Smart leaders would back background checks
May 07, 2013 12:00 AM | 1025 views | 3 3 comments | 9 9 recommendations | email to a friend | print

After the school shootings at Sandy Hook many Americans were disturbed about the violence. I was profoundly moved by an interview of one of the parents. The parent expressed dismay that instead of a thoughtful review of what happened and a move toward a solution, most who discussed the situation had an agenda being pushed.

The NRA quickly rejected any effort to strengthen policies that were designed to prevent criminals from being able to purchase guns. Gun control advocates quickly advocated confiscatory measures that had no chance for passage.

There was one area on which most seemed to agree. In some polls over 90 percent agreed that background checks should be strengthened to include firearms purchased at gun shows and over the Internet.

Two members of the U.S. Senate, one from each party, offered a bill that should have found support from gun owners who have expressed fear of a government listing of gun owners. The legislation specifically prohibited such a listing but did allow for record-keeping provisions that law enforcement officials find essential in tracking guns used in crimes.

The legislation failed because of rules that require a super majority of 60 votes. The bill was approved by a majority of 54 senators but failed.

On Friday’s MDJ editorial page Charles Krauthammer stated, “For Obama, gun control was a political disaster. He invested capital. He went on a multicity tour. He paraded grieving relatives. And got nothing.” If the polling that has been published is correct I would suggest it was not the president who suffered a defeat. It was the American public.

Yet I feel the future will make this victory by the NRA and its minions a Pyrrhic victory. Studies show while the number of firearms sold in the country is increasing the number of people who own firearms is decreasing. And something that conservatives should appreciate, gun laws at the state level are increasing the ability of state officials to take action against those who abuse restrictions on guns already in place, as California week by passing legislation which provides funding for the state to confiscate guns from those disqualified from ownership based on conviction of a violent crime, mental illness or a restraining order for domestic violence.

I suspect the numbers showing that support for background checks would be lower in this area of the country because of our gun culture. But I also suspect smart politicians who advocate background checks would receive far more support than conventional wisdom would project. I would urge our political class to produce such a politician so that we could test this proposition.

Ronald Poteete

Comments-icon Post a Comment
Nettie Helen Stemm
May 07, 2013
Folet, you are fond of making a fool of yourself. I think you enjoy it.

The NRA does represent gun owners. My late husband and are both lifetime members of NRA and they have represented us well.

As to the NRA only wanting to sell guns, to the detrement of public safety, that is a stupid and remarkably inane statement.

Selling guns and public saftey are two totally removed issue.

Selling a gun has no more direct effect on public safety than selling a car, a pressure cooker or a hammer. All three have been used in homicides and terror attacks.

Oh, yes. Now you are going to whip out the tired old cliche, "The purpose of guns is to kill." Yep, that's true. However, unlawful killing is not what guns are sold for any more than bludgeoning someone to death is the purpose for which hammers are sold.

How about writing something with some substance and not so much liberal rhetoric.
Kevin Foley
May 07, 2013
Well said, Mr. Poteete. The NRA doesn't represent gun owners. It represents the gun industry. It bullies congress by manipulating gun owners through a fairly effective misinformation campaign aided by disgraceful cretins like draft dodger Ted Nugent and recovering drug addict Glen Beck. The NRA doesn't want even modest legislation. They want to sell as many guns as possible, public safety be damned.

Several GOP senators who voted against the background check measure are suffering serious blowback in their home states including Kelly Ayotte and Rob Portman. It was no surprise Isakson voted against it, but Chambliss isn't running, so he must be auditioning for an NRA job.
East Cobb Senior
May 07, 2013
Site one example of where background checks would have prevented or had any effect on the violence being perpetrated by individuals with guns and I might have more sympathy for your argument. Those thugs in Chicago who are killing daily in their communities and criminals in general do not obtain their guns legally nor would they regardless of whether this legislation passed or not. As for the vote in the Senate, all Senators knew the outcome before they voted so it was a free vote for them to simply satisfy their constituents back home. Your argument is specious at best.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides