Best
145 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    We need SERIOUS checks and a waiting period until that SERIOUS check is complete. Way more people are getting guns than should have them. And I have guns. I will ALWAYS qualify to have a gun regardless of circumstance because if you do not have a record then you are qualified to have a gun despite what someone claims the AFT thinks. The AFT are not God. Clean record yes to guns. Mental history, and record of violence NO.
  • #5
    !
    Totally agree with you. But, watching the left trot out the haters every time they want to showcase their superiority is a bit much. Manipulate and Control the media. Same old same old.
  • #7
    !
    @BossTweed I don't like the far left any better than the far right. It's all the same. Wanna be dictators all.
  • #17
    !
    @BossTweed what goes around comes around Lady Graham dished it out to Hagel this police chief gave him a does of his own medicine
  • #19
    !
    So what you are saying Jesse, is if you served our country thanks for protecting my rights but if you have PTSD don't you dare try to use them. And i have to disagree on most of the mental history, unless its something serious like psychotic schisofrenia( Misspelled i know). I mean where do you draw the line at mental history, also at record of violence. Does the guy who got in a bar fight deserve his rights stripped like that? ETC.
  • R Load more replies

  • #20
    !
    The problem is not how many cases in Chicago that are or are not prosecuted. The problem is the penalty. The MAX penalty for possession is 6 months, according to Police Chief Gary McCarthy. Mostly they get probation 3-4 times for gun possession.
  • #30
    !
    @mtkopf First off I don't believe McCarthy. A felon with a gun gets a lot more than 6,months also, the use of a weapon in the commission of a crime is an aggravated offense which adds 5 years. That said, if the sentence is too lite,ie 3 to 6 months,there in lies a problem that can readily be fixed. When we put more restrictions on the law abiding that we do on the criminal, what message does that send. Common sense will help solve this situation,todate I have seen no common sense applied.
  • #48
    !
    @marine1
    In regards to Illinois...there's no where to put them... Prisons are overflowing and dwindling in numbers every year..
  • #62
    !
    @marine1 well, its real convenient for you to say "I don't believe McCarthy," especially when you live 3 hrs away from Chicago(it might as well be 3000 miles away).
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    !
    The evidence indicates the current system misses about half of gun purchases. Bringing that up to as close to 100% as it can get will require some new law - federal law.
  • #31
    !
    Pay cash at a gun store, they won't even bother with a check. This is not my opinion. This is my own personal experience within the last three months. This is a fact. The point Graham is clearly eluding is that their are no prosecutions from these checks because when the check failed they were unable to legally purchase that weapon from that seller. So if those failed checks prevented unqualified people from purchasing those weapons then in some small way they did work. That's what they're designed to do. That's all the teeth these things have. There is no follow up for criminal prosecution should you fail a background check. Graham is being misleading with his questions. He knows this already. In fact, he's pretty much a {expletive} faced liar.
  • #32
    !
    @AntiPorcheria 12,000 cops were laid off last year over budget cuts and 30,000 vacancies remain open for the same reason. "Shouldn't cost much" is a little bit naive, and doesn't address the holes in the current check system. http://goo.gl/7yxOE
  • R Load more replies

  • #58
    !
    I keep waiting for someone else to point this out. Oh well.

    Our current legal environment, largely the product of decades of NRA political pressure, allows "straw man" purchases in which one person legally purchases a gun with the intent to deliver it to another person who is not legally able to own a weapon. There are numerous commenters defending our current laws, including straw man purchases.

    Many of those opposing any change in gun law are among those harshly critical of the Fast & Furious debacle, which was, at its heart, a straw man purchase scheme. In effect, then, opposition to changing our current laws is an endorsement of the laws that made Fast & Furious possible.
  • #61
    !
    In other words.....private gun "sales" which under present law is totally unregulated (buying a gun to "give" to another, whether that person can legally own a gun or not, is......legal?)
  • #45
    !
    We already have to pass a background check. Hell, I had to pass one to get a knife not long ago. So, it's already in effect. The only difference and it's a BIG difference is that the laws they're proposing all deal with centralized checking and all checks are recorded and kept so the government will have free reign on your information. I don't mind the government knowing what guns I have purchased from a FFL, as long as they have a warrant for that information and I know of no FFL that will give that information without just cause and warrant...so again, hows the end effect any different? I agree, there are people that are not fit for gun ownership and that's fine and dandy, but I don't to find out how my information can be used in the future when some gun control nut starts proposing more laws. It's not good for anything. It doesn't matter how many laws are proposed, people will still commit crimes with guns they didn't legally own because they either had a felony or were in possession of a stolen arm. The guns Adam Lanza used were not lawfully his, he stole them for that purpose. I wish I could spit logic into the faces of these morons, but it just doesn't work and like Ron White says, you can't fix stupid.
  • #76
    !
    Yep!!! Thats what they want...Even Mrs Obama is in the mix now, saying that a child got shot by some good kids with an automatic pistol....wow Get a load of that BS ...Wright out of the White House.
  • #28
    !
    Only the irrational gun-grabber applauds a high-ranking Police bureaucrat who refuses to do his job. If Wayne LaPierre, or any other official of a gun rights group had behaved this way towards a US Senator, the media and gun-grabbers would have PILLORIED him. The citizens of wherever this brown-nosing lackey is from should go to court and obtain a Writ of Mandamus and force the jackass to do his job.
  • #15
    !
    As a police officer I am ashamed to wear the same badge as the Chief of Police referenced in this article. To say you won't prosecute people for attempting to buy a gun when they are not legally allowed to own a gun is the same as saying you won't prosecute for attempted murder because the criminal failed to complete the act. Or you won't prosecute the meth cook because his cook exploded and he didn't get to produce any meth to sell. If we would all prosecute for the attempt to buy or possess a firearm illegally the criminals would get the message. In my state if you fail a background check the retailer is asked to delay the purchaser so the police can get there before they leave. The attempted illegal purchaser is then handcuffed on the spot and charged. We have very few of these attempts in my area.
  • #79
    !
    As a police officer you know the NCIC rejects for various reasons, and not all degrees of felonies are harden criminals, that are prohibited from possession.
  • #81
    !
    I think what the chief is referring to is the check forgery case that caused the NCIC to reject that person doesn' need the attention of his officers.
  • #10
    !
    If you don't pass a background check you can't buy the gun...prosecuting someone for attempting to buy guns is after the fact...the issue at hand with background checks is that it stops the sale in the first place...Graham is so full of shit I'm surprised he can keep a straight face.
  • #102
    !
    Lindsay Graham is such a caricature. I can imagine him going home after being put down by that cop and saying "Ah have NEVAH been spoken to like that in mah laaaaf! I dew declayah, ah need a strawung mint julep."
  • #84
    !
    There are no background checks on illegal drug purchases, and they happen thousands of times every day. No matter how strict the laws are, the "bad guys" and other people will still circumvent them, even more than they do now, as many of the law abiding will quit obeying as they get stricter, the same as any legislation of this sort. The best policy is to arm everyone so that they have a fighting chance of self-protection in the rare event they are around a crime in progress. But, gun control is never about saving lives, it's only about control. That's why gun control supporters only go after the law abiding, the non-threats to public safety, and never go after the bad guys.
  • #83
    !
    How about mandatory mental wards? Better mental health? Why not try something different, a new approach??.normal people dont shoot.people...hello??? How many school shootings are done by normal people??? None!, its not the gun its the nutcase behind the gun.. Outlaw nutcases lol
  • #21
    !
    Cops do their jobs most of the time but the prosecutors are the ones who are the blame doing plea deals left and right, or not prosecuting at all.
  • #22
    !
    Exactly. Its like getting carded to buy alcohol, if you are legal, then it should not be a problem.
  • #78
    !
    @Malitia_Man then we shouldn't get the background checks. I don't mind the check but we cannot have registry
  • #82
    !
    @Malitia_Man The new Executive orders mandate a registry of firearm transactions. If the universal background check laws get passed (which is code for registration) then all firearms will be registered and tracked. This will lead to confiscation. History has proven this time and again, even here in the US in California and other states.
  • #103
    !
    @Malitia_Man Why not a national registry? Data reveals that only 1% of gun dealers are responsible for providing guns used in 90% of crimes. Current law prevents law enforcement from knowing who those dealers are. Aren't you anti-crime?
  • R Load more replies

  • #129
    !
    I think they both have an equally valid point. The laws as they stand will work, but can't be enforced due to the system being overwhelmed.
  • #127
    !
    If background checks were as done as they should be there wouldn't be a problem. But now seems that we have to have a law to enforce the law before that one.
  • #122
    !
    Why would another law or series of laws have any different impact on those who choose ignore the existing laws?

    That question applies to criminals, crazies and Law Enforcement personnel?

    Laws are totally ineffective if they are ignored; that's why bank robbers rob banks, speeders speed, drug dealers deal drugs and murderers murder, they simply ignore the law. Further complicating the issue is law enforcement with an agenda.

    They know, like the gun grabbing politicians that Law Abiding citizens make up the majority of society and those LACs will surrender their guns if the law tells them to.

    It's not now, nor has it ever been about controlling crime, it's about disarming people. Cops have their guns, in their eyes they and their loved ones are protected, guys like this Chief don't give two stuffs about anyone elses rights.

    Dianne Feinstein has armed security (on our dime BTW) in her beady little eyes she and her loved ones are protected, the rest of us..... well, we're just not as important as her.
  • #120
    !
    There's a lot of controversy in Milwaukee regarding Chief Edward Flynn. It seems as if he's an enabler for corrupt and violent rogue cops. Not the best witness to bring forward; not being very bright by admitting he's not doing his sworn duty; he may score a position in the Obama Administration by being a total suckup to gun banners and marching lockstep with the Obama Administration though. Maybe then can use him as an "enforcer" against those pesky reporters like Bob Woodward.
  • #95
    !
    That's one cops opinion. We all know there's corrupt police out there. It's also the courts screw up cause there's no real repercussions for law breakers. No one is afraid for their actions.
  • R Load more comments...
Post