Washington Post: Why Don’t People Listen To Gun Owners Who Support Restrictions?

Nothing will stop the gun haters from propagating their ideas which do not work, and will only effect the law abiding citizens

Most gun owners support restrictions. Why aren’t their voices heard?

Once again, their voices are missing from the debate.

Gun owners who favor tighter restrictions on firearms say they are in the same position after the mass shooting in Oregon as they have been following other rampages — shut out of the argument.

The pattern, they say, is frustrating and familiar: The what-should-be-done discussion pits anti-gun groups against the National Rifle Association and its allies, who are adamantly opposed to any new restrictions on weapons.

Gun owners who occupy the middle ground complain that they are rarely sought out or heard, yet polls show that the majority of gun owners support universal background checks and other controversial limits. President Obama is reportedly considering using his executive authority to impose new ­background-check requirements for high-volume dealers in private sales — and many gun owners may support that.

This is all about being a hit piece on the NRA and those who aren’t for increasing the background checks. Note: I’m not a member of the NRA. I’ve never felt the need. I don’t agree with everything they do. But, they do work hard to protect our Constitutional right from what the gun grabbers want to do

Surveys by Johns Hopkins and the Pew Research Center show that about 85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks, an idea fiercely opposed by the gun lobby. Gun owners also strongly support a federal database of gun sales, prohibiting ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and barring people with mental illness from buying guns.

Most law abiding gun owners are fine with background checks. I certainly am. Those I know with guns are. We’re certainly for prohibiting ownership to domestic abusers and those with mental illness that makes them a danger. But, let’s consider why the NRA and other gun lobbies oppose the “universal background checks” idea

Gun control supporters initially opposed NICS. However, once they recognized that NICS was inevitable, they began advocating steps aimed at incrementally transforming it into a national registry of guns. At first, they wanted background checks required on all private (i.e., non-licensee) sales, trades and gifts of handguns. Then they wanted background checks on private transfers of all firearms at gun shows. Now, they demand background checks on all private transfers of all firearms, regardless of location, and they want the FBI to retain, for an indefinite period, records on people who pass NICS checks to acquire firearms.

NRA opposes expanding background check systems at the federal or state level. Studies by the federal government show that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, on the black market, or from family members or friends, and nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers—people who can pass background checks, who buy guns for criminals on the sly. No amount of background checks can stop these criminals.

NRA also opposes gun registration. Expanding background check systems and allowing records to be kept on people who pass background checks to acquire guns would be steps toward transforming NICS into the national gun registry that gun control supporters have wanted for more than a hundred years.

As we can see, the anti-gunnites have incrementally pushed for more and more, and want this registry, which is government keeping track of private ownership of guns. As the recent IRS issue shows, not too mention all the hackings of federal government agencies, we can’t trust our information in government hands.

Second, increasing this won’t actually do anything for those engaged in wrong-doing with guns. Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, also stated that the system is not working, since the roughly 250,000 prohibited people have never been prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm. The NRA used to support universal background checks, meaning everyone who purchases, regardless of where, but, the system is broken. Illegal purchases/attempted purchases are not prosecuted. Mental health information is very often not entered in the system.

BTW, why no mention that 64% want more armed security in schools, a notion gun grabbers are very much against? Same survey.

Though there is less support for banning high-powered assault rifles — about 49 percent of gun owners would, vs. 64 percent of non-gun owners, according to Pew — gun control advocates are emboldened that a near majority is out of lockstep with the gun lobby.

Except, these “high-powered assault rifles” are anything but. One can purchase much more powerful rifles. The .223 isn’t exactly the most powerful bullet out there. And all they mean is “scary looking weapon”.

Really, though, the fallacy of the survey is shown in that 58% favor banning semi-automatic weapons. That just shows that most do not understand what different types of guns are. Semi-auto means pull the trigger, one bullet exits the barrel, and one bullet moves from the magazine into firing position. But, the gun will not fire again till the trigger is pulled. Heck, we could almost say a revolver is semi-automatic. Do the gun grabbers want only guns which fire the same as they did during the War for Independence?

This is all stale rhetoric, which won’t take guns out of the hands of bad actors. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, yet, they continue to see high levels of gun-play and murders. Same with D.C., Baltimore, Detroit, and other Democratic Party run cities. Lets look for ways to get the guns out of their hands, while significantly increasing penalties for those who use weapons for crime. How about re-instituting hard time? How about chain-gangs out working on roads? Let’s stop restricting those who want guns for self-defense and can pass a background check, and start going after the bad actors.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

18 Responses to “Washington Post: Why Don’t People Listen To Gun Owners Who Support Restrictions?”

  1. bobh says:

    ANY power held by ANY government WILL, sooner or later, be abused.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    “He saved us, that’s what he did.”

    http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151010/PC16/151019902

  3. Jeffery says:

    Although the WaPo article was light on facts, there was this tidbit:

    Surveys by Johns Hopkins and the Pew Research Center show that about 85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks, an idea fiercely opposed by the gun lobby. Gun owners also strongly support a federal database of gun sales, prohibiting ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and barring people with mental illness from buying guns.

    85% of gun owners favor universal background checks, as do I, a gun owner and hunter (as are my sons, daughter-in-law and grandson – my daughter used to teach hunter safety classes).

    Does the far-right really think that 85% of gun-owners are “gun-grabbers”? Does that even make sense? I know many dozens of gun-owners (this is Missouri, after all) and haven’t heard even one express the NRA radical position; not even NRA members (e.g., my father-in-law).

    I think we all have the same objective: Keeping guns (primarily handguns) out of the hands of criminals, kids, lunatics and gangbangers.

    In fact, the NRA/lobbyist stance is a minority position and a radical one at that. Decent gun-owners are not harmed by universal background checks, or tracking private gun transfers (sales, trades, gifts), anymore than decent auto-owners are harmed by tracking auto transfers.

    One of the great fears (there are soooo many!) of the hard right is that the government will use a gun registry to round up guns and gun-owners to stop our takeover of the government by force! The tree of liberty, blah blah blah…

    Studies by the federal government show that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, on the black market, or from family members or friends, and nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers—people who can pass background checks, who buy guns for criminals on the sly.

    Yes, and those transfers can and should be tracked. Why do we give a shit what the NRA says? Because they spread many millions of dollars to right wing politicians and against Democrats every election cycle. That’s how minority positions help us all kill 30,000 Americans a year.

  4. john says:

    Teach do you sometimes find yourself fondling and caressing your guns?
    Some gun lovers kill people with their guns.
    So far this year about 600 kids under the age of 12 have been killed or injured by guns. Some people think that nothing additional should be done to reduce that number

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    Because you just can’t have enough gunslingers to defend politicians who don’t think us civilians need to own a firearm for our own protection.

    http://blurbrain.com/report-epa-spends-millions-on-military-hardware/

  6. Jeffery says:

    dp,

    You repeat the big lie from the NRA and the hard right: That those that want to enact common sense policies to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, kids, gangbangers and lunatics are trying to take your guns and mine.

    And we understand your fear of the state. Before you know it police will start stopping and frisking civilians, beating some, shooting some…. Oh, you’re talking about your fantasy about the IRS, EPA, FDA, BLM, INS etc being armed to round up white conservatives and give their property to Negroes.

    There’s no gentle way to tell the hard right how stupid this is. Wolverines!!

  7. First, Jeff, quite a few are actually looking to take private gun ownership away. Just look at what Obama said in regards to the “Australian solution “.

    Second, none of these policies being proposed will actually stop bad actors from getting and using guns. Give me ideas to deal with criminals, especially prior to illegally owning and using a gun, I’m with you. Give me solutions that do not infringe on my Right, nor make it harder to purchase and use.

    I do find it interesting, though, that Dems want to restrict legal ownership while giving illegal aliens drivers licenses to drive vehicles that they should not be driving in the first place.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    So little jeffy makes assumptions before reading the article-surprise.
    So what was reported is a lie?

  9. jl says:

    John-“So far this year about 600 children under 12 have been killed or injured by guns.” Well, every year about 1600 children under the age of 15 are killed in car crashes. Jeffery-“What do we give a shit what the NRA says? Because they spread millions of dollars to right wing politicians and against Democrats every election cycle.” Here, I’ll fix that for you: “What do we give a shit what unions say? Because ever year they spread millions of dollars to left wing politicians and against Republicans every election cycle.”

  10. Jeffery says:

    suckingpuppies,

    I read the article. I have no way of knowing if the reporting was false or misleading. It’s another right-wing media shitstorm with hundreds of conservablogs reporting the same info from a pro-gun “watchdog” group.

    The EPA employs 200 enforcement agents, and it’s understandable that they carry guns, employ body armor and conduct raids. Do you suspect they are purchasing enforcement supplies for more sinister motives? I seem to recall this issue coming up a few years ago regarding the IRS and Social Security agents.

    Do you really believe that US Federal agencies are stockpiling supplies for neutering the populace?

  11. Jeffery says:

    j typed:

    “What do we give a shit what unions say? Because ever year they spread millions of dollars to left wing politicians and against Republicans every election cycle.”

    The work of unions doesn’t kill 30,000 Americans a year for no benefit.

    We use automobiles to transport people and we do all we can to make highways, autos and drivers safer. In fact we test drivers and license them. Autos have to be registered with the states. We regulate automobiles and drivers to make them safer but have not banned them.

    Similarly, we don’t have to ban guns to make owning them safer. Mr. Teach whined that President Obama said Australia. Are guns banned in Australia?

  12. drowningpuppies says:

    The EPA employs 200 enforcement agents, and it’s understandable that they carry guns, employ body armor and conduct raids.
    Oh wait, you left out amphibious assault ships, night vision gear, radar, unmanned aircraft, camouflage gear, military-style weaponry and surveillance equipment.
    Sounds like an extremely large and costly SWAT team to a reasonable person.
    Why would the EPA need such large paramilitary force?

  13. Jeffery says:

    Did you read the incredibly sloppy report by Open the Books – the conservative “watchdog” charity?

    They said they looked at data between 2006-2015 yet listed only some $7,600 spent on “unmanned aircraft” (that’s about $700 a year). They didn’t document any spending on “amphibious assault ships”.

    How do you envision the 200 person “EPA Army” to overrun the populace?

    All the police equipment purchased by the EPA (if you believe Open the Books) is the same as what local police departments purchase. Do you think the Atlanta police department is part of the conspiracy or is it just feds?

    Seriously, are you REALLY afraid that the EPA is part of a gov’t conspiracy to control the citizenry?

  14. drowningpuppies says:

    So why would the EPA need such a large and costly paramilitary force?

  15. Jeffery says:

    Do you have more persuasive evidence to support your premise that the EPA has a large paramilitary force? You may trust a rabidly anti-government “watchdog” group, but I don’t.

  16. jl says:

    “The work of unions doesn’t kill 30.000 Americans a year for no benefit.” Of course many of those are gun owners preventing crimes that left unchecked would kill even more people. And many are suicides that would happen anyway- but probably not as quick or as painless. Anyway, the work of the NRA doesn’t kill people, just like automobile manufacturers don’t work to kill people, though their product does in great numbers. They’re simply working to uphold the second amendment. If you want it changed, the constitution lays out a way to do it.

  17. Highly enerdgetic post, I liked that bit.
    Will there be a part 2?

    my webb blog … usa free people search

  18. At you may even discover that you purchase a piece of paradise for your retirement.
    The Jamaican national art movement continued into the 1950s.
    Their set was fairly long, but with only a few slower songs
    to break up the bum rush lyrical onslaught, I found it a bit hard to maintain my
    level of interest.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9555 access attempts in the last 7 days.