rumitoid

It is not hard to guess what the Right will say about the passage of this bill in the House: the first step to take away our guns and the right to bear arms. Maybe not, yet that is what usually occurs. The Left will laud it, of course. But I first have to ask why is this seemingly reasonable request for Universal Background Checks, no exceptions, a problem? I think I know why: what will be the criteria for approval? Could it be used for political purposes? Who will decide? And probably more to consider. All important questions that need to be answered before, or if, the Senate passes this Bill.

What is your opinion, worries, doubts, agreement, or objections? Please try to make your comments about the Bill and not about parties. Is it simply a good or bad and why.

woodguru

Next thing is internet sites can be searched for unhinged people and f**g them on a no guns list, next is showing up to confiscate guns from those, and accommodating all those who say from their cold dead body.

Lighten up, it's better than marshal law and a universal gun seizure.

I'm joking, I have more guns than most, I just got a great 12ga, but then I'm not an unhinged right winger.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Statistics prove that most guns used in illegal activity were not bought through gun shows or fire arms dealers. Most of those guns are untraceable and many are brought into our nation by "undocumented" people. Ergo, extra background checks will do very little to keep those weapons out of criminal hands. Guns are responsible for 11,208 homicides, 21,175 suicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent". So, on a positive note, this extra background investigation will ensure those guns used for suicide or "accidental/undetermined intent" shootings are numbered, registered, and government controlled while the criminal will still obtain as they always have.... no prints, no numbers, no fuss as long as they have the money to spend.

popparod Loc: Somewhere else.

Unhinged right winger, really?

In 1865 a Democrat shot and k**led Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.



In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States - who later died from the wound.



In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and k**led John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.



In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.



In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.



In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.



In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.



In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 10 people at a GMAC office.



In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in K**leen , TX.



In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.



In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 8 people at a church service.



In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to k**l George W. Bush, President of the US ...



In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.



In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and k**led 32 people in Virginia Tech.



In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and k**led 6 others.



In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and k**led 12 people.



In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 7 people in Minneapolis.



In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and k**led 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.



In 2013, Sept., an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.



Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.



Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.



SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns!
l

rumitoid

Good points. But when you say "most guns used in illegal activity were not bought through gun shows" yet some are. Would a Universal Background Check save lives in those instances? Hard to say, I guess. I think the fact that each state has their own loose or tight controls on guns is irresponsible, given the epidemic of gun violence in America. Epidemic? you may question: Isn't that being over-dramatic? No. The stats are there and something, almost anything, needs to be done to curtail it.

Resisting any controls, as some do, I feel is wrong. Most NRA members agree. A real debate with an honest appeal to protect our citizens first needs to take place. Paranoia about motives may be warranted. However, they should not be primary: real lives are in constant danger.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I am in favor of background checks for gun ownership. In fact, I go one step forward and would require a successful completion of gun safety courses for all who may have access to a household weapon. With a set time-frame for retraining. However, keep this in mind.... people change, some grow nice/patient as they age, some become bitter and more become mentally unstable due to medical conditions. And there are the crimes of passion..... How will the government do follow up on those they grant a weapon? Will there be a continuous background examination of those who apply for weapons? Will the government have a contract with these people that says if they become ineligible to own a weapon because they decided to wear a MEGA hat (as you know, the media complains that all those people are unhinged)? Will the government have a watch list and hire additional people to monitor their on line activities in forums? As I see the situation, there should be an immediate drop in legal gun ownership and with that the unintentional shooting or suicide. Illegal ownership will not go down. And with that, people who may have been able to defend themselves will most probably increase... criminals become bolder when laws are made in their favor. This will cause cases creeps....meaning, the number will steadily increase over the months and years until death by gun will match current figures. So.... save lives, it should for the immediate but not in the long haul. Also, who will pay for this expansion in government? It will take more law enforcement, clerks, and technology to keep up with the ever growing demand.

rumitoid

Too funny. This again. How long ago was this debunked and laughed of the world stage? I think its been over four years. Oops, not quite. Here it is from Musician Ted Nugent, a far right radical, in 9/15, exactly stated above by popparod. But how true is this list?

A few points first. Setting aside for a moment the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the items on the list, there’s a logical flaw in using this meme to reach the conclusion that Democrats shouldn’t own guns — or that National Rifle Association members, tea party members, or Republicans are less likely to be involved in assassination attempts or mass shootings.

This list is not comprehensive. It does not include all of the shootings that have occurred in the United States, nor the political affiliations of every shooter. It ignores shootings committed by Republicans, as well as those with no political party affiliation, and makes no attempt to show how political affiliation leads to violence. In other words, one could make a similar list naming nothing but Republican or politically unaffiliated shooters in order to make the opposing (and still flawed) argument that those groups should not own guns.

In addition to the logical problems of this meme, much of the information is also inaccurate.

We searched contemporary reports for each of the listed incidents in an attempt to uncover any mentions of political affiliations, motivations, or v****g records. Many of these items can be traced back to poor reporting, articles that were later corrected, or f**e news items. And although we encountered this meme (or a similar list) on a variety of web sites, none of these publications provided any documentation to back up these claims.

To the claims made:
1. In 1865, a Democrat shot and k**led Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.

MOSTLY FALSE

Shooter: John Wilkes Booth

John Wilkes Booth was a member of the Know-Nothing Party. However, some of his motivations for assassinating Lincoln (Booth was opposed to freeing the s***es) aligned with the Democratic Party at the time.

2. In 1881, a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States – who later died from the wound.

FALSE

Shooter: Charles J. Guiteau

Guiteau gave what The Atlantic calls an “incoherent speech to a small group of black v**ers in New York City” in support of p**********l candidate James Garfield. Guiteau then claimed that the speech — which he had originally written in support of Ulysses S. Grant — was the reason for Garfield’s e******n victory. The new administration, from Guiteau’s perspective, owed him an ambassadorship. When he was denied his request, Guiteau set out for revenge.

In 1963, a radical left wing socialist shot and k**led John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

MOSTLY TRUE

Shooter: Lee Harvey Oswald

Oswald was a Marxist and supported Fidel Castro and Cuba.

3.In 1975, a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

UNPROVEN

Shooters: Lynette Fromme and Sara Jane Moore

Two women in one month attempted to shoot Gerald Ford in 1975: Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, a member of the Manson family, and Sara Jane Moore, a member of radical l*****t circles in California and an FBI informant. Both women appear to have had mental health issues. For her part, Fromme appears to have been trying to impress Charles Manson. Moore may have been caught between her loyalty to the FBI and to the l*****t groups she was a part of, according to Atlas Oscura.

4. In 1983, a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

UNPROVEN

Shooter: John Hinckley Jr.

Another claim that seems to be supported only by speculation. John Hinckley Jr.’s assassination attempt in 1981 (not 1983 as suggested by this meme) was motivated not by politics, but by his desire to woo actress Jodie Foster. In fact, officials believe that before he shot Reagan, Hinckley stalked Jimmy Carter towards the end of his presidency.

5. In 1984, James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

UNPROVEN

Shooter: James Huberty (not James Hubert)

Again, we found no record that Huberty was a Democrat, either in terms of his official v***r r**********n or his political leanings. The book Dying on the Job: Murder and Mayhem in the American Workplace describes Huberty as a survivalist who was paranoid about government overreach.

6. In 1986, Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

UNPROVEN

Reports about the 1986 shooting which left 15 people dead and led to the popularity of the phrase “going postal,” paint Sherrill as a “loner” whose eccentric behavior earned him the nickname “Crazy Pat.” He was a marine and a member of the National Guard.

The meme itself offers no proof of Sherrill’s supposed political affiliation. His shooting spree, which came shortly after he was reprimanded by superiors, had little to do with politics, according to TIME.

7. In 1990, James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 10 people at a GMAC office.

UNPROVEN

James Pough went into the office of the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, the car company’s financing arm, in Jacksonville, Florida, fatally shot 9 people and k**led himself. We found no record of James Pough being registered with any political party. Although a motivation for Pough’s shooting spree is still unclear, reports at the time mentioned that his car had been repossessed.

8. In 1991, George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 23 people in a Luby’s [C]afeteria in K**leen, TX.

UNPROVEN

Again, we found no evidence that Hennard was a registered Democrat.

A motivation for Hennard’s violent and deadly act are still unclear (he took his own life before he was arrested), but reports at the time indicate that his shooting spree was motivated by his hatred of women.

9. In 1999, Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 8 people at a church service.

UNPROVEN

We found no evidence that Asbrook was a Democrat. Although his motivation for opening fire at a church service is unclear, Asbrook was associated with h**e groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Phineas Priests. During the shooting spree, Asbrook also called religion “bulls**t“.

10. In 2001, a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to k**l George W. Bush, President of the US.

FALSE

Shooter: Robert Pickett

Robert Pickett, who struggled with mental health issues, was fired from his job at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 1989. In 1994, he sued the government to get his job back, but the case was thrown out.

11. In 2003, Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and k**led 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

UNPROVEN

We found no evidence that Williams was a Democrat. Although many claimed that the shooting was racially motivated – according to one co-worker Williams once threatened to “k**l me a bunch of n*ggers” – others simply said that he was “mad at the world”.

12. n 2007, a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and k**led 32 people in Virginia Tech.

FALSE

Seung-Hui Cho was not a registered Democrat. Cho was born in South Korea and was a legal resident alien of the United States, which makes it exceedingly unlikely that he was registered to v**e in Virginia. Furthermore, Virginia does not have partisan v***r r**********n, so even if Cho had been registered, he would not have been registered as a Democrat.

13. In 2010, a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and k**led 6 others.

FALSE

Jared Lee Loughner was a registered as an Independent in 2006 and did not v**e in 2010.

14. In 2011, a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and k**led 12 people.

FALSE

The claim that James Holmes was a registered Democrat stems from a Breitbart article that was based on the v***r r**********n of a different man named James Holmes. The article was eventually updated to state that Holmes may not have been registered to v**e at all.

15. In 2013, a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and k**led 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT.

FALSE

The assumption that Adam Lanza was a registered Democrat appears to be based on the fact that Connecticut is typically a Democratic state. However, this is not evidence that Lanza himself was registered as a Democrat. In fact, a report at the time noted that Lanza was not registered to v**e.

So enough of this silly crap.

rumitoid

Sorry, all I got from the above piece were excuses to do nothing. Or, why bother, leave it like it is, no controls will ever work to save a life. For me, more earnest and persistent attempts to quell and resolve this epidemic of gun violence needs to go forward, not shrugged off as impossible. Maybe I misread what you wrote. I hope so.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

What excuse? I am in favor of background checks, but I believe the current bill does not take enough in consideration. Yes, there are ways to manage gun ownership. But, just climbing on board with a single sighted solution will not do the job. One would think, after years of planning, Progressives would have solutions for the eventualities I mentioned. For example, provide a license for ownership with an expiration date..... and then the individual re-qualifies. Give law enforcement the authority to confiscate weapons of anyone who is involved in certain crimes (to include spousal abuse).... Yes, this would involve more police and an expense, but that expense could be recovered from the "buyer" as an application fee. Too bad our brain trust in DC has not solicited people in the community for recommendations.

So... yes, I am for saving lives.... from babies who are murdered by an a******nist to the gunman.

rumitoid

My apologies. Those are excellent suggestions. It appears you were just previously presenting problems that may ensue.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

The problems I mentioned are systemic demanding change to the structure, organization and policies. These are real world problems, not a possibility that they could happen... they are happening. The amount of guns and drugs confiscated at the border every day is staggering. We need a holistic approach. First the wall, to slow the flow, then a balanced gun laws.....

eden

Your post is consistent with my own research.
Unfortunately untidy facts and inconvenient t***hs do not make satisfying narratives like the one you responded to above.

TrueAmerican

So if we build a border wall and it keeps out just one i*****l a***n invader it's worth it do you agree ? And calling our border problem a national emergency I guess that's BS but your claims are not. Do you honestly believe a backgroud check is going to prevent criminal from obtaining a gun, how old are you ?

F.D.R.

It will go nowhere. DOA.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

It won't change a thing except make gun ownership more difficult for law abiding citizens.
I have never purchased a gun at a gun show without a background check, and I have, I believe 4 that were purchased, or traded for at gun shows.
And when the time comes to hand down my grandad's old double barrel shotgun to my son, why should a background check be required?

I think it's all politics. It solves nothing.

And, if you're worried about saving lives, talk to the families of those k**led by the i*****l a***ns you're so fond of.