And so it begins...

[Guest That Guy]

Obama Pens Op-Ed Calling for Better Gun Sale Background Checks

The Second Amendment and court precedent guarantee an individual's right to bear arms, but improved and expanded background checks are needed to prevent gun violence like the shocking attack in Tucson in January, President Obama wrote in an op-ed Sunday.

Writing in the Arizona Daily Star more than two months after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others, six of whom died, Obama said he's "willing to bet" that responsible gun owners would support laws to "keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few -- dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example -- from getting their hands on" guns.

"Most gun owners know that the word 'commonsense' isn't a code word for 'confiscation," he wrote.

"I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas -- that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment," the president wrote.

Obama wrote in Sunday's op-ed that his administration has not curbed gun rights but, in fact, has expanded them, by letting people carry guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

But, he said, with more than 27,000 deaths from guns each year -- a number down from its height of more than 39,000 in 1993, more needs to be done to prevent assailants like Tucson suspect Jared Loughner from getting a hold of weapons.

"A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun," he lamented.

The president went on that "almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible ... and that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept."

"Likewise," he added, "advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.

Obama suggested three areas for reform: enforcement of gun control laws already on the books through better implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; rewards for states that keep the best data -- "and therefore do the most to protect our citizens"; and a faster and nimbler network that provides "an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing."

And while the president acknowledged that some gun owners will never support his call, he argued that weak background checks are bad for police officers, law-abiding citizens and gun sellers.

"If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else," he wrote, in reference to the "gun show loophole" that gun control advocates say enables people to avoid background checks.

Click here to read the president's editorial on gun laws in the Arizona Daily Star.

Read more: Obama Pens Op-Ed Calling for Better Gun Sale Background Checks - FoxNews.com

[mikegideon]

Yes, I'm for background checks. Sounds like the only thing he's trying to go for is background checks at gun shows. Haven't thought my way through that, because it doesn't effect me. More importantly, he is surrounded by idiots that screw up everything they touch. So, no matter how pure his intentions, it's scary.

[Guest m&pc9]

I dont know which way to vote.

I dont think they need to change what we have now. (As far as making it harder.)

But they do need some kind of a check. I dont want felons walking into a gun shop and walking out with a gun.

[RobertNashville]

Background checks are one of those things that "sound good" but do nothing of substance when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of someone who's intent is to use the firearm to commit a crime.

Anyone who truly wants a gun WILL find a way to obtain one - no background check will ever stop them....what background checks tend to do is simply make the law-abiding and dealers jump through hoops and add expense.

I don't have the figures in front of me but I'd be willing to be that the overwhelming majority of "denials" are for some sort of faulty record/bad record keeping more than an actual criminal attempting to buy a gun from a dealer.

As to Obama's Op-Ed...I can't help but wonder...if the Tuscon nutcase had used a car instead of a Glock, would Obama be proposing restrictions on who can by an automobile?...I seriously doubt it...and if he wouldn't propose such restrictions on buying a car, what is the real justification for doing so with regards to firearms?

I suggest his only reason is the deep-rooted anti-gun belief he has demonstrated, on various occasions, the he holds.

[3gundave]

The goal of the anti-gun organizations and the administration is to end all private sales and institute complete registration. And so it begins.

[3gundave]

This is right out of Bloomberg's playbook. Everyone needs to open their eyes.

[SithL0rd]

Thing is with the AZ dude. All these folks knew he was crazy and dangerous and none reported the info to anyone that would matter. So really would a better background check have stopped him from getting a gun?

I don't mind a background check and I really don't mind even a 3day waiting period but like those above me have said if dude had wanted a gun he could have gotten one illegally or even used a car or hell some dude went on a stabbing spree in china.

[tntnixon]

The key phrase in this is "reward states that keep the best data". That can mean almost anything, none of it good. But remember, it's for the children.

[mikegideon]

It's not gonna be good, no matter how they spin it.

[vontar]

The key phrase in this is "reward states that keep the best data". That can mean almost anything, none of it good. But remember, it's for the children.

That is scarily as HELL.

BTW, how many times should I have to pay my TICS exactly. Once a year should be enough anyways. It should be good for 1 year. Seems if I do a crime to lose my Right to bear arms I would go away for more then a year I believe.

[Spook]

Thing is with the AZ dude. All these folks knew he was crazy and dangerous and none reported the info to anyone that would matter. So really would a better background check have stopped him from getting a gun?

I don't mind a background check and I really don't mind even a 3day waiting period but like those above me have said if dude had wanted a gun he could have gotten one illegally or even used a car or hell some dude went on a stabbing spree in china.

"A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun," he lamented.

I'm with you Sith. I don't mind a check if it will keep unfit persons from legally obtaining a gun. However, until the mental health profession and law enforcement hook up there is nothing that will stop guys like the Arizona or Virginia Tech shooters. There is no perfect answer to this problem. Common sense should prevail.... but guess the definition of common sense is then debatable.

[mikegideon]

I will give him credit. He's not jumping on the bandwagon with the magazine banning idiots. I really didn't expect him to.

[kieefer]

No matter how intrusive a background check is completed, those who want to kill with guns will find a way to obtain them, if they can't they will find other means. I'll bet the current process is full of fraud like every other government program.

I don't like the invasion of privacy but the Gov. will continue to take away on our freedoms and liberties while those who destroy lives will be given additional freedoms and liberties.

Sad truth.

[mikegideon]

Yep, we're likely to get screwed every time they show up for work.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

"Most gun owners know that the word 'commonsense' isn't a code word for 'confiscation"

Wonder if most politicians know that the phrase "common sense gun law" is a code word for "I didn't really want to be re-elected anyway." A lot of them know, but dunno if most of them know.

"a faster and nimbler network that provides "an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing."

If this means that background checks would be approved even faster than the usual fast performance of today, then perhaps he would get support from gun owners "on the back side" after he has actually improved the speed of the system?

[tntnixon]

So, we're on a gun site and background checks is winning in the polls. I think we ought to pass background checks for all our rights. Want to post on the internet? Background check! Want to go to a religious service? Background check! Want to keep the government from entering your house without a warrant? Background check! Want a jury of your peers? Background check!

A limited right is in effect a privilege and if they take this right away, all the others will follow.

[Guest mosinon]

So, we're on a gun site and background checks is winning in the polls. I think we ought to pass background checks for all our rights. Want to post on the internet? Background check! Want to go to a religious service? Background check! Want to keep the government from entering your house without a warrant? Background check! Want a jury of your peers? Background check!

A limited right is in effect a privilege and if they take this right away, all the others will follow.

I kinda agree. I don't think it is a huge deal to be honest, but I am generally against infringement of any right.

Though, I've got to say, when it comes to guns, Obama has been much better than what was promised by the anti Obama crowd.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

"A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun," he lamented.

I'm with you Sith. I don't mind a check if it will keep unfit persons from legally obtaining a gun. However, until the mental health profession and law enforcement hook up there is nothing that will stop guys like the Arizona or Virginia Tech shooters. There is no perfect answer to this problem. Common sense should prevail.... but guess the definition of common sense is then debatable.

Yes common sense may not have a universally accepted definition.

The problem is that the majority of the seriously mentally ill are harmless nuts. Relatively harmless anyway. For instance, general-population psychiatric hospitals have much higher patient populations than psychiatric hospitals for the criminally insane. On the other hand, occasionally a "harmless nut" will drown her children or shoot a bunch of folks or whatever.

Past non-violent crazy behavior is not a good predictor of a person's future danger. If Mother Teresa had one day snapped and gone on a killing spree-- Armed with perfect hindsight we could have identified tell-tale issues in Mother Teresa's past which should have been warning signs of certain tragedy. Everyone has "disturbing signs" but the signs are never noticed until after something goes bad, simply because everyone has "disturbing signs".

We don't have sufficient resources to keep close supervision on every nut who grins inappropriately and speaks nonsense. There are too many of them and most are 'relatively' harmless.

Ain't sayin it is a great idea to sell weapons to the insane, but we would have to cast too wide a net and spend too much resources to significantly reduce vanishingly-rare occasional tragedies. I bet we could spend ten times as much and confiscate weapons from large groups of "slightly risky" people, without significantly reducing the incidence of occasional tragedies.

[tnhawk]

Most of the crimes involving guns that I have read in the news, have been committed by felons who could not legally buy or own a handgun. The present background check system hasn't prevented them from obtaining guns and a more strict law will do no better. Criminals know they can't pass a background check and obtain guns by other means.

[RobertNashville]

Gun control, in any form, has always failed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or from those who, with no prior history of violence (or at least no easily discernible history) from going on a killing spree.

The only "gun control" solution that actually could work would be if there were no guns aywhere....a totally unarmed (not armed with firearms anyway) society and that includes law enforcement. Even military weapons would have to be EXTREMELY controlled as to who has access and when.

Of course the above has to contend with the 2ND Amendment.

The truth is that for all of us (our society) to enjoy our liberty, including firearm ownership, we, as a society, have to accept the cost of liberty; that cost being that some will misuse that liberty, including how they use a firearm. There is NO way to have perfect liberty and perfect safety - there will always be some who will seek to do us harm and/or infringe on our human rights.

Unfortunately, there are many in our society today who don't understand the cost of or understand it but aren't willing to pay it. Even more unfortunately, there seem to be far too many firearm enthusiasts, even firearm organizations like the NRA, who either don't understand or, more likely, do understand but are willing to placate the "anti-gun" crowd with such things as background checks in hopes that they anti-gun crowd will be satisfied and leave the rest of us alone. Sadly, they will NEVER leave us alone...they will never be satisfied with any existing "gun control" measure and they will never stop in their pursuit to rid law-abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms.

Those firearm enthusiasts who try to placate the anti-gun crowd are, in effect, sleeping with the enemy - that may feel good for a night or two but it never works out well long-term.

[Guest Jamie]

Here's an idea... Let anyone who wants a gun have one. Or as many as they want, for that matter.

Then find a rope and a tall tree for 'em if they mis-use a gun, instead of blaming the gun, or sending them off to be "rehabilitated" at some federal "club med"... er... prison.

Seriously... when has anything the government has ever done stopped a person from committing a crime? With anything?

Background check indeed...

BTW... do any of y'all think it'd hurt a damn bit less to get shot with an illegal firearm, as opposed to a legally-obtained one? Because that's all a background check can possibly do; force the criminals to keep using stolen or otherwise illegal weapons. Which of course they have no problem doing...

Edited March 14, 2011 by Jamie

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Does he mention that "mentally disturbed" muslim

that killed many at Ft. Hood?

Code word is right, Lester. It's all about something

else.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited March 15, 2011 by 6.8 AR

[leroy]

Like several others, i'm having a bit of a problem trying to understand how a background check should be a requirement for the purchase of anything (...guns included...).

It's nothing more than an attempt by the Nobama machine and other anti-gunners to whip up sentiment for stricter gun laws at a time when support for stricter gun laws is at an all time low. I see this as a "non-starter" for the Demorats and the anti-gunners.

As i remember, Laughtner (...nutty as he is...) could legally own a gun and had probably passed a "background check". In a free society; you simply cannot "anticipate" the actions of the nutty and plan for the unplanned. Criminals dont bother to legally buy guns; they steal or trade in them. No system would have picked up Laughtner because he was not a felon at the time; only a trouble making nut. The local authorities well knew that Laughtner was at the minimum; a troublemaking nut. He didn't need a background check for that; the "authorities" already knew that.

Dont ever concede the ground that says that "background checks" should be anything other than an abridgement of your second amendment rights. If we are going to institute background checks; lets check the background of potential auto buyers for reckless driving, computer users for evidence of "bad computer use" habits like saying bad things on internet forums and message boards, and other equally foolish tripe.

The fact is that this idea is a looser and Nobama is busy making himself a one term president (...thankfully...) and marginalizing the Demorats as a real political party (...thankfully...). More and more people are coming to the conclusion that the world is a dangerous place and that when you need help in a deadly situation in a matter of seconds, the police are only minutes away.

I say these clowns need to keep on talking and exposing themselves for what they really are.

Leroy

Edited March 14, 2011 by leroy

[Oh Shoot]

Do he mention that "mentally disturbed" muslim

that killed many at Ft. Hood?...

And Hasan was a psychiatrist!

- OS

[mikegideon]

And Hasan was a psychiatrist!

- OS

And AFIK, he did it for Allah. One man's crazy can be another man's faith.