Universal background checks for those making gun purchases in the United States will help save innocent lives and help protect law enforcement.
Such universal background checks will not restrict law abiding citizens or those not suffering from an identifiable serious mental illness from obtaining weapons for sport or self-defense. Courts have previously held such background checks are constitutional and do not interfere with the 2nd Amendment or its intent.
It makes common sense for a civilized society to take reasonable action to prevent or slow down the ability of those with felony criminal records, a history of a serious mental illness or on a terror watch list from using online means, gun show and private purchase loopholes to avoid background checks and purchase guns. Avoiding background checks makes it much easier for terrorist, criminals and the mentally ill to obtain weapons that can be used to kill scores of innocents within minutes in churches, schools, malls, concerts, ball fields, restaurants and workplaces.
I and others realize such universal background checks won't prevent all felons, all potential terrorists or all seriously mentally ill people from obtaining deadly weapons and using them. Many already have guns and more guns can be stolen and smuggled. However, it's clear that such universal background checks will help identify and prevent some criminal violence and some mass shootings and will help identify and stop some terrorist acts and save the lives of some children, some innocent adults and some law enforcement officers.
Under this proposal to close the “gun show loophole” and other means people use to avoid background checks, no law-abiding citizen or mentally stable person or person not on an FBI terrorism watch list will be prevented from purchasing a weapon.
Polls consistently show about 90 percent of the American public support universal background checks for all those purchasing guns.
I appreciate the President showing political courage and leadership on this issue. I was also glad to see Bill O’Reilly join with the President on this. I hope Congress will now do its part to support universal background checks, just as the vast majority of the American people do.
Tim Gobble
* * *
Mr. Gobble,
I certainly would not advise you to run for public office as a Republican after reading your stance on expanded background checks for firearms purchasers.
What you wrote is straight out of a very liberal Democrats playbook.
As a law abiding firearm owner I could not disagree more with your position.
Expanding background check would not have prevented a single one of the recent ”mass” shooting that people of a liberal bent bleat about so much.
The President's recent and constitutionally questionable “executive action” expanding background checks is simply another step toward registering, then eventually confiscating the firearms to which all American citizens are entitled to own.
No gun owners that I know agree with your statement and the “90” percent of gun owners you quote has been proven time after time to be a complete falsehood.
You should do a little more research than simply reading bullet points from the White House, Michael Bloomberg, Shannon Watts or other organizations of their ilk before you try to lump gun owners into these kind of statements.
By the way, if I were you, I would resign from the Republican party forthwith and join the Democrat party, I believe that would be a better fit.
John T. Sanders
* * *
I have been a car owner for many years. I have never driven a car without proper tags, title, insurance or registration. I wouldn't think of doing otherwise. I've had a home loan before and went through all the hoops to accomplish that. I've never used fraudulent methods to obtain prescription medications or medical treatment.
I have also pawned a gun before. When you return to the pawn shop to retrieve your gun, you have to pass a background check before the shop owner can return the gun to you. You wait while the background check is run.
We live in a republic governed by laws. We have many laws that are long outdated and laws that are not enforced. We have gun laws that are not enforced.
I totally agree with universal background checks for all people purchasing guns at gun shows and online. I am not sure how all of this will be enforced, but that is not my job at this point. Our legal system is not perfect and I doubt that it ever will be. If you fear a background check, it indicates to me that you have something to hide. If you hate the TSA checks at airports, you must
have something to hide. If you don't like traffic cameras, then you must not regard traffic laws.
In each area of our society where you have to be registered, stamped, observed, licensed, studied, tested, approved, scrutinized or examined, if you fight against these processes, you must have something to hide. A truly innocent, law-abiding citizen may be the victim of legal processes, but if you fear the process to begin with, I believe that you have something to hide.
Ted Ladd
Chattanooga
* * *
If instituting universal background checks will make Obama and his liberal minions "feel" better, then fine, I like all other law abiding citizens, try our best to comply with the laws of this country.
This is the issue: it's already against the law to murder, it's already against the law for some to own a firearm. Criminals and terrorists don't obey laws. Universal background checks will not prevent these people from obtaining weapons. Mentally ill and mean people are difficult to stop, and universal background checks wouldn't help. These people will steal guns, and buy them on the black market. This will only put more burden on the good citizens of this country.
Notice that these mass shootings occur in strict gun laws areas? If our own military personnel here in Chattanooga had been allowed to be armed, most likely the scum bag would have been taken out before murdering innocent unarmed people. Who believes that our own military personnel shouldn't be allowed to carry arms? The left.
The left takes little bites of freedom afforded by the Second Amendment and one day presto, it's gone. If Obama really wanted to do something to reduce crime, he could cease releasing felons from prison, cease releasing terrorists from Gitmo, and cease opening our borders to anyone.
Remember Fast and Furious? Obama has been one of the biggest gun runners in recent times.
Makes me very skeptical of his true intentions.
Wake up people. Give up freedom for safety....you end up with neither.
C.L. Leigh
* * *
Messrs. Gobble and Ladd see no violation of basic, natural rights by forcing law-abiding citizens to surrender more of their god given rights for no other reason than some people violate laws already on the books and the rules of a civil society.
They would further restrict the rights of law abiding citizens for no better reason than some people, who won't abide by current or future laws anyway, are willing to hurt others with a firearm. Mr. Ladd goes so far as to attempt guilting the rest of us into submission with the old "if you have nothing to hide there shouldn't be any problem letting government invade your privacy even more" trick.
I don't fly because I'm not willing to allow some TSA agent try to cop a feel, or send me through a "scanner". When ever possible I don't go to buildings or other locations where I might be subject to an indiscriminate search. I'm not willing to allow someone, anyone, to pilfer through my purse without a very good reason or to lay hands on my body without my express permission and at my request.
Let's extend their logic, that of Mr. Gobble and Mr. Ladd. Women are raped every day all around the world, probably more frequently than individuals are shot, much less killed with firearms. Males rape women using their, um, "equipment". So let's outlaw that "equipment" unless it meets very specific requirements including as an absolute minimum safety locks, "gun" safe stowage, storage of "ammunition" separate from the "base unit", registration, licensure, training, and monthly inspections. All of these absolutely as a minimum. Our financial records, medical records, insurance records, personal history, and many other private details are already archived some place. So any male not willing to abide by these restrictions must have something to hide. Right?
What say you boys, Messrs. Gobble and Ladd? Will you be first in line? It's only right and proper that you be willing to forfeit some of your freedom and rights for the good of the rest of society. Isn't it?
Anyone wanting to take my purple and black Sccy will need to, as a very dear friend of ours would say, pack a lunch. Maybe several.
Vicki Rodgers
Nine Mile, Tn.
* * *
The solution to mass shootings and crimes involving firearms is very simple, and can be done without infringing the rights of law-abiding citizens.
1. Anyone charged with a crime using a firearm gets a mandatory 10 year sentence in prison, plus additional time for the crime.
2. Do away with gun free zones. Common sense tells you that the mass killers or criminals, absolutely thrive in "Gun Free Zones". They know they are in total control to do as they please without interference. Like the big bad wolf in the chicken house.
3. Allow total access to mental health records for background checks.
I think the above will solve the problem, and will eliminate much of the mass killings and gun related crimes.
These ideas are too harsh for the liberals, they prefer to come after the good guys.
Jim Rosenbloom
* * *
The idea that expanding background checks to cover all means of acquiring a firearm is somehow an infringement of one's Second Amendment rights, or, as Mr. Rosenbloom put it, 'coming after the good guys,' is absolutely laughable. I also strongly disagree with Ms. Rodgers's reasoning that these measures are somehow an issue of personal privacy, and Mr. Ladd's assertion that anyone who isn't willing to surrender their own privacy must have something to hide. Finally, it seems painfully obvious that Mr. Sanders has, either intentionally or through inattention, completely misinterpreted Mr. Gobble's statistic - what he said, sir, is that 90 percent of Americans support this type of policy, not that 90 percent of gun owners do.
"Slippery slope" arguments aside, there is no good reason to oppose a process by which we are able to limit dangerous individuals from gaining access to firearms. Arguing that such limitations will not help anyone is patently absurd; of course it will not stop all gun violence, but it is not a coincidence that America has some of the highest rates of gun violence in the free world, while also proudly sporting the loosest regulations of firearms. Furthermore, the vast majority of gun deaths are not from mass shootings, but from suicides and accidental discharges - both things that can be reduced by taking extra steps to make sure only responsible individuals are able to own guns, particularly considering that a suicidal person's chance of actually attempting suicide drops drastically after 24 hours. Regarding the objection to gun free zones: people with guns cannot target these areas if they don't own guns, so their existence is actually an entirely moot point when discussing background checks.
The bottom line is that adding extra screening when people purchase guns, while perhaps slightly inconveniencing law-abiding citizens, will make it significantly more difficult for violent criminals and mentally unstable people, while still allowing those same law-abiding citizens to own guns.
I've been a bit more long-winded than I intended, so I'll wrap this up with one though: James Holmes, Elliott Rodger and Dylann Roof all bought their weapons legally, despite documented mental issues and criminal records. Adam Lanza also used legally purchased guns at Sandy Hook. Obviously, there are many instances in which illegal weapons are used to kill people, but in at least these familiar cases, we as a people made it very easy for these people to commit atrocities against innocents.
Zac Jackson