make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Senate rejects expanded gun background checks

READ MORE:
gunbill.jpg

WASHINGTON (AP) -= The Senate has rejected a bipartisan effort to expand federal background checks to more firearms buyers in a crucial showdown over gun control.

Wednesday's vote was a jarring blow to the drive to curb firearms sparked by December's massacre of children and staff at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. President Barack Obama made broadened background checks the centerpiece of his gun control proposals.

The roll call was also a victory for the National Rifle Association, which opposed the plan as an ineffective infringement on gun rights.

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.

The system is designed to keep criminals and people with mental problems from getting guns.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

Hypothetical, OK?

If someone to becomes angry enough to kill someone, or to commit mayhem, all the background checks in the world won't stop them from burglarizing a neighbor's home and stealing his guns to do the crime. I suppose that anyone so mentally disturbed to want to hurt someone wouldn't hesitate to do steal a gun. They would be stupid to try to buy a gun legally. Background checks already in place would stop him from being a legal buyer.

I hope that no one else ever gets killed with a gunshot, but that is wishful thinking. There are guns in almost all of the homes in my area and stealing one is very simple. In fact, I had one stolen form me sometime ago and identified the thief to the police. I got my gun returned but the thief didn't even get arrested. He was a juvenile. Some LEOs don't like to take time and effort to go to juvenile court and fight the system. The juvenile judges are so soft on juvenile crimes that it is not worth the trouble, I was told by the officer.

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. Background checks are already in place. If you don't believe me, try to buy a gun if you have a criminal record. The feds need to enforce the laws already in place before they add another layer of bureaucracy.

Obama, and his cohorts, are overacting to satisfy a small group of very sad people who lost loved ones in the few incidents we have had over the past four years. My sympathies are with these families but enforcing the laws already in place are sufficient to keep bad people from "buying" a gun. They do nothing to address thefts of guns already legally purchased.

IIRC, most of the mass shooting incidents were done by young men, some of them juveniles. I think the only middle aged person who did a mass shooting was the soldier in Texas. If the feds would address the problem correctly, it would be to back off and respect the 2nd Amendment. Leave the gun laws alone except to enforce what is already enacted. Even then, they won't stop a burglar from stealing a legal gun to inflict carnage.

Yesterday was a good day for

Yesterday was a good day for the rights of the vast majority of law abiding American Citizens. Fine examples of common sense were shown by two branches of our government with the Senate's recognition of Second Amendment rights and the Supreme Court's affirmation of Fourth Amendment rights by striking down law enforcement's authority to draw blood from a suspect absent a warrant.

Yesterday's scorecard: American Citizens 2, Activists and Lobbyists 0.

So

If yesterday was a good day for law abiding citizens then Monday was a disaster I suppose?
The Supreme Court REFUSED to hear the NRA sponsored lawsuit against New York State's tough new gun laws?

As a law abiding, gun owning, citizen myself I knew the law would not pass with a 60 vote majority. It did carry the Senate but rule changes required a 60 vote tally for approval.
I was MORE disappointed as a gun owner by the SC's actions on Monday.
THAT was the big gun story of the week

Vog

Vog, NY's firearms

Vog, NY's firearms legislation wasn't even on my radar. I was preoccupied with the stealth passage by unanimous consent of the repeal of reporting requirements under the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act.

Nothing in this bill would

Nothing in this bill would have stopped what happened in Conn. But lets go ahead and pass something for the children. ITS FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!

It sure as heck isn't the "90% of America"...

...that Obama kept citing in his rant to America! Didn't get what HE wanted and blames it on the people...nah ah. If 90% of America wanted a bunch of "feel good" legislation they wouldn've contacted their senators.

Use the laws that are enacted, enforce the laws that are enacted and effectively enforce the sentences that are imposed on the criminals (this first time!). 3 Felonies, you remain in prison for the rest of your life! You have proven that you are unfit to mingle in society and are hell-bent to do nothing other than commit crime. We don't need you here! We don't want you here!

Guest

I'll remind you of this fact
The MAJORITY of senators voted for it 54-46.
The majority approved it
But filibustering caused it to NEED a 60 vote minimum.
I am glad Harry Reid voted against it (yeah he did)
By the majority leader voting AGAINST it he can re-introduce it later.

Senate rules are so bizarre

Vog

Vog, then I can remind you...

...that 54 isn't 60. That's a weak majority at best at not nearly close enough. It certainly doesn't reflect "90% of the people" as Obama continually and inaccurately emphasized in his obvious anger.

The people aren't stupid Vog and fully realize existing laws aren't upheld, existing sentences aren't upheld, that violent criminals are continally set free among a law abiding society and that these criminals and mental cases are responsible for the vast majority of gun related violence.

More "feel good" legislation is absolutely worthless. The need to invoke more law on the law abiding citizens that already abide and the neglect to address that criminals do not (and never will) clearly displays the administrations effort to control those that do follow current law, not the real violators!

Until the laws are changed...

and judges quit sentencing thugs to little more than a slap on the wrist...no amount of legislation will have an impact. Criminals, by their very nature, don't follow the laws. That's why they're called criminals.

It's for the children?

Just how would this benefit children? You, yourself, said it wouldn't have stopped Newtown.