Sen. Chuck Grassley bucked national opinion to make a point.

We hope he can live with it.

Americans cannot.

Poll after poll consistently showed 80 percent or more of Americans favored background checks for all gun buyers, not just some. In national polls, that support prevailed among Republicans and Democrats and gun owners as well.

The background checks required in the Senate bill narrowly defeated Wednesday would not prevent all future shooting sprees. But they definitely would slow down the unhinged individuals attempting to skirt the law to build an arsenal for a public assault. The bill would not introduce new restrictions. Rather, it would apply regulations common for most gun sales to the auctions, private party and Internet sales that have emerged as dodges to the current regulations.

The bill creates no national registry. It takes guns away from no one and prevents few from obtaining guns.

A majority of U.S. voters have supported tougher background checks. Those numbers went off the charts after Newtown, Conn., shootings, when exasperated Americans looked to Congress to do something.

The compromise bill before the Senate didn’t touch the massive ammo clips that fuel the body counts for these terror shooters. It didn’t put a single new limitation on automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

It simply required all – not just some – gun buyers to face a background check.

So who is Grassley representing?

His vote certainly represents the Republican minority. Just four Republicans, including Illinois’ Mark Kirk and former GOP presidential contender John McCain, chose to vote with the American people.

Grassley definitely represents the views of the National Rifle Association, which responded to Newtown with a plan to put high-powered weapons in every school in an attempt to outgun heavily armed shooters.

On Thursday, Grassley sought support for his NRA-sanctioned bill to beef up after-the-fact enforcement by spending more on investigations and hiring more law officers.

Perhaps in his 32nd year in office, Grassley feels insulated from voter sentiment and empowered to vote his conscience, not his district. That would be easier to believe if not for documentation showing Grassley enjoyed at least $17,850 in donations from the NRA PAC since 1998 and received $60,676 in assistance through NRA independent expenditures in his most recent, 2010 re-election campaign. Those figures tallied by Publiccampaign.org puts Grassley third on the list of Senate Judiciary Committee members who together have received $714,669 in NRA and affiliated PAC contributions. The only Senate Judiciary Committee member to vote for Wednesday’s compromise was the sole Democrat, Patrick Leahy, whose NRA-affiliated contributions totaled $7,000.

We’ve known and respected Grassley enough to suspect the contributions didn’t sway him. Instead, he seems stuck in a mindset that views these votes as partisan strategy intended to weaken the Senate majority. The object seems to be denying anything that could be interpreted as a Democrat victory.

It’s old-school politics that, thankfully, Sens. Kirk and McCain aren’t buying.

Grassley let Iowans down by blocking a bill that does nothing more than close the loophole allowing some gun buyers to avoid any background checks before amassing an arsenal.

We can’t fathom how he would explain that on a campaign trail. Perhaps he doesn’t think he’ll have to.

(191) comments

guitarman52804
guitarman52804

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.......poor whiney liberals dont get their way and and all they can do is complain and place blame. Get over it, you had your chance and it fell through. suck it up and quit your crying

Offering my two cents

Any one see a few weeks ago that a crazy fool attacked kids on a college campus with a knife. We better ban them next and put back round checks in place for buying flatware.

twiggy
twiggy

How many died?

Offering my two cents

Idiots, back round checks are not going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Would a back round check have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings....NO. The mother of the shooter owned the guns legally. She taught the kid how to use them, that was well published. Back round checks would have no affect on the crisis at hand, it is a society problem not a gun problem.

TR

As I stated in a earlier comment, "Right or Wrong" that person feels the need to jump on every word I say. In my opinion, its nothing more than childish antics on that persons part especially when that person is wrong more times than being right.

TR

Funny, I don't recall mentioning any names. Perhaps someone has a guilty conscious.

farmrdave

Right out of the gate this article claims 80% of Americans want background checks. After such a blatant lie why would anyone read more?

aequitas
aequitas

Sorry for letting the truth get in the way of your position, but many reputable polls have shown that. It's not some made up number.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx

TR

bushdidit....There's no need for you to feel singled out. There is another who appears to contradict every comment I make in here. Right or wrong, that person feels the need to jump on every word I say. So fear not bushdidit, I was Not Referring to you.

twiggy
twiggy

He means me, bush. He gets his undies in a bundle when I correct his fallacies. I can live with it, it's amusing.

TR

bushdidit....I assure you, I wasn't referring to you as a gnat.

TR

There appears to be a little gnat following me and buzzing around my head wherever I go.
I need to remember to bring my insect repellent with me the next time I make a comment on this page.

The only thing you need to remember to bring is undeniable proof of your allegations, and just not an unprovable opinion that originated in some militant or survivalist mind, and don’t worry I didn’t use the cowards way by hitting the abuse button for calling me a gnat!

twiggy
twiggy

he means me.

Comment deleted.
Six_String
Six_String

Wow, what an outright LIE. You say here he had 1000 rounds with him. Then it later becomes "1000 rounds at home."

Common, Bush, quit being so hypocritical in your rants. You want treated fairly, but you call others liars, when you seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to bend the truth as you want.

TR

mel....The U.S.Supreme Court ruled in the case DC. vs. Heller that the citizens have the Rght under the Second Amendment to defend themselves and their families with the use of firearms in this country. When mentioning "Well regulated militia being necessary for a Free State", you left out the part about "he people's rights shall not be infringed"
In my opinion, all the restrictions that have been put on our Second Amendment Rights over the decades is a huge infringment of our Second Amendment Rights. You state that its time to add a comma, or repeal the Second Amendment in its entirety? Now why would you or anyone wish to give up one of your freedoms? How would you feel if there was talk about repealing the First Amendment, or our Fourth Amendment (however George W. Bush did trash our Fourth Amendment when he signed the Patriot Act into law) but I think you get my meaning as far as anyone wishing to chip away at the freedoms our Founding Fathers gave the citizens in this country. Without our freedoms the people of this country would be at the mercy of the government. The Bill of Rights protects the citizens of this country from government tyranny, both foreign and domestic. Look at how Obama was wanting to issue an executive order to get around Congress so he could implement his agenda to force further gun control on the people of this country. Joe Biden even stated at a news interview that Obama was looking into issuing an executive order regarding more gun control. Isn't that nice, we have another President who thinks nothing of issuing a executive order that violates the peoples rights and freedoms
I don't care what the situation is,there is no reason or excuse as to why the people's freedoms in this country have to be put at risk because of any situation that comes up.

Same old rhetoric as usual, and yet nothing ironclad to back it up! Hey!, I'll join your crowd, if you can give me ironclad evidence to all of your accusations?

twiggy
twiggy

From the Heller decision. Written by Antonin Scalia:... "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."......"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. " There is no prohibition against background checks or banning assault weapons. If you believe too many infringements have been placed on the second amendment you might want to discuss that with Justice Scalia, he doesn't seem to agree.


The entire decision can be found at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

farmrdave

What you say is half truth and misguided. The second amendment is "absolute" as long as it exists. As for "assault weapons", the 1994 so called "assault weapon" ban was truly unconstitutional. It was nothing more than a infringement on the natural right to keep and bear arms protected by the second amendment. Senator Dianne Feinstein is a mutinous pretender who must be tried as "domestic enemy of the US constitution", as described in the congressional oath of office. We have background checks that would have prevented at least one of the recent killers from legally purchasing any gun but the law was not followed. Better answers are to ban gun free zones, stop prescribing psychotropic drugs, encourage the nuclear family

twiggy
twiggy

Sorry Dave, you are not correct. The 1994 ban on assault weapons was NEVER found to be unconstitutional. Your saying it does not make it so. It also was never a true ban as there were more than 900 exemptions. You say...."The second amendment is "absolute" as long as it exists." Did you read what Justice Scalia wrote in the Heller decision? Do you not understand what he wrote? He clearly wrote..."Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."......"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. " You don't believe he wrote that? Or you think he was wrong? What is it. You sure can have your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts.

Seeing as this letter is where they’ve removed most of my comments, then it’s only appropriate to post another comment to it, and see how long it takes them to remove it? I think this picture is getting clearer and clearer, and it’s rather obvious that one of two things is occurring here or possibly both simultaneously. Either it’s a fact that they do have a bias moderator or they are simply attempting to stop the mean spirited rhetoric. And, if it is simply attempting to stop the mean spirited rhetoric, then why is it that in most cases it’s the people’s whose comments that tend to be left slanted that get removed? I find that simply being bias, IMHO! And especially, when you take into consideration all of the mean spirited rhetoric that the Right has spewed forth during the past half decade that the QCTimes simply ignored, and then when the Right is finally given a dose of their own medicine, then all of a sudden the QCTimes deems it as taboo! I find that rather disingenuous on their part, don’t you?!

Moderator's note: If it isn't flagged, we'll never see it. It's up to the readers to report abusive comments. We don't spend all day in the comments. We're not babysitters. It would be impossible to read every comment before it goes up. "You're left! You're right!" We've heard it all. Everyone thinks the moderators are against them. If you attack people, call people names and the comment gets flagged to bring it to our attention, we will remove it. I'm not sure how many times we need to say it.

Edited by staff.

You are wrong in saying that everyone thinks the moderators are against them. Here's the problem that abuse button also affords people or Left vs Right the ability to actually get comments removed that are truthful and not distasteful in any manner. Example, On another letter a person or persons report that my comment to aequitas was abusive to them, because I simply told aequitas what their tactics were. and, here is what it basically said, aequitas, remember that when you get them cornered (meaning they had no rebuttal) that they would simply shift gears, and attempt to twist things back to their advantage. Now, you tell me why, that was removed?!

Moderator's note: Collateral damage. You've had nearly 20 comments legitimately removed for namecalling, personal attacks, and foul language (or creative attempts to type foul language) in just the past few days. The comment in question has been restored. 

Edited by staff.

I apologize to all that I have offended, but can’t the ones on the Right who has engaged in the very same type of mean spirited rhetoric do the same?!

And, I must say, it’s rather flattering that I represent such a threat to them, that they use such extreme measures in their attempts to silence me!

If I were you, I wouldn’t hold my breath while waiting for any apologies from those on the right, because it’s just not in their nature to admit that they’ve been just as guilty of what they’ve accused you of. Anyhow, I’d just like to say, kudos to you for having the decency, and man enough to publicly issue an apology!

Thanks, for your kind response.

Wow! Yet, another comment of mine that was removed, and for no apparent rhyme nor reason other than a person or persons hitting the abuse button in another attempt to silence me. So, can I consider this as just more collateral damage? I’m beginning to think that if I had kept track of all of the comments that were removed for what you say they were removed for that total would be significantly lower than what you’ve indicated. Is there a way you could provide me proof of your accusations, such as emailing me my removed comments, and seeing as you are capable of restoring them to their original letters that shouldn’t be a problem? It’s rather apparent that the moderator’s don’t even check to see if the reported comment warrants removal or not, and that’s simply unbelievable, and especially when considering you have rules and regulations that are supposed to be obeyed! The specific comment that was removed was posted in the letter titled “Thanks, senator, for standing your ground,” and my comment basically said, Thanks Grassley, for proving once again that you are nothing more than a tool for Grover Norquist, NRA, and Gun Manufactures by voting against the peoples wishes. Could you please point out any name calling, personal attacks, and foul language or creative attempts to type foul language in this comment?! Now, if you consider using the word “tool” as name calling, personal attacks, and foul language or creative attempts to type foul language, than I will simply refer you to another letter to the editor that the Times published on 04/25/2013 that’s titled “Grassley is indeed a tool of the NRA,” and you can explain the differences.

Moderator's note: Just went back and checked. There was more to that comment. It's what we'd call flaming, also grounds for removal. It was one of a series of comments that followed the same abusive path and was removed at the same time as the rest of them. We're not going to have an appeal process for each removed comment. You haven't had any more comments flagged or removed since we've been talking here, so thank you.

Edited by staff.

Comment deleted.
fdog

Really, he had 1000 rounds with him??? Your whole comment is full of holes!!!

mel

As long the gun lover mentality keeps coming up with silly playground chants like guns don't kill people, people kill people, or we should outlaw cars and knives because they kill people too, there will never be an intelligent debate on the subject..The SCOTUS is weighted to the right and definitely don't represent a fair and balanced decision on anything or reflect the will of the American people. And last time i looked we don't send our soldiers into battle armed with only cars and knives--for some strange reason. "Well regulated" seems to have been completely ignored and the muskets of 1776 have become weapons of mass destruction. It's time to either add a comma or repeal the amendment in its entirety. Remember the 18th amendment on Prohibition? Repealed by popular opinion. The NRA extremists will cost all of us our guns. If you fear anyone, it should be the NRA.

fdog

Mel, my guns and knives hang around all day, everyday and they have yet to hurt anybody, only thing I can figure out is they must require human intervention... Must be something to that people kill people thing...

Six_String
Six_String

There's never any logic in the liberal mantras. Putting more regulations on someone that WON'T break the law is their goal. The fact that more laws will have no influence on those that WILL hurt others is lost on their short train of thought.

just curious

mel you seem to be mixed up. You can't decide if guns kill people or people kill people and whether we should outlaw cars and knives if people kill people.. If your thinking is as mixed up as your writing please do not buy or use a gun. You are correct, we do not send our soldiers into battle armed with cars and knives. That appears to be the only statement that seemed true but not really relevant as to the 2nd Amendment.

Six_String
Six_String

If you go back to the 18th century, the basic invention of rifling in a gun barrel GREATLY increased the lethality of firearms. The military had them, as did the average citizen.

The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting when you get down to the reason it exists. It's about the citizenry being able to protect themselves in the even gov't tyranny occurs. Think it can't happen? Look at the warrantless searches in Boston last week. Women, children, as well as men were ordered from their homes at gunpoint while FBI/SWAT team members went through the house.

2nd Amendment - Under attack
4th Amendment - Under attack
1st Amendment - Under attack

The 2nd Amendment is the ONLY thing that exists as a last resort to protect your other rights.

aequitas
aequitas

The Second Amendment is emphatically NOT about protecting insurrectionists and rebellion. It's about protecting the country, including its democratically elected republican government. Most of the quotes from the founding fathers surrounding the Second Amendment--even cited by the NRA--refer to its purpose being a strong militia, regulated by the government, to protect the country from tyrannous insurrection.

Our founding fathers did NOT support Shays' Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, or Gabriel's Rebellion.

2nd Amendment - Background checks are not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
4th Amendment - The government had probable cause to believe the suspect was hiding in a particular area and had the right to search for him there. They could not use anything else found in those properties against the homeowners, so no 4th Amendment violation exists.
1st Amendment - Your post doesn't include any references to how you feel the 1st Amendment is under attack.

Six_String
Six_String

The first amendment - There are any number of instances where people just saying things or where innocent gestures get taken out of context and lands them in hot water. The government has the ability to read your email without warrants (1st and 4th). Kids in school are forbidden from showing they support other Bill of Rights guarantees. You can't say what you really mean or you risk a lawsuit when you say "Merry Christmas" and it offends someone. Someone makes an video that offends Muslims, our government uses it as an excuse for why 9/11 uprising happened in Benghazi - has anyone seen the video maker free since?

TR

Six_String...Very well put, I couldn't of said it better myself. In my opinion, you are amoung those of us who understand the importance of our Rights in this country.

Devin H
Devin H

Give me a break. You Righties are all about "freedom" but then when two guys fly a couple planes into the Twin Towers you freak out and let Bush and congress take away our right to Due Process and let the gubmint spy on anything and everything we do. That's ten times worse than a few background checks for internet gun sales. Hypocrits to the BONE.

Six_String
Six_String

I think you'll find that a good portion of the "righties" dislike the whole Patriot Act just as much as you. That was a gross knee-jerk reaction that gave a blank check to the gov't to "get you" if they really wanted to. Rope that one right in with DHS, TSA, illegal of searches of homes in Boston and giving free rides to illegal immigrants in the face of what we've let legal immigrants do to us in NYC and Boston.

Devin H
Devin H

This is a fantasy of the rightwing. All the folks with guns (myself included) would never and could never defeat the US government. Unless you are packing your own drones and nukes in your basement, you are severely outgunned. --- Civilized people keep the government in check by using the judicial system and ballot box.

Comment deleted.
Comment deleted.

You can only wish I was losing it, because I'm very good at what I do, and if it means changing gears, so be it!

Comment deleted.
Six_String
Six_String

Geez man, trolololollll more and not even on topic. Reported.

Comment deleted.
Six_String
Six_String

And it IS light firepower. Shoot a .308 or 30.06 at someone, you're going to go through them, the person behind them, the wall, and the person on the other side of the wall.

ANY firearm is going to be considerably more powerful that a rock being thrown.

Comment deleted.
Six_String
Six_String

1,000 rounds of .223. I'm calling pictures or it didn't happen. That's 30 pounds of ammunition BULK. 50 boxes of 20 rounds is bulky enough he would've had to have to have hauled a decent sized box or at least a very large backpack around with him. If he had them in magazines already, that's even move bulky weight to tote around.

Just admit that you hate the fact that you want your right to first amendment guarantees more than you want anyone else to have their right to the second amendment guarantees, and then we can completely ignore your rants.

Comment deleted.
John Rambo

I agree completely on moderator bias! Neither your comments or mine had anything about them that would be against the rules! As for your stance on "assault rifles" it should be mentioned that rifles in all only accounted for a small fraction of overall murders by gun. The total number of rifle murders was 358 last year, or somewhere around two percent of overall gun murders. To add to that, in the governments extensive wisdom, they pretty much label a rifle an "assault rifle" by cosmetics. Other guns that are exactly the same, mechanically speaking, are not considered such. That makes absolutely zero sense. If our government really wanted to do something about gun violence, they would address the mental health situation in this country, and also begin to enforce the gun laws already on the books. However, our current administration could care less about the safety of the people in this country. They are just parading Sandy Hook victims around to exploit a tragedy and advance their real agenda.

Comment deleted.
rbg52803

And everything that you stated of Lanza being done by Lanza leads me to believe that this 120 pound mental patient could not have carried this out. He had 3 magazines that were 30 round capcity. How could he have fired 155 rounds and reloaded 2 magazines in 5 minutes? Have you ever reloaded a magazine under pressure? I have and it is not easy even when practiced over and over again. The whole official report behind Sandy Hook is preposterous to anyone that knows weapons or military training. The report also does not explain the 4 men seen leaving the school immediately after the shootings, all 4 of which were stopped and 2 of which were hand cuffed. 1 was placed into a squad car but all of them were let go. I believe very little of what the official report says and believe that this event is being used by our government to sway public opinion into believing gun control is vital for our safety. It is a lie.

Devin H
Devin H

So really, the Republicans filibustering the background check bill, only protected terrorists, felons. Should we just go ahead and eliminate background checks at gun shops?

Devin H
Devin H

Newsflash: Terrorists, violent felons, and other bad guys can purchase weapons with NO BACKGROUND CHECK at gun shows and online. So essentially, by blocking background checks at gun shows, you are allowing the bad guys a fast and easy way to buy guns. You keep saying "Bad guys will always get guns" well, this is an easy way for them to do it!

Six_String
Six_String

News flash - Gun show sellers along with internet sales are required to see a valid purchase permit (which has had the required federally-mandated NICS check done) along with the federal purchase form. The FBI's prior background investigation of the Boston bomber(s) fell through the cracks because of mis-spellings in their name.

If the feds don't link the terrorist watch list with other databases, then they should roll that into the currently mandated NICS check. Having additional laws that ultimately end up with gun registration is what people have a problem with. I don't want the government knowing what arms I have when they force me from my home and violate my 4th amendment rights like they did in Boston to the residents there.

aequitas
aequitas

Only dealers at gun shows and online are required to run a background check. There also is no requirement in Iowa for a private seller--at a gun show, online, or otherwise--to see a valid permit to purchase. The requirement is on the purchaser to have one. If the seller doesn't require seeing it, the purchaser doesn't need to have one to get a weapon. That's the loophole in current law.

The Manchin-Toomey bill EXPRESSLY prohibited the creation of a national registry, directly or indirectly. That was in the bill.

fdog

Try to be a vendor at a gun show without being a ffl dealer. We have some gunshows coming up in Davenport and Cedar Rapids, I'd like to see you go to one of them and try to buy a gun without a background check. Try it rather than listening to the liberal garbage out there.

aequitas
aequitas

The question is whether the law requires it. It does not.

If your contention is that every law-abiding and decent citizen already has background checks conducted because they always buy from FFL dealers or private citizens who require a background check to be conducted, then what inconvenience is there to law-abiding, decent citizens to have what they're allegedly already doing codified into law? Nobody can answer that question.

Six_String
Six_String

There may be a technical loophole for private sales, but I've never been a part of, nor have I known any of my friends that have bought or sold a gun without asking for ID/permit cards to be shown. No one wants to be "that guy" that sold a gun that was used to murder someone.

The fact is, putting more obstacles in the way of law abiding citizens does nothing to protect against "the bad guy" that broke into a gun store, took a pistol, and robs a bank with it. I suggest we look at how many violent repeat offenders we let loose on the streets.

I talk to several probation officers in several Illinois counties during the course of my every day business. They're amazed at the number of people that have violent histories that get paroled, and then skip out on their probation officer meetings. These same people show back up in the court system for more violent offenses more often than not. THAT is where we need to look as a society - clean up the cesspool instead of merely putting up a 1 foot high "fence" around it.

aequitas
aequitas

Again, you're proving my point that the Toomey-Manchin bill would have put absolutely ZERO obstacles in the way of law abiding citizens. You're saying it's already being done. This would just make it a law that what's already being done must be done.

45acp

aequitas, it's simple, you can pass all the laws you want and the criminals will not follow them and will find a way around every roadblock you put it... the only answer is to quit slapping them on the wrist and strictly follow the laws we already have, drop the hammer and lock 'em up for the maximum time... as somebody else mentioned, murder is against the law but it happens everyday... the only person you want to inconvenience is the law abiding citizen that doesn't commit any crimes...

I would still challenge you to go out today in the quad cities and purchase a gun without any background check or paperwork... bet you can't... but if you were a scumbag criminal I guarantee you could have one within 30 minutes... no law will stop that...

aequitas
aequitas

Except A) That's not true. Background checks have a history of working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

"The numbers show that background checks do keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who are not supposed to have them. Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone, the most recent year for which data is available." http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17689167-background-checks-for-guns-what-you-need-to-know?lite

"In 2012, 38 people who were accused or convicted of homicides applied for gun ownership in Colorado. In addition, 600 burglars, 1,300 people who committed felonies, and 400 people who had restraining orders from a judge also tried to buy guns." http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/03/watch-this-thing-works-says-colorado-governor-on-new-gun-law/

B) The "you can pass all the laws you want and the criminals will not follow them" argument is perhaps the dumbest argument in this entire debate. Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. Does that mean we shouldn't have any laws? That's what this inane argument would suggest.

C) If private sellers aren't required to conduct background checks, we won't be able to identify the criminals and prosecute them when they try to purchase weapons. Why shouldn't we demand that sellers be responsible? Why should we give irresponsible private sellers a free pass?

D) Again, you're proving my point that there would be absolutely no burden placed on responsible gun owners. You allege that responsible people cannot go out and purchase a gun without a background check. You allege that only scumbag criminals can get weapons without checks. If responsible owners and sellers are already doing background checks, what's the burden? Why not make it criminal for an irresponsible person to sell a weapon to someone that hasn't had a background check? Why shouldn't we punish that irresponsible behavior? Let's face it: based on your comments you're just interested in protecting scumbag criminals and the irresponsible sellers that don't check ID and don't require a background check.

Six_String
Six_String

It may put zero obstacles in the way, but why waste time and money doing things that won't help? Of course, spending taxpayer money wastefully is the gov'ts specialty.

jleeeps

Senator Grassley continues to be an embarrassment to Iowans - he has become a predictable mouthpiece for Republican political speaking points, regardless of how inane or outrageous the points are, he can be counted on to spout them. He does not represent his constituents anymore, unless he sees his constituents as his major contributors. Time to go, Chuck!

45acp

Hate to break this to you but Senator Grassley is representing the majority of his constituents, way to go Chuck...

Six_String
Six_String

Amen. I've emailed him and talked to his office staff. It's such a relief to know there are a few people in DC that listen instead of doing the knee-jerk dance.

aequitas
aequitas

Could you please cite the poll conducted in Iowa that indicates the majority of Iowans are opposed to background checks? Thanks!

45acp

Chuck's office will tell you how much support his office had to oppose the bill....

But turn it around, please cite the IOWA poll that indicates otherwise...

aequitas
aequitas

45acp, So a more accurate claim would be that: Grassley is representing the majority of individuals who his office claims contacted them regarding the issue of background checks.

The Des Moines Register's Iowa Poll indicated that 88% of Iowans supported expanded background checks to include all sales, including all gun show sales and private sales. http://whotv.com/2013/02/10/gun-poll-majority-agree-with-president/

45acp

Funny, the actual poll from the Des Moines Register is not available... But, I certainly don't think one newspaper can do a credible poll anyway, very easy to slant those numbers...


aequitas
aequitas

The actual poll release is archived, as the DMR does with their articles after a period of time. That is a ridiculous justification to reject the poll's findings, which were made by a reputable polling firm. The DMR Iowa Poll has a long history of relevant and accurate polling.

It is incredibly entertaining how you've backtracked from your original claim. Let's recap:

- First, you claimed a majority of Iowans opposed background checks.
- I asked for supporting information.
- You maturely countered, "No, YOU provide supporting information."
- I provide supporting information that indicates not just a majority but a VAST majority of Iowans support background checks.
- You effectively respond, "Nuh uh!" and make some weak argument about the poll release being archived (which means it's still available).

Comment deleted.
John Rambo

Nicely researched, bushdidit. I like how you propose that banning assualt rifles is the answer, then go on to spout off about being able to fill an airplane each week with dead bodies. However, the actual number of deaths last year (around 350) would be closer to filling a single airplane, not fifty-two of them. Still too many, but your examples are quite deceptive. Maybe we should focus on dealing with the real issue at hand, which is mental health, instead of playing into the agenda of Obama and his minions to take all power away from the people. By the way, just so you know, the real numbers indicate that TWICE as many people died by hands, fists, and feet last year when compared to assualt rifle stats. Maybe you should focus your efforts on getting those things banned instead, and if successful, you would essentially be doubling your results.

hawksbearsfan

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars

Klaatu
Klaatu

All propaganda to the contrary, the American public is cooling towards gun control. We mustn't abridge the rights of the many because of the sins of the few. My suggestion to the left wing fruitcakes is to march down to the inner city neighborhoods and demand a crackdown on the gangs that are really causing almost all of the problems. I have lived in my neighborhood for thirty years and there has NEVER been a shooting, so don't be messing with me and people like me. Go mess with the bad guys instead.

Six_String
Six_String

But that would alienate the democratic voting base in the inner cities! Imagine if the gang bangers got all mad about their guns being taken away. They'd probably go do a drive by somewhere.

Hypnos

Mexican drug cartels are not getting their guns from legal gun shops or owners,unless it is set up by Holder in fast and furious.

longjohn412

EXACTLY, they get them from gun shows where there are no background checks

Plus the ones the Morons let get stolen because they are too stupid to lock them away when they aren't home

Six_String
Six_String

I think you missed the point about Fast and Furious. If it would save even one child's life, wouldn't it be important to see some heads rolling with a complete investigation?

Six_String
Six_String

Source? If that's even remotely true, how many of them were provided as part of some US gov't operation? Lord knows we've never supplied weapons to factions that end up turning them against us.

Hypnos

This editorial is a pack of lies and fictitious statistics. The current laws are not being enforced in major cities like Chicago.So ask yourself when a bill will at best do nothing and at worse restrict 2nd amendment rights what is its purpose. Emotional reaction as a smoke screen to restrict our rights one by one.

rbg52803

This article is completely misleading. It states that poll after poll shows 80% OF AMERICANS favor background checks. This is most certainly not true. Every single poll that is used to support this fabrication is taken from liberal areas of less than 2500 people from each area. This is not a true reading of ALL AMERICANS. Also, take into consideration of how polls are conducted. Who ever is paying for the poll sets it up with trigger questions. If a question is answered in a certain way, the polster either says "Thank you for your time. This conducts our survey." or they continue. Obama's poll that he keeps using to claim that 90% of Americans favor gun control is taken from a small liberal area in California which does not represent the whole country. From every poll I have read, over 75% of THOSE POLLED believe back ground checks will not have an effect on stopping criminals from obtaining guns. Criminals do not purchase their weapons from gun stores or from gun shows. They get them from people selling them out of the backs of their vehicles. The Quad City Times is purposely trying to influence people into believing that Grassley failed Iowans when in fact Grassley received hundreds of thousand of emails and petitions telling him to vote against this ban/back ground check bill. Every single gun restricting legislation has failed to do what it claims that it will, deter crime. Gun control is not about public safety, it is about public control.

You that maintain that the police and military should be the only ones to have weapons and that they are charged with protecting us are sorely misguided by a totalitarian government seeking to subjugate us. According to every court in this land, including SCOTUS, it is not the responsibility nor duty of the police to protect citizens unless they have previously agreed to doing so (high profile cases where protective custody has been necessary or when verifiable threats have been made against a citizen and the department has agreed to protect them). They have ruled that it is the individuals responsibility to protect themselves and their property citing that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to carry a gun for the purpose of self defense. Many states, counties and cities have made it illegal to sue a police department if loss of life, injury or property damage occur due to the police either failing to show up or show up late to a call, again citing it is the indiviuals responsibility to protect themselves. Grassley has most certainly not failed Iowans. The people of this community have been led into a false belief by liberal politicians seeking to enslave the population that guns are bad. People are bad. Murder is already illegal. Legislating the method by which one commits that crime merely handicaps law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Villianizing law abiding gun owners also does the exact same thing. It was not long ago that our own public school systems taught both gun safety and respect for human life. This is now gone and replaced by fear and consumption brought to you courtesy of our illustrious liberal media and government.

Fred W

The NRA must have written this gem for you because it makes no sense. Your assertion that every single poll that overwhelmingly supports background checks is taken in liberal areas of less than 2500 people is so outrageous that it defies any semblance of reality. You do realize that The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, not exactly centers for liberalism, have polled the same high percentage in favor of expanded background checks. In a Public Policy Poll (PPP) just published today, it was found that the 1st Congressional District in South Carolina, a highly conservative district that Mitt Romney won by 18 percentage points in the last election, polled at 86% in favor of background checks. Also, your contention that Grassley received hundreds of thousands of petitions and e-mails favoring his "no" vote is another pile of nonsense. There are roughly 625,000 registered Republicans in Iowa meaning that almost a third of them would have had to submit favorable responses to Grassley. Since the majority of Republicans didn't even favor Grassley's position, this is virtually an impossibility. Finally, your over-the-top diatribe expressing concern about others believing that police should be the source of protection for the populace along with your crazy belief that such people are misguided by a totalitarian government bent on subjugating us, is simply nuts!

Toy578

Misleading? Here is a good example. The NRA placed a one-half page ad on the home page of The Washington Post. It claimed "80% of police say background checks will have no effect on violent crime." The problem in terms of the NRA’s ad is that the poll never asked whether background checks will have an effect on violent crime. Here is my source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/04/_80_percent_of_police_oppose_background_checks_no_the_nra_is_lying.html. Give us a list of YOUR polls and we'll check them out for you. After all, you have read a lot of polls that show 75% disapprove.

rbg52803

Did you actually read the poll that was taken that the NRA listed? It was taken from a pool of 15000+ officers and is free for you to view. As for the polls that I have been reading they come from a varied amount of sources. To start with the lower numbered polls, USA Today put one out a couple of weeks ago that showed less than 40% polled favored background checks and stricter regulations. The Blaze.com had several listed which showed varied results from less than 50% favored gun control all the way up to polls showing less than 20% favored any type of gun control. The polls completely depend on where they take place, who is paying for them and the demographic that is being targeted. My point was that anyone can come up with polls that support their views and slate.com is listed as being in the top 5 of liberal bias websites (according to several sources that you can find by just searching "is slate.com liberal or conservative") so their polls are going to reflect their bias.

aequitas
aequitas

The PoliceOne.com poll did not follow scientific methodology, so it cannot be relied upon for statistical significance.

Toy578

There was no question in the police poll that mentioned background checks. It was removed and replaced by this question: “Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?” I found no USA Today poll that asked a question specifically about background checks. I did find polls that ask about support for "gun control". But the 80-90% numbers were about background checks. Get it? I'm waiting for your to provide a source where I can find the results of a scientific poll which only included background checks, which had only 25% support.

Fred W

I'm confused by the rationale for opposition to the Toomey-Manchin expanded background check bill? If you're saying that the requirement for background checks for commercial sales at gun shows and for intrastate sales online are an infringement of second amendment rights, why not the same opposition and obvious outrage for background checks at licensed gun shops? You can't have it both ways. If you do in fact also oppose background checks at licensed gun shops as well as gun shows and online, then you're approving gun sales to anyone including felons, terrorists, and the mentally deranged. I've yet to see anyone here explain this distinction let alone how specifically second amendment rights are being infringed upon by the Toomey-Manchin bill.

rbg52803

There is the same opposition and outrage to this at gun shops. The problem is that those laws were already passed without the consent of the people. This time more and more people are waking up and protesting. According to the Supreme Court rulings of 2008 and 2012, under the 2nd Amendment, we all have the right to carry a gun and do not need the permission of the government to do so. It is a guarenteed right not subject to a vote. According to the Efficiency of MIitia Act, a federal law that cannot be repealed nor amended, any laws made restricting, regulating or requiring the registration of any guns is illegal. It also states that we can buy as many of any type so long as we can afford them. Yet we continue to see laws enacted all in the name of "common sense" that do absolutely nothing to deter crime and prevent people from obtaining weapons illegally. Gun control of any type is not about public safety. It is about public control.

Fred W

Opposition and outrage for background checks at gun shops - by whom? So what you're saying is that you have no problem with a felon, terrorist, or mentally deranged person walking into a licensed gun shop and purchasing a 9mm Glock Semi-automatic with no questions asked! That has to be one of the nuttiest inferences I've ever heard. Background check legislation for licensed gun shops is the law of the land and was passed by the Congress, a legislative body who does in fact represent the consent of the people.Your contention that the Supreme Court ruling of 2012 allows for all to have unfettered access to carrying a gun is another fallacy. Even Justice Scalia, hardly considered a liberal, stated that second amendment rights can lawfully include restrictions.

rbg52803

Could you please show me in the Constitution the exception clause to who gets rights in this country and who does not? Could you also show me in the Constitution where it says that the government is charged with the duty of protecting us from criminals, deranged lunatics or terrorists? You won't find anything there. As a matter of fact, what you will find is that this right is granted to all of us. That's why the Supreme Court ruled that it is everyone's right to carry a gun for self protection. As for your use of the Justice stating that the 2nd can lawfully include restrictions, please show me where he ruled on that in a case. I believe that you won't find that. It was stated as HIS OPINION..

aequitas
aequitas

rbg52803, The Fourteenth Amendment includes some exceptions to who is granted all of the rights and privileges of citizenship. As long as there is due process, you can be stripped of many of your rights.

As for the Opinion of the Court in Heller:

[quote]"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
[/quote]

Now, perhaps you are trying to quibble about the term "opinion." Well, the opinion of the Court is its ruling. Furthermore, you cannot on the one hand rely upon the Supreme Court's decisions to argue that "[a]ccording to the Supreme Court rulings of 2008 and 2012, under the 2nd Amendment, we all have the right to carry a gun and do not need the permission of the government to do so" while at the same time dismissing those very rulings as simply opinions. Finally, what decision in 2012 are you referencing?

aequitas
aequitas

[quote]"There is the same opposition and outrage to this at gun shops. The problem is that those laws were already passed without the consent of the people."[/quote]

We had a representative democracy then, and we still have one today. By your extremist definition, every law has been passed without the consent of the people unless it was passed by referendum. That's not the system of government that the United States has ever been.

[quote]"According to the Supreme Court rulings of 2008 and 2012, under the 2nd Amendment, we all have the right to carry a gun and do not need the permission of the government to do so."[/quote]

Well, you're misreading the majority holding. Even uber conservative Justice Scalia recognized that the government can regulate firearms in Heller. That opinion was reinforced in McDonald. The prohibition on certain regulation, in the opinion of the Court, did not mean that ALL regulation was prohibited. You're committing one of the most glaring logical fallacies.

[quote]"According to the Efficiency of MIitia Act, a federal law that cannot be repealed nor amended, any laws made restricting, regulating or requiring the registration of any guns is illegal."[/quote]

1) Any law can be repealed, amended, or modified by future legislation. Congress cannot pass a law that binds future congresses. That's American Government 101.

2) You again are misreading that law.

freesenior

If there is going to be a debate on this issue, perhaps those that seek to advance their opinion one way or the other, should look at the bill themselves and ask the question on each of its points; "How can this be interpreted in a poltical fomat?" There are better ways to deal with this.
For those that seek to disparage Charles Grassley, unless you know him, it is just mob talk to condemn the man and his years of service. I know the Senator. I do not always agree with him. He tends to be more a Republican Patrician Progressive than a conservative and that is where we differ. But I have never known him to be a crook or an evil person. Given the deteriorating mental condition of Senator Harkin via Alzheimers, Grassley is the only fit elected official Iowa has in the Senate. Senator Harkin should step down in the interest of the Iowa Citizens and let an appointed representative speak for Iowans until there is a new election.

Fred W

You have to be kidding about Grassley's worth as a Senator. For starters, his blatant rebuke of his constituents with his opposition to the Toomey-Manchin bill is unconscionable. It had no basis in rational logic. His opposition was strictly parroting the NRA's opposition which had no merit in fact but rather in many aspects was little more than a boldfaced lie. The fact that Grassley is so beholden to the NRA through acceptance of their campaign funds speaks volumes for his irrational vote. Grassley is no "Patrician Progressive". Anyone who would parade around the state like he did five years ago with the likes of Sarah Palin in support of her ignoramus "death panel" pronouncements, can't be very progressive let alone very bright. Could you imagine Grassley along with the rest of today's Senate being in office back in the 50's and 60's? We would have no civil rights law or voting rights act, nor would we have Medicare or even an interstate highway system.

rbg52803

Fred, his standing up for the 2nd Amendment is a civil right. His standing up to those that you said he rebuked was out of an overwhelming response FROM HIS CONSTITUENTS that were against any more gun legislation that is ineffective. Making more laws that do nothing is the illogical view point. You maintain that he is parroting the NRA when you forget that this bill was also put down by Democrats as well. The NRA is no different in lobbying for rights than pro-choice lobbyists, gay rights lobbyist or any other liberal type of lobbyist that liberals have no problem with their spending money to influence Congress. This is hypocrisy to the fullest. Grassley stands for the rights of Iowans, not for a knee jerk ILLOGICAL response that does nothign to deter crime and ony hampers law abiding citizens from equally receiving their rights.

The Mighty Pen

Nice bias from the start of the article. The article states over 80% of America supports extended background checks. Where are the references for these stats? Did you know that over 90% of the stats you read online are made up? See, I just did it, anyone can, and obviously the editorial board, who has specific higher education warning them to not do that when writing news articles..did just that. Secondly, you reference most of America in this article, but last I checked, he is an Iowa elected Senator...Where are the poll numbers for Iowa to back up your "opinion being given as fact" article? In Iowa, we have background checks, you have to be registered to buy a gun ( permit to purchase or conceal and carry permit), so since Iowa and many other states already have many background check programs in place, perhaps Sen. Grassley sees this as a States' Rights issue?? Maybe you are worried about the flow of guns out of this Country into Mexico and other Countries? Mexico has strict gun laws, and those guns are being transferred illegally... Law abiding citizens are not doing these crimes. Do not punish the good law abiding citizens for criminal behavior. Traditionally, a well regulated militia is a State's rights' issue. Iowa's founding fathers even included "a well regulated militia" in our State's Constitution. Our State has just finished looking at gun control, we passed the Conceal and Carry shall issue law recently. Show some stats that say legal gun owners in Iowa are committing high numbers of crimes? Those stats don't exist. Gun control is a State's Rights issue and should not be governed by the Federal Government. I think Mr. Grassley has a much better understanding on this article than the liberal editors are giving him credit. Read our State's Constitution...it is very informative and distinct from our neighbors in Illinois and many other states. It is a strong Constitution and gives us specific protection from Federal intrusion. Iowans like to govern Iowans, we are one of the more successful Midwest states. Keep regulation of Iowans in the hands of Iowans, reject federal gun control.

rbg52803

I agree with many of your statements save one. Grassley voted this down due to an overwhelming response from Iowa 2nd Amendment supporters that wrote, emailed, or signed petitions to him (of which I am all 3). I wrote several letters to him and received 2 personal repsonses (as well as a number of form letters). His personal response to me included the metioning of the vast number of his constinuents that responded to this bill that were absolutely against any more gun legislation. His exact words were "I have received thousands upon thousands of responses that are in opposition to this bill..." and he assured me that he would be voting no on that particular bill that Feinstein tried to impose upon us. I am quite glad that for the first time since I have ever written to politicians, one actually did what they said they would do. The Quad Cities and Des Moines does not represent the whole state. There are far more people that do not live in the cities than those that do yet I constantly see the liberal bias going on even in our own papers in the Quad Cities. What really makes me ill is how those living in Illinois will constantly complain about the amount of taxes that they pay then will move over here, try to make Iowa another Democratic run state and never realize that the corruption that runs rampant in Illinois is brought about through the Democratic Party and their corrupt ways. So many states that are Conservative run that have low taxes have been seeing an influx of liberals moving to their states to escape the high taxes that their mindset has brought about and then will try to destroy the area that they just moved to with the same stupidity. Insanity is making the same mistakes over and over and over again all the while believing that the result will be to their liking as they continue to try using the same methods. They believe this to be perserverance and not stupidity "If at first you don't succeed, try try again...".

Devin H
Devin H

This vote is a perfect example of the Republican obstructionism. Tell me one thing, ONE thing wrong with a background check at a gun show or internet sale? Hmm? Oh, a slippery slope? really? If everything is a slippery slope, then NOTHING will ever get done.

The Mighty Pen

It is a slippery slope... Iowa's Constitution (recognized by the Federal Government when Iowa became a state) grants our State specific rights and powers. One of those rights is to regulate their own militia. By ceding more of our state rights to the federal government, we would be weakening the ability of Iowa to regulate its Militia. If you can't regulate the guns in your own state, then you can't regulate your own Militia... a Militia without guns is a crowd of victims if the federal government makes a tyrannical power grab. You may not believe that this could or would ever happen, but one of the ways to ensure it doesn't, is to keep State's Rights strong. If something were to happen in the future, and Iowa was going to resist some federal laws that it did not agree with, the federal government could automatically reject every Iowa gun buyer's application to prevent an armed rebellion by the State. Iowa would then not be in a position to protect itself from the overreach of the feds. Extending background checks on a State Government basis would probably garner more support than on a Federal Basis. In Iowa, if you sell a gun to someone who is not legally elgible to own a gun, you are committing a crime. The law is on the books. Criminals will skirt that law, just like any other gun laws you add to it, because "newsflash", criminals break laws. Do not think I am one of those people who wants huge "militias" for each State, etc. I'm not, but this system of Federal and States rights was designed by the Country's forefathers to be a check and balance system. Let's not upset that balance.

aequitas
aequitas

Actually, one of your first claims is in direct opposition to the Constitution. The state is not independently responsible for regulating the militia. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power...to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The only authority that states are provided is to appoint officers and conduct training as required and detailed by Congress. Your entire argument is remarkably similar to the Anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution. I would think that we would favor more the founding fathers who gave us the Constitution, like Alexander Hamilton. In Federalist No. 29 Hamilton responded to the very arguments you're making now. "Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts?"

You completely misunderstand the history of the country during the late 18th century and the Second Amendment, which served to protect the government from rebellion and insurrection, not to protect those who would rebel against the government.

Toy578

I wouldn't expect that you will see any response, Devin. From what I see from these postings, folks are too busy arguing about whether or not it is REALLY true that 90% of Americans are in favor of expanding background checks. What the heck, maybe it's merely 75%. Then they argue about that darn slippery slope, forgetting that we already have background checks, but they are not inclusive enough to be effective. If it is OK to force retail outlets to perform background checks, why NOT cover every gun sale? Doesn't matter if it's 40% or 20% of gun sales that occur without a background check. There is simply no reason to exclude gun show sales or internet sales by private individuals.

longjohn412

It's this simple

Expanded background checks make it harder to run illegal guns to the Mexican and South American Drug Cartels and hence CONsiderably lower sales for the Weapons Manufacturers

They know where those guns are going but they are Immoral and just don't care ... And the Goobers, well they are easy enough to control via their Authoritarian Father Figures .... Republican Pols and the Think Tanks that control them know all it takes is a couple of keywoprds and you can manipulate these morons into saying and doing anything

Just look at the complete 180 degree Flip Flops they made on their own ideas like Mandatory Healthcare Insurance, Cap and Trade, Campaign Finance Disclosure and of course the world's fastest Flip Flop, Mitch McConnell filibustering his own bill in the Senate ....

Six_String
Six_String

So... If running guns to Mexican drug cartels is "a bad thing" - Shouldn't we have some indictments by now for Fast and Furious? At least some 2nd degree manslaughter for contributing to the death of the border patrol agent?

rbg52803

Expanded background checks do absolutely nothing to curtail illegal activity. We have background checks in place right now and yet they are still running guns to where ever they want. Laws will not stop anyone from committing a crime much like signs that say "Gun Free Zones" do not stop criminals from targeting defenseless children all brought to you courtesy of liberal minds that believe themselves to be correct even in the face of facts that gun control does not work. Never has never will.

rbg52803

Oh, and how does anytype of background check affect the manufacturers? They sell to liscensed dealers and the government not to gun shows or drug cartels.

Six_String
Six_String

How about addressing the Mexican cartels that got semi-auto rifles from Arizona dealers who DID raise red flags, and the ATF said "Sell them anyway"?

Putting extra restrictions on law abiding citizens does NOTHING to help, while our own gov't goes out of the way to arm the bad guys.

Six_String
Six_String

*Sigh* Internet sale - Ships to FFL dealer who does the NICS check. Gun show purchase - The seller asks to see your FOID / Purchase Permit.

I fail to see no slippery slope here, only people that are 100% ignorant of how the background check process works, and spend WAY too much time listening to the political mantras of their Dead Leader.

rbg52803

Wow, Republican obstructionism? Why is it that this card always gets played when something that does not work that is being forced upon us by liberals gets voted down? You think this was Republican? I clearly saw several Democrats that voted it down. Oh.... wait..... those must have been the NRA controlled Democrats, right? Gun control has never worked and it never will. You are not going to legislate evil out of human beings. Murder is alread illegal. How about we just leave it at that instead of continuing to force laws upon people that only affect those willing to obey them? Gun control is not about public safety. It is about public control. Glad to see so many liberals willing to give up their rights out of a misguided conception of temporary safety. Franklin stated "Those that would give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." and how so very right he was. If you don't want a gun, then don't own one.

Devin H
Devin H

Ok, so 55 Democrats in the Senate, but with a filibuster, they needed 60 votes. So its the Dem's fault they couldn't talk 5 Republicans into voting for a background check? Seeing all the venom on this board for just a background check, I can see why a Republican wouldn't want to anger the loud-minority.

rbg52803

Could you show me where gun control works? Could you show me where back ground checks prevent crime? Could you show me where any type of legislation has ever stopped a criminal from killing someone? Why is it always the rationale that adding more laws is going to stop someone from breaking them when the first laws never stopped them? MURDER IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. ARMED ROBBERY IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. The overwhelming majority of criminals do not get their weapons legally. They get them from the black market. Less than 2% of all crimes committed with a gun were done with legally purchased weapons. How is any more legislation goint to stop a problem that has been ineffectual with all of the laws we already have that are barely enforced in the first place? The real issue is that gun control has never been about public safety. It has always been about public control and those that fear guns fall for this false logic every single time. You fail to see that our government has never wanted safety for us, they want to control us. Again, how is making background checks anywhere going to stop a criminal from obtaining weapons and shooting someone? It won't.

aequitas
aequitas

rbg52803,

"The numbers show that background checks do keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who are not supposed to have them. Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone, the most recent year for which data is available." http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17689167-background-checks-for-guns-what-you-need-to-know?lite

"In 2012, 38 people who were accused or convicted of homicides applied for gun ownership in Colorado. In addition, 600 burglars, 1,300 people who committed felonies, and 400 people who had restraining orders from a judge also tried to buy guns." http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/03/watch-this-thing-works-says-colorado-governor-on-new-gun-law/

That would all indicate that background checks work at keeping firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

[quote]"Could you show me where any type of legislation has ever stopped a criminal from killing someone?"[/quote]

It is impossible to prove a negative as you are requesting. It can be demonstrated, as I pointed out before, that background checks did make it more difficult for prohibited individuals to obtain firearms.

TR

Twiggy...you mentioned nuclear bomb testing by Korea. I recently listened to Andrea Mitchell on the Today show talk about America continuing to give money to North Korea plus we are still selling them fuel. Sounds to me like we've been trying to "Buy Peace". She didn't say how long this has been going on. But according to Andrea Mitchell, North Korea has used this sort of scare tactic in the past in order to get more benefits out of America.
This was all news to me, but what does this say about some of our politicians in Washington?

twiggy
twiggy

What it says is you don't know the difference between north and south. We do not and have not given ANYTHING to NORYH Korea. South Korea is our ally. You misunderstood.

TR

Twiggy...I wasn't aware South Korea was testing nuclear weapons? My hearing is quite well and that is what Andrea Mitchell said on the Today show week before last. She stated..."North Korea has been receiving money from the USA and we have been selling North Korea fuel. Plus, she stated that North Korea has pulled these kinds of tactics in the past to get more out of America.
I am fully aware that South Korea is our ally and we have a treaty with them to protect them against any North Korea hostilities.
I am sorry, but I know what I heard on the Today show week before last.

Six_String
Six_String

I suggest you go look at the money given to North Korea at least every couple of years as "hush" money. They rattle their swords, then hold out their hands for us to pay them off to go away for a year or two.

jaydoll

I grew up in the area but now live in Washington State. I check in all the time and when I saw this headline I thought "Oh Brother" the QCTimes has guzzled the kool-aid and is now a political hack for the Liberal Dems. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that Sen Grassley failed the state and the country with his vote. Little by little our freedoms are being eroded and this would be one more step in that direction. Big brother (Government) has quite enough power over us and I don't care to give anymore up. BTW - I do not own guns, don't like them but I do cherish the Constitution. Sen Harkin failed the state when he voted for Obamacare. Try that on for size Editorial Board.

QC Father

I cannot believe we are even talking about this. For the last decade or more, Chuck has been out of touch with his constituents. He has been working for the big money lobbyists for at least a decade.

This is exactly why there should be term limits. Chuck, has sold out to the Big Oil companies, Monsanto, basically every thing that has control of our government.
Ever since he started getting nominated for major committees, he has blatantly buck the people voice, and does what is best for him, his farm, his pocket book.

He REALLY is a black eye for our state. The man is crooked, lifetime politician of taking care of his agenda, and NOBODY has seen this before? The MAN MUST GO !!!!

By the way, I did not vote for one republican, or democrat in the last election. There are independents out there, brilliant people, but get blocked from debates, not taken seriously, can't get media coverage, because they don't have the money to spend on commercials.

If you want....keep voting for the same ole two party system, expect more of the same.

rbg52803

Grassley voted no due to an overwhleming response from his constituents that asked him not to approve of this ineffectual bill. Criminals do not purchase their guns from gun stores or trade shows. They either buy them on the black market or they outright steal them (the vast majority anyway). Less than 2% of all crimes committed using a gun were done with legally purchased weapons (either from a gun store or trade show). The overwhelming majority of sales conducted at a gun show are through dealers and they must follow the same guidelines as they do if they were selling a weapon at their store. Background checks and federal paperwork are filled out. Very few sales are actually through private individuals at gun shows so the hysteria of this supposed "loophole" that liberal politicians are trying to paint for their reasoning behind gun show sales if a farse and nothing more than hype in trying to get their stepping stones to confiscation. Almost every single politician that has stated that they are merely targeting certain weapons of mass destruction have later said that they eventually will be going for total confiscation. An armed citizen is free, a disarmed citizen is a subject.

Six_String
Six_String

Confiscation is the key word. Feinstein's flat out said she'd do that if she could. So did Gov Cuomo in New York. Harry Reid recently "slipped" and said banning guns was the ultimate plan.

The libs think by denying it that everyone else will say "Oh, that's OK, we KNOW you just want to ban that one type of gun" (and then pistol, and revolver, and sling shot...)

John Rambo

Having an opinion is one thing. Spouting off this "eighty percent" figure just makes you lose credibility though... 102% of statistics are manipulated or biased in favor of the one presenting them.

Devin H
Devin H

Actually, this type of thinking is exactly why so many republicans were absolutely sure that Romney was going to defeat Obama. They said, "You can't believe the polls." When in fact, Nate Silver and the rest of the mathematicians proved, without a doubt, that their polling was highly accurate. Ignoring polls and public opinion, is why the GOP is so far out of touch with regular Americans, and so in-touch with the aging angry white guy minority....

freesenior

You have a point. The Republicans wanted to believe that their position was sane, and that sane people would understand that. The Party Leadership could not bring themselves to risk anything by actually taking a firm position. 12 million of their expected support stayed home. In the end insanity prevailed and an unfit mob elected what one would expect; unfit rulers that pander to bread and games. Everyone can fall prey to trusting too much. I do buy the polling. But not for purposes of elections but for purposes of showing divide, ignorance, arrogance and incompetence of a failed culture.

rbg52803

Really, I have always seen that coming from liberals and very rarely coming from Conservatives. You may have a few points that are true but the overwhelming mindset of liberalism is one of unfit rulers that pander bread and games. As for buying the polling, how? Polls are conducted with trigger questions and will very rarely reflect the true opinion of people. They are bought and paid for by organizations looking to convince people of their targeted demographic. I have had several friends and family members who have worked for polling companies and they all say the same thing, they are rigged to lead people to believe what they want them to believe.

rbg52803

Sorry freesenior, I misunderstood your comment. I tried to remove my previous comment but this site does not let me do that. After re-reading your statement again and the statements that you were responding to, I agree with you.

John Rambo

Devin, the problem with the polls, on this particular subject, is how mis-informed/ignorant much of the anti-gun crowd is. Fact is, we Iowans already do have background checks before we can buy a gun from a firearms dealer, whether it be online, in a store, or at a show. This background check comes from the fact that we need to have a permit to purchase. So, the polls indicating public opinion show that the public (much of it, including myself) expresses the desire for something that is ALREADY BEING DONE... It is an assumption on my part, backed up by close observation in conversations, discussion boards, facebook talks, etc... that a very high percentage of the anti-gun crowd does not know this, hence their answers and what I would consider skewed poll results! Don't believe me? Even some anti-gun policy makers have displayed their ignorance publicly on this topic. Take Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado for example. She does not even know that magazines and clips are reloadable, yet she wants to craft the law on firearms! Pure ignorance! Unfortunately, this is such a hot topic where most are passionate one way or another, that as I have already mentioned, people are being anti-gun with their hearts when their brains don't even understand the situation at hand.

aequitas
aequitas

Background checks are conducted if you purchase from a licensed dealer whether it's in a shop, online, or at a gun show. Nobody...well, almost nobody...is ignorant of that fact. There are many other sales, however, that do not require background checks including private person to person sales.

You misinterpret Iowa law regarding permit to purchase. There is no provision of law punishing the private seller if he or she does not require a permit to purchase/acquire. The purchaser violates the law if he or she does not have a permit, but there's no requirement for a seller to check. And it's only illegal under federal law if you knowingly sell to a prohibited person. Therefore, if you don't require a permit to acquire as a private seller, you won't know that the purchaser is a prohibited person under federal law.

cruzrlady09
cruzrlady09

Thank you Sen. Grassley for supporting the 2nd Amendment.
I would like to know who the 80% of people are that would
vote to have this gun control passed; are we now a nation
of poll lemmings, following the libs and left over the
Constitutional cliff?

45acp

The Toomey-Manchin bill was not as benign as the left wants everybody to think, as anybody who has studied it knows. Thank goodness Grassley recognizes what a slippery slope it would have led us down and stood up and did the right thing. This bill would have done absolutely nothing to prevent any of the recent shootings and certainly wouldn't have stopped the Boston bombing. Strictly enforce the laws we have for a change and quit letting criminals go with a slap on the wrist, or is that too much trouble?

Flashcracker
Flashcracker


We were taught in school how polls are manipulated with the right wording. I don't believe the 90% poll at all, they are just trying to brain wash the public with.
It will be a sad day when Senators start voting with the information from poll results instead of the hand written letters they receive for the people!

longjohn412

I bet you said the exact same thing the day before the last election, didn't you?

You cannot keep guns away from the Mentally Ill unless you actual check when they try to buy a gun .... That's just plain old Common Sense

45acp

Adam Lanza did try to buy a gun but was unsuccessful, but that didn't matter, he used his mothers gun... Your background check wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever... You can't mix up health records with background checks, that will never pass because where would it stop... Perhaps the DOT should start looking at medical records before issuing a drivers license??? A car can certainly do as much damage as a gun... Oklahoma City and Boston tragedies were caused by bombers, how do you intend to stop that??? The recent knife attack in China wounded 22 school children, another knife attack in China in 2010 killed one teacher and 7 children... Evil exists, you cannot stop it with ineffective feel good laws... That's just plain old common sense...

longjohn412

Grassley fails Iowans .... period

He has ever since he crammed that 100% Debt Financed, completely and totally UNFUNDED Medicare Big Drug and Big Insurance Subsidy that added over $500 billion to the National Debt before the recent CORRECTION under the Affordable Care Act

He sold us out then but most of you fools voted for him again anyway .....

45acp

I'll change that to Harkin fails Iowans..... period

Thank goodness Grassley has the gonads and foresight to vote for what is right.. You talk about the Affordable Care Act, that one that Harkin supported and Obama shoved down our throats that had to be made law so we could find out what was in it!!! Give me a break, Obamacare is going to be the biggest financial boondoggle of all time... Not to mention how the quality of our heath care is going to suffer....

No, Harkin sold us out but some of your fools still support him, and Obama...

rbg52803

Spot on .45. I agree 100%.

Six_String
Six_String

Harkin has never voted for anything other than what the party supports.

rbg52803

EXACTLY!!!!!! Very well said.

dozer44

what?? failed ,, he stood up for us iowans

rbg52803

Agreed.

Wheezy
Wheezy

Agreed.

Thadeus

Hey.... editorial board...... never use a preposition to end a sentence 'with'. Check your last sentence !!!

Toy578

Hey...Thadeus.....as used in the last sentence, "to" is NOT a preposition. Check your high school English book!!!

Fred W

Thank you QC Times for telling it like it is. Isn't it amazing that Chuck Grassley voted no on expanded background checks but is conveniently on the dole from this bill's greatest adversary - the NRA! It begs the question - who exactly is Grassley representing in the Senate? This coward could give a flip about the will of 80+ percent of his constituents in Iowa. Rather, he caved to his campaign money trough, the NRA. His excuses mirrored the flat out lies of his NRA benefactors when he claimed (1) that this bill was an infringement on second amendment rights which could too easily lead to the establishment of a gun registry; (2) known relative-to relative or friend-to-friend gun sales would require a background check. Both are boldfaced lies which Grassley perpetuated. There's a huge loophole in this country where gun sales at gun shows and intrastate gun sales on the internet often go unfettered with no background checks at all. How ridiculous is it not to close this loophole? If just a few more criminals, terrorists, and deranged people are prevented from obtaining guns, this legislation is more than worth it. Grassley and the other 45 senators who voted down this bill have no business being in the Senate when they fail to represent the overwhelming will of their constituents. Shame on you Chuck Grassley along with the other 45 cowards! Can't wait to vote this sorry bunch out of office.

freesenior

Only a person that can be bought is going to assume that someone else is subject to such temptations. Did you ever consider that he might actually agree with their position?

twiggy
twiggy

Korea plans nuclear bomb tests., but I'm not worried because nuclear bombs don't kill people. People kill people!

TR

The polls showed 80% of the American people favored further gun control laws? Thats a load of B.S. put out by Washington Liberal politicians.
I commend Senator Chuck Grassley for his continual support of our Second Amendment Rights in this country. He stood up for our freedoms and he certainly will have my vote in the future.
As far as those politicians who tried to further restrict our Second Amendment freedom, the 2014 elections are not that far away and I swear to you that I will vote AGAINST you in 2014 and any future elections until you are voted out of office. This country does not need liberal dictators such as you in politicial office.

Fred W

Please tell us specifically how the expanded background check amendment, the Toomey-Manchin bill, restricted second amendment freedoms? The fact is, you can't, because it did no such thing. As for your contention that the 80+ percent polling on expanded background checks was somehow a concoction of Washington liberal politicians - how so? News organizations in most instances did the polling including among them, The Wall Street Journal and Fox News - hardly bastions of liberal philosophy! Grassley's display of cowardice with his "no" vote on this bill is an affront to all of his constituents.

zipcodeusa

Punishing criminals is the answer not more gun control laws.

Six_String
Six_String

On the contrary, I think he was one of our legislators that actually paid attention to the real world. All of the democrats in Congress (and the WH) are spewing fake statistics and carting in people to appeal to emotions instead of facts. Instead of blaming inanimate objects for the criminal activities, why don't we make harsher punishments for violent criminals. Commit a gun crime, no chance of parole. No early release. No plea deals.

Everyone keeps whining about "gun show loopholes." In Iowa and Illinois, you have to pass a background check to get your FOID or purchase permit. There's not a single vendor at a gun show that's going to sell a rifle or handgun without seeing a valid permit. I've bought and sold many firearms. Not once have I just sold one without seeing the other guy's FOID or purchase permit, made copies of drivers license info and other personal info. What I can't understand are the bleeding hearts that think legislation mandating "universal" checks is going to make one bit of difference to a criminal.

Put some teeth in the existing laws instead of making new laws. It seems like that's all we do any more. There are already plenty of gun laws. There are already distracted driving laws. Put some real penalties in place for what is already against the law, and get rid of the judges that give criminals 2 months of church on Sunday, or give the leniency because they had a rough childhood.

Six_String
Six_String

4 hours, and the anti 2nd crowd chooses to pick the low hanging fruit. I have yet to see anyone come back with any response to my position. Point being, there's no way to argue against logic.

45acp

Well said Six Sting...

aequitas
aequitas

If everyone is already requiring a background check, then why be against the requirement? Universal background checks wouldn't burden anyone by your own admission.

John Rambo

You are wrong when you state that almost nobody is ignorant of the fact that people are required to have a background checked permit to purchase from a dealer at the store, online (which still requires it to be shipped to a dealer, or at a show. As I pointed out earlier, not even all of the Democrat lawmakers know what the heck they are talking about, and they are trying to make the laws! Certainly, with ignorance at the top of pyramid, it is only going to get greater when it comes down to the base. The polls were not worded correctly because they did not explain the fact that there are already background checks. I believe you are a pretty smart person, so if you stick to your story, I am going to also believe that you know this and are ignoring the facts to try to bring credibility to these 80 and 90 percent claims. You and I both know one can't argue with those numbers as support for further legislation when what they were polling already exists. An unbiased observer will admit that those numbers show support for what already is, and/or the new legislation. It isn't exclusive to new laws, and it shouldn't be considering they don't enforce the ones currently on the books.

aequitas
aequitas

John Rambo, certain online sales do not ship to a licensed dealer. There are person-to-person transfers online which are completely legal and do not require any background check. Background checks are also not legally required for private person-to-person transfers at gun shows. They are only required for transfers from licensed dealers. This bill fixed those loopholes.

Again, if according to you these checks are already being done and the bill would not have changed anything, why be against it? The reason you're against it is that it actually would change the status quo which exempts private sales online and at gun shows.

Six_String
Six_String

The criminals will STILL not do background check their biddy when they swap a stolen gun for a bag of pot. It also should not involve links to registration, requiring insurance, licenses, etc., like a lot of the chatter is suggesting they're after.

aequitas
aequitas

The only chatter suggesting that is most appropriately deemed "the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts" as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29. The Toomey-Manchin bill did nothing you suggest.

rbg52803

They do burden law abiding citizens. They do nothing but put people in a national registry (which is illegal but they get around that) which leads to them knowing who has guns. The 2nd Amendment is about ensuring that we have provisions against tyranny in government. How can we be assured against tyranny when these things lead to confiscation? Don't think that is going to happen? It already is happening. You think it is a coincidence that they "randomly" raided homes in New Orleans and confiscated guns illegally? You think it was a coincidence that they "randomly" raided homes in Watertown,Ma in which they confiscated guns from several people? These home invasions will become the norm in this country if we let them and the only thing stopping them from doing this on a continued basis is to have an armed citizenry. Every single country that has enacted gun legislation has confiscated weapons from people and this was not out of a public safety issue. They don't want those weapons being used against them. Gun control of any form is not about public safety. It is about public control.

aequitas
aequitas

The Toomey-Manchin bill explicitly prohibited a national registry, which proves you don't know what you're talking about. From the text of the bill:

"Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed to...allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry."

Furthermore, your reading of the Second Amendment contradicts the historical record. The Second Amendment was meant to protect the country, including its government, from invasion and insurrection. It was not supposed to protect insurrectionists from their government. Based on your reading, the country should have celebrated Shays Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and Gabriel's Rebellion. It most certainly did not.

[quote]"Every single country that has enacted gun legislation has confiscated weapons from people and this was not out of a public safety issue."[/quote]

We've had gun legislation since before our country was founded.

rbg52803

Sorry aequitas. No matter what they want you to believe, every time a back ground check is run for the purpose of purchasing a weapon, it goes into a database. Every time you make a purchase of a weapon, the serial numbers of that weapon go into a database and is accessed by the ATF. So blow smoke up someone else's backside. They already register weapons everytime you make a purchase. As for your understanding of our history of the 2nd Amendment, you better check yourself on that one. Read the Federalist papers and tell me again how it was given to us to protect OUR government. Thomas Jefferson stated quite simply "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" and of course the best one from Jefferson was "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Here are some more from those that you believe did not mean we were being warned against tyranny from within government, ours as well:

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

Is that enough for you to believe that the 2nd Amendment was given to us to protect us from our own government if necessary? They were talking about any government, including our own, that would remove our arms and bring tyranny against us not just protecting us from the British, SIR!

aequitas
aequitas

rbg52803,

I'm sorry if the facts I presented got in the way of your rhetoric. I quoted the actual bill.

Regarding the Federalist Papers, I have read them and read them again from time to time. Perhaps you would benefit from setting aside some time to read them.

Many of the Thomas Jefferson quotes you provided have not been located in any of his writings. They're a fake. A fraud.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-to-retain-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-quotation
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinion/jefferson-fake-gun-quotation
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation

As for the Declaration of Independence, perhaps you should read on about the actual abuses and usurpations our founders faced. They would think that folks like you are whining about trivial things given the oppression that they faced. Hiding behind their banner diminishes the great sacrifices they made.

Bringing us back to the central question of interpretation of the Second Amendment, why should we rely upon the understanding of the anti-federalists, of which Jefferson was a part, with greater weight instead of the federalists who gave us the Constitution?

Elbridge Gerry was another vocal opponent of the Constitution. While he did favor an extremely limited central government, he decidedly switched his position in favor of greater central control as a result of Shay's Rebellion.

Your first Madison quote from Federalist #46 is inaccurate.

Federalist #29 actually supports federal regulation.

Again, worried about a standing army, our founders supported militia of the people, as regulated by Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, to secure our liberty. Again, the right was expected to be regulated.

Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry, other noted anti-federalists. Why should we give more weight to the founders who lost the argument over the Constitution? You're ignoring all of the founders who actually supported the Constitution. Why is that?

aequitas
aequitas

Another Elbridge Gerry factoid: In that same debate you referenced, "A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done." I Annals of Congress at 780

Again, even Gerry supported the notion that it was the government's responsibility to regulate firearms.

Betttaxpayer

The Newtown tragedy would NOT have been prevented by more background checks. The owner of the weapons passed a background check. Her son stole the weapons, killed her and then shot up the school. When someone can explain how expanded background checks would have prevented the Newtown massacre then I'll consider supporting more laws. (Of course enforcing our current gun laws might also help) Recall the gunman who killed the teenage girl in Chicago a while back had a previous gun crime conviction but he received NO jail time for that crime, only probation.

senor citizen

Only when pressure cookers are outlawed, only the outlaws will have pressure cookers

Six_String
Six_String

Only marginally funny. I've already seen comments from people out east wanting to ban black powder for muzzle-loaders and BBs over a certain number. Just when I thought I'd get the air-gun out to be able to shoot (since there's no ammo anywhere), this becomes a new item on the "ban" list.

The legislators just don't get it that you can't legislate safety for the odd situations where someone wants to hurt others. It's human nature - Only solution, dispose of the ones that do it.

senor citizen

Outlaw chainsaws and steak knives? The OK City bombers were executed and all murderers should be. The courts have gone nuts with sympathy for the perps.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.