driver "blows" positive for intoxication, and even stricter regulation of the alcohol industry and their advertising. Bet that would help his votes with the UAW.

Ooops they tried that didn't they??

Prohibition - That worked real well..........

anybody else see the pattern of failure emerging?

 

[dearnis.com]

1) My *** Kerry is a hunter; a staged photo op does not a hunter make.
2) as a cop the last thing I need are more gun laws; I need prosecutors, judges, and juries with the guts to go forward with prosecuting the gun violations we have now.

 

[michaeledward]

1) My *** Kerry is a hunter; a staged photo op does not a hunter make.
2) as a cop the last thing I need are more gun laws; I need prosecutors, judges, and juries with the guts to go forward with prosecuting the gun violations we have now.

1) Kerry can't possibly be a hunter because of your opinion? I'ld like to understand.

2) Then you are in favor of more stringent action on the 7,030 'delayed denial' weapons getting into the hands of people who have forfitted the right to keep and bear arms. As a law enforcement officer, what is your educated professional suggestion for dealing with this situation?

Mike

 

[Seig]

Kerry's stance on guns here:

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Gun_Control.htm

Ahem....
John Kerry's REAL stance on guns:
Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) introduced S. 1805 on October 31, 2003. The legislation would prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others. On March 2, 2004, the bill failed 90-8.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the legislation.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the bill.

Senate Amendment 2637, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to S. 1805, the Gun Industry Immunity Bill, would extend the Assault Weapons Ban for 10 more years until 2014. Currently, the Assault Weapons Ban is scheduled to expire on September 13, 2004 unless a new law is passed. On March 2, 2004, the amendment passed 52-47.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the amendment.

Senate Amendment 2636, offered by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) to S. 1805, the Gun Industry Immunity Bill, would require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows. On March 2, 2004, the amendment passed 53-46.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the amendment.
OK, I agree with that one...

Senate Amendment 2619, offered by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) to S. 1805, the Gun Industry Immunity Bill, would expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor. On March 2, 2004, the amendment passed 34-63.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the amendment.

Senate Amendment 343, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to S.254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, to ban the importation of large-capacity magazines (ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than ten rounds). A motion was offered to table (defeat) the amendment. On Thursday, May 13, 1999, the motion to table failed 39-59.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the motion to table the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the motion to table the amendment.

Senate Amendment 350, offered by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) to S.254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, to ban the unlicensed sale of guns on the Internet by requiring websites clearly designed to sell guns to be federally licensed firearms dealers and to comply with all such federal laws. A motion was offered to table (defeat) the amendment. On May 14, 1999, the motion to table passed 50-43.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the motion to table the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the motion to table the amendment.

Senate Amendment 362, offered by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to S.254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 to close the loophole allowing individuals to sell guns from their "private collections" at gun shows without completing background checks for purchasers. On May 20, 1999, with Vice President Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote, the amendment passed 51-50.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the amendment.

Child Access Prevention Amendment
Senate Amendment 3260, offered by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) to S. 2260, the FY99 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill, to increase penalties for individuals who permit juvenile access to firearms. On July 21, 1998, a motion was made to table (defeat) the amendment. The motion to table passed 69-31.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the motion to table the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the motion to table the amendment.
This would mean that I cannot take my 13 year old daughter or 12 year old son hunting....


Senate Amendment 3351, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to S. 2312, the FY99 Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill, to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. On July 21, 1998, a motion was made to table (defeat) amendment. The motion to table passed 54-44.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the motion to table the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the motion to table the amendment.

Senate Amendment 3238, offered by Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) to S. 2260, the FY99 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill, would have required that gun stores have trigger locks in stock and available for sale. The vote on the Craig amendment was immediately prior to a vote on the stronger Boxer/Kohl amendment to require all handguns sold in the United States be sold with a child safety lock. The Craig Amendment was an effort to undercut support for the stronger Boxer/Kohl amendment. On July 21, 1998, the amendment passed 72-28.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the amendment.

Senate Amendment 3230, offered by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Herb Kohl (D-WI) to S. 2260, the FY99 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill, was the stronger version of the previous Craig amendment. The amendment required that all handguns sold in the United States be sold with a child safety lock. On July 21, 1998, a motion was made to table (defeat) the amendment. The motion to table passed 61-39.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence OPPOSED the motion to table the amendment.
JOHN KERRY voted AGAINST the motion to table the amendment.

On November 20, 1993, the Senate voted on H.R. 1025, known as the Brady Bill, legislation to require a 5-day waiting period on handgun purchases, to allow local officials to conduct a background check. The bill passed the House on November 10 and on November 20, 1993, the bill passed the Senate 63-36.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the legislation.
The bill was signed into law on November 30, 1993 (PL 103-159).
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the Brady Bill.

Senate Amendment 1152, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to S. 1607, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, to restrict the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. On November 17, 1993, the amendment passed 56-43.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence SUPPORTED the amendment.
The bill was signed into law on September 13, 1994 (PL 103-332).
JOHN KERRY voted FOR the Assault Weapons Ban.

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
More on Kerry
http://www.nraila.org/issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=136
[size=-1]If you thought the eight long years of the Clinton/Gore administration`s war on firearms owners` rights were oppressive, they would pale in comparison to what John Kerry would have in store for us if he captures the White House and evicts President George W. Bush in November.[/size]

[size=-1]John Kerry--whose record of words and misdeeds on firearms rights has earned him a key place among the most solid "F" candidates ever rated by the National Rifle Association--is now posing as a self-styled"lifelong hunter and gun owner," a faux good old boy who says, "I believe in the Second Amendment."[/size]

[size=-1]But as someone who has hunted, he`s not one of us. He`s a silver-spoon Boston Brahman--an ideological blood brother to his mentor, Teddy Kennedy.[/size]

[size=-1]He`s married to a multi-millionaire heiress whose "favorite charity," the Tides Foundation, has pumped a small fortune into anti-gun rights schemes.[/size]

[size=-1]Kerry, during his 20-year stint in the U.S. Senate, has been an always reliable vote for the anti-gunners and has routinely voted with the gun-ban movement since he was elected as the junior member from Massachusetts. At the heart of the real John Kerry is an unthinking zealot who has never missed an opportunity to work to diminish our rights.[/size]

[size=-1]For his long history of anti-gun rights votes and positions, he consistently receives a 100-percent rating from the Brady Campaign (Handgun Control Inc.), the American Bar Association`s Special Committee on Gun Violence and from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns). All of these groups deny the existence of an individual right to keep and bear arms, and some are actively using the courts in an attempt to destroy Americans` Second Amendment freedoms.[/size]

[size=-1]On issues directly affecting Second Amendment rights, Kerry has voted 51 of 55 times against you on the floor of the Senate. For all we`ve read lately about how enemies of the Second Amendment are shying away from the "gun control" issue in this election year, a series of votes in the U.S. Senate in March changed all that, with Kerry eagerly taking center stage.[/size]

[size=-1]In working to sabotage S.1805--the NRA-backed legislation to stop the endless series of predatory lawsuits aimed at strangling the law-abiding firearms industry--Kerry voted to extend the Clinton gun ban on semi-autos, to make now-legal private gun sales at gun shows criminal acts, and voted to support Ted Kennedy`s ammunition ban, which would have prohibited most centerfire hunting rounds.Where Kerry says he "will defend hunting rights," the accolades of "animal rights" activists tell a different story.[/size]

[size=-1]The Humane Society of the United States and Fund for Animals--both rabidly anti-hunting--gave John Kerry a 100 percent mark for the first session of the current Congress. They cited John Kerry as among Senators who have "compiled consistently excellent voting records on animal issues . . ." and who "have emerged as animal protection leaders . . . Kerry has cosponsored almost every piece of animal protection legislation . . . introduced on behalf of animals."[/size]

[size=-1]Kerry is the poster boy for a secret scheme hatched by billionaire Andrew McKelvey`s Americans for Gun Safety, (AGS) whereby anti-gun rights Democratic candidates cloak themselves in rhetorical camouflage, falsely claiming to embrace the Second Amendment and trying to con hunters into believing that their rights are somehow separate from those of other American gun owners.[/size]

[size=-1]Don`t take my word for it. Here`s what AGS wrote in its blueprint for "Taking Back the Second Amendment," prepared last year for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Kerry is following all the dots.[/size]

[size=-1]It is a battle plan for deceit that counsels anti-gun rights candidates: "The problem that Democrats have on the gun issue has far less to do with the typical policies they espouse than the rhetoric they employ." (Emphasis added.) In other words, it`s not how you vote, but what you say.[/size]

[size=-1]So, now confiscatory firearms prohibition is called "sensible gun safety," although the abhorrent concept of the knock-in-the-middle-of-the night is just the same as it always has been.[/size]

[size=-1]That theme of dissembling is amplified by an accompanying DLC cover memo announcing, "The DLC and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) believe that progressives need not change their positions in order to dramatically reduce, and in some cases reverse, conservative advantages with these groups." (Emphasis added.) Groups? Try NRA.[/size]

[size=-1]They are talking about lying, about sleight of hand, trickery--basically outright fraud.[/size]

[size=-1]"Taking Back the Second Amendment" means recreating the Second Amendment; twisting its clear meaning to the same dark purpose expressed by then-President Clinton`s Solicitor General Seth Waxman who wrote in an August 2000 letter to an NRA member: "In light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun."[/size]

[size=-1]Kerry is right in step with the AGS-DLC war-plan: "progressives need not change their positions." Simply change the "rhetoric they employ."In working to sabotage the NRA-backed legislation to stop the endless series of lawsuits aimed at strangling the law-abiding firearms industry, Kerry read the AGS wolf-in-sheep`s-clothing script to a tee when the issue was debated on March 4.[/size]

[size=-1]He told the Senate, "I believe strongly in the Second Amendment. I believe in the right to bear arms as it has been interpreted in our country" (emphasis added). This is a vital "qualifier" coming from a man who, if elected president, would be nominating federal judges and Supreme Court justices to interpret our rights.[/size]

[size=-1]Kerry and also-ran presidential candidate and trial lawyer John Edwards were among those who cast the deciding votes on what proved to be "poison pill" amendments to the lawsuit tort reform bill: Dianne Feinstein`s 10-year extension of the Clinton semi-auto ban and a new version of John McCain`s so-called "gun show loophole" law, which would criminalize now-legal private commerce between peaceable individuals at gun shows.[/size]

[size=-1]Kerry--during his national media performance on the Senate floor --broke a missing-in-action streak that saw him absent from the Senate for 65 percent of all votes in 2003 and every single vote up to that date this year. It`s stunning: Out of 20 roll-call votes in 2004, these gun ban votes were the first he cast in the Senate all year.[/size]

[size=-1]But he was back--flying from his "super-Tuesday" primary campaigning. Goring gun owners was apparently just too important to miss--this month`s cover says it all.[/size]

[size=-1]During his Senate appearance, Kerry also went out of his way to directly attack NRA members, saying, "Let`s be honest about what we are facing today." Referring to the Clinton gun ban, he said, "The opposition to this common-sense gun safety law is being driven by the powerful NRA special interest leadership and by lobbyists in Washington. I don`t believe this is the voice of responsible gun owners across America."[/size]

 

[Feisty Mouse]

In my ongoing effort to be red-dotted out of existence....

Someone please explain to me why you think that the NRA is so fabulous, why if there are limitations or government checks on guns or gun type ownership, why this is getting rid of the Second Amendment. It seems that some people feel that the one thing that makes them "free" is owning a gun, not having a voice in government or having free access to health care and the right to speak their minds without retribution.

I also fervently hope that everyone who is so concerned about each citizen having control over what they own, being able to protect themselves, and feeling that they don't want government controlling or limiting their options, are also fervently voting for pro-choice candidates.

 

[KenpoTex]

Someone please explain to me why you think that the NRA is so fabulous

I don't consider the NRA to be "fabulous." While I am a member, I am not happy with many of the things they do or neglect to do. However, I still support them because they are a power in this nations political scene and without them we (gun owners) would probably be worse off.

why if there are limitations or government checks on guns or gun type ownership, why this is getting rid of the Second Amendment.

Because if you look back through the history of this century (and beyond if you want to discuss other weapons bans). Every time a government bans the private ownership of firearms, they begin by requiring registration, or by banning certain types of firearms and imposing other "safety" measures. Some examples: England, Australia, etc. In both countries they didn't just suddenly wake up one day and say "hey, as of next week y'all will have to surrender all your firearms." They just chipped away a little at a time until suddenly, there's nothing left.

It seems that some people feel that the one thing that makes them "free" is owning a gun, not having a voice in government or having free access to health care and the right to speak their minds without retribution.

It has been said that "the Second Amendment makes the others possible." I could list numerous quotes from the founding fathers that would illustrate this very point as well as the fact that they specifically put the 2nd amendment in place so that the general public would have a means to resist if the government became too oppressive.
I'm not going to say that, without a doubt, we would lose our other rights (freedom of speech, due process, search and seizure, etc.) if we are unfortunate enough to one day find ourselves in a nation that does not allow private ownership of firearms but should we find ourselves in that position we would be forced to put our faith in the politicians who say that they will ensure that those rights are maintained. In other words, we would have no recourse if they decided to take them away. I don't know about y'all but I don't particularly have much trust for politicians as it is, much less when there's nothing to keep them from having their way.


BTW: Seig, thanks for posting the records of Kerry's votes on the gun issues...saved me from having to do it.
As far as Kerry is concerned, simply owning a gun doesn't mean anything, hell, even Sarah Brady (and Diane Feinstein as well I believe) own guns. Why for protection (wait, isn't that what the police are for?). What it boils down to in their case is that (like Stick Dummy said) they are elitists, they believe that for whatever reason that their lives are of more value than those of the peasants (peope like you and me). The only reason Kerry is trying to appear to be a "friend of the gunowner/sportsman" is that he's trying to get their votes. Unfortunately, there are many gun owners who are stupid enough to vote for him. (I know, I know this isn't s'posed to be a political thread...sorry)