The firearm background checks bill is dead. So much for our “democratic representative republic”.
The Senate ignored “we the people” and cowered before the cash and lies of the NRA, weapons manufacturers and right wing gun nuts.
The shrill cries still echo. “Obama’s coming to take our guns!” “It’s imposing mandatory gun registration!” “Eek a mouse!”
Instead of being dead or in jail as he promised, Nutball Nugent declared Obama is “an evil and dangerous man who hates America and hates freedom.”
While I’m more annoyed at Obama for his free handed war making, surveillance state and Wall Street coddling, I admit he was right about this:
"They claimed that it would create some sort of ‘big brother’ gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn't matter."
"The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill," Obama said. "There were no coherent arguments as to why we couldn't do this. It came down to politics."
It was about money and the “free speech” of money over the clear will of the people.
Once again our Senate has proven the majority of Americans are not who they represent. A clear majority of Americans approve of more background checks at gun shows and for internet sales.
The House is even more anit-democratic. More Americans voted for Democratic representatives than Republican, but who cares? Not Big Money and the ruling minority of elites.
If on-line and gun show background checks dissuade criminals or unstable people from owning AR-15's then that is a good thing, right?
What's the problem with that? There wasn't. That is, until the “Black President” took office and supported the idea.
Before it became a political power game and tool for instilling fear of the Black President for weapons lobbyist Wayne LaPierre, he was on record supporting background checks. But in typical Right Wing fashion, as soon as Democrats, or especially Obama, support a GOP idea, then we see the GOP/NRA disavow their stated positions.
When will we see a coherent argument for that behavior?
Pandora ’s Box is open. There may be little we can do to prevent mass murder short of imposing a police state. But that is no excuse to not do what little we can is it?
In October 2012, a
man who was
prohibited from buying a gun because he was subject to a restraining order
bought a gun from a private seller over the Internet without undergoing a
background check. Two days later he used that firearm to kill his estranged
wife and two other women. Four other people were wounded in the attack. The
perpetrators of the 1999 Wisconsin massacre
specifically sought out private sellers to obtain firearms so that their straw
purchaser would not have to undergo a background check. Columbine
Private commercial sales of firearms without a background check have been linked to gun crime generally. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, gun shows are "a major venue for illegal trafficking" of firearms. The ATF specifically connected this assessment to private sales at gun shows, which have been taken advantage of by traffickers who supply weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
As an April 17 New York Times article notes, online "unregulated bazaars" where private gun transactions are completed are used by individuals who cannot pass a background check. According to 2011 investigation by
, online private sellers had a 62 percent
"fail rate" in agreeing to sell a firearm to an undercover
investigator who said that he or she could not pass a background check: New
In the meantime, terrorists, the mentally ill, and criminals who will buy guns without a background check, and they most certainly will, have the NRA, the Republican Party and the cowardly Democrats to thank.
When will we see a coherent argument for allowing that?