Skip to comments.NRA Fires Back: Gun rights group to oppose Manchin, Toomey background check bill
Posted on 04/10/2013 10:36:37 AM PDT by xzins
The National Rifle Association will oppose the background check bill introduced by Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) Wednesday, the pro-Second Amendment group told the Free Beacon.
Manchin and Toomey held a press conference Wednesday morning announcing a bipartisan bill that would expand background checks for all commercial firearm sales, including gun shows and Internet sales.
The bill is the latest effort by the Senate to introduce background check legislation, after negotiations between Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) and Democrats broke down earlier this year.
Manchins office told BuzzFeed Wednesday that the senators had been talking with the NRA, but the Second Amendment group had thus far remained neutral.
The NRA has not said either way, Katie Longo, Manchins press secretary, told BuzzFeed. The senators have been talking to the NRA, but theyre still neutral.
A spokesman for the NRA said the report was wrong.
The NRA reiterated its opposition to expanded background checks in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon.
Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools, the NRA said. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloombergs universal background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows.
The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedy in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson, the NRAs statement continued. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.
The dems want to allow felons to vote. I say if you are going to let them vote then you shouldn't have a problem with reinstating their 2nd Amendment rights as well. As for the crazies, maybe we should be going after their voting rights too. If people are too criminally insane to have the right to own a gun then we shouldn't let them vote either.
Grover Norquist, that's what a traitor looks like. He's busy these days pushing amnesty, calling anyone who opposes it "bitter enders', lobbying for Bill Gates, counseling Rubio and the 'gang of 8'.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
And that other fellow in the photo...that's Suhail Khan of the ACU, CPAC big whig, who is presently a Microsoft lobbyist and friend of radical Islam.
Bitter Enders, Unite!!! Guess who's behind the latest amnesty push???
Agree. But you can forget about that happening in Obamanation.
One could pass a rule requiring that an individuals who sells a firearm to another individual should keep a copy of the credential used to verify the sale against a list of people who had been convicted of felonies, and if within the next ten years they are presented with the physical firearm itself they must tender a copy of such credential to the government. If the government has physical possession of the weapon, such a request would not facilitate its confiscation (since the government already has it!). A variety of means could be used to ensure that maintenance of a reliable and unalterable archive of the version of the list that existed on any date. If the buyer wasn't on the forbidden list, then the government shouldn't care whether the background check was done. If the buyer was on the forbidden list, that would suggest it wasn't done.
>>One could pass a rule requiring that
One could. But the government will not. This is not about preventing “tragedies” or keeping people safe. This government knows that the economy is just about done and the entitlement checks are going to stop soon unless it “fundamentally changes” the way we do business in America. When that happens and the overwhelming majority of people find that their new standard of living based on what some government bureaucrat/commissar decides you “need” is not very good, the people will rise up. It will just be shouting and brick throwing at first, but eventually the shooting will begin.
This government (not Obama’s government, but the government of the Two Party System as it is currently formed) needs to defang the 330 Million angry Americans before that day arrives. Universal background checks are the only means that they have at this time. They will not use your non-intrusive plan. They can’t afford to let this crisis go to waste.
They probably did and the NRA told them to go for it. The NRA loves gun control, it just means they get more money. They don't care about gun rights actually existing.
I know that. My point, though, was that even if the rules were written in such a way that they would not allow the government to locate firearms but only determine the chain of custody for a firearm it physically possessed (such ability being sufficient to satisfy the claimed purpose of background checks), background checks should still be considered unacceptable unless there were also a means of ensuring that they would and could never be used to deny anyone's RKBA without due process of law.
I think my point is that arguments that background checks allow the government to build registration lists which they could use in bad faith aren't apt to sway people who perceive the government as generally acting in good faith. It's much more effective to make the point that the people pushing for background checks have openly complained that such checks presently fail to block sales to people who have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent, have never been convicted of any felony or other crime which, when committed, was punishable by loss of RKBA, and are not presently under indictment for any such crime. Some people may dismiss the notion that registration lists could facilitate confiscation as "tinfoil hat nonsense", but it's harder to dismiss the notion that Lutenberg et al. want to deny people's RKBA without due process when they have written legislation to do precisely that.
I think you forgot your ‘/sarcasm’ tag.
It WAS the NRA that stood up after Sandy Hook and delivered the news that School Security was the issue and not guns owned by law abiding citizens.
Do I think that their political endorsements have been mistaken over the last few terms? Yes.
At the same time, they are standing solid opposing the Reid Bill and the Manchin-Toomey amendment.
So, the system they used to compile gun records on candidates was broken, but their support for the 2d amendment is not broken.
Fortunately I have everything I need, food, clothing, and anything else I may or may not have is none of their business!