NRA chief opposes universal background checks for gun purchases

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 13

    Elbuda Mexicano

    I am sure most people, even NRA supporters understand this is ONLY COMMON SENSE, and that this fool, La Pierre is only worried about $$$$$$ and does not give a rat's ass about the lives of our kids, even after Sandy Hook, or that one teenager from Chicago getting shot to death after attending Mr.Obama's inauguration! So La Pierre, may you burn in hell for all of eternity because you and all those selling guns and ammo etc...have tons and tons of BLOOD on your dirty hands!

  • 5

    globalwatcher

    NRA is a messanger of Devil. Jesus wept.

  • 0

    cleo

    They're arguing over whether to put a sticking plaster on a cancer.

  • 4

    Bgood41

    Background check for gun owners might be a good step, but the big hurdle depends on creating a complete national data base that would including a reporting system of mental illness. psychiatric medication, drug abused, violence prone individuals... by doctors and law enforcement into the data. Then, their privacy and constitutional rights might be at stake, and who is going to determine of what degree to deny a non criminal taking certain prescription drugs from owning a gun? Maybe one solution is the amendment to preserve the right, but with required "license" to own a gun. There should be a professional license requirement to be passed similar to law enforcement or medical license in owning a gun, thus proving the responsibility and knowledge, thereof. Buying a gun is not like buying a taco, for national consensus and legality are at stake for all citizens.

  • 1

    slumdog

    “It’s going to affect only the law-abiding people,” he said. “Criminals could care less.

    The criminals could care less? That means they care more than LaPierre cares about the future of his country's citizens.

  • 4

    FightingViking

    The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre said on “Fox News Sunday” that background checks for all gun purchases would lead to a national registry of gun owners. Critics say such a registry could lead to taxes on guns or to confiscation.

    Excellent idea ! But even better yet, stop this childish idea of : "It's my right to own a gun !" Grow up America !

  • 0

    Jimizo

    'Everyone acknowledges we should do something with background checks'. Good to see that Reid is ignoring the views of the insane.

  • 0

    Farmboy

    So everyone just goes out and buys the best gun possible. Rich folks can buy better guns, and can mow down poor folks. Poor folks can mow down crazy folks, and crazy folks can mow down anyone left. Done in the proper order, this leaves us with a wealthy class of sane people who will have no mechanics, waiters, or sales clerks. Hmmm.

  • -1

    Surf O'Holic

    " background checks for all gun purchases would lead to a national registry of gun owners. Critics say such a registry could lead to taxes on guns or to confiscation."

    Whether you agree with him or not, he's at least partially correct. With a national database of firearms registered, what are the odds that database would not be hacked or otherwise abused? Look at the example of the NY newspaper that published the names and addresses of legal gun owners. Imagine that on the national scale.

  • 0

    minello7

    Does he have a problem ,whats so difficult about background check, or a data base of owners or a national registry. They do that for bicycles in Japan.(except for the background check)

  • 2

    Nessie

    So the position has gone from "if we ban guns, only the criminals will have them" to "we encourage everyone to have guns, even the criminals."

  • 0

    japan_cynic

    Yes Farmboy, because that is actually going to happen. No, really, I agree with you. It really will.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    "The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre said on “Fox News Sunday” that background checks for all gun purchases would lead to a national registry of gun owners."

    Egads! The world would end if that happened! What is it LaPierre has to hide? There is absolutely no logic in any argument against universal checks.

  • 2

    globalwatcher

    "The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre said on “Fox News Sunday” that background checks for all gun purchases would lead to a national registry of gun owners."

    ....and Mayor Bloomberg even came up with an idea that those who want to own gun for the protection do not have to call police for help. They can take care of themselves, so the law enforcement does not have to respond. We leave them alone.

  • 3

    slumdog

    "The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre said on “Fox News Sunday” that background checks for all gun purchases would lead to a national registry of gun owners."

    Good, that is what it should lead to.

  • -1

    bass4funk

    @fightingviking

    stop this childish idea of : "It's my right to own a gun !" Grow up America !

    How is it childish when it is my right as a FREE law-abiding American citizen to own a gun. Proud to say it and I would say it every single time, has nothing to do with growing up.

    @jimizo

    Good to see that Reid is ignoring the views of the insane.

    Reid is a hypocrite, who the heck cares what Reid thinks? The man himself is staunch gun owner, then he wants to play the part of savior, but ask him if he would give his guns up. It'll never happen!

    @smith

    Egads! The world would end if that happened! What is it LaPierre has to hide? There is absolutely no logic in any argument against universal checks.

    Now on the other hand, I do agree with that premise. It's a double-edged sword. Personally, I'm for universal background checks, but as bgood41 there are a lot of things that you need to consider if you go that route.

  • 1

    billyshears

    what you can say about wayne (salary, an incredible $970,300 a year from the NRA) is that he is one of the faces of the right that helped put Obama back into office.

  • 2

    billyshears

    The NRA is quite a big business with an astonishing annual revenue of $228,000,000. Obviously, they don't want to let go any of that goose. Interesting article about the NRA here:

    http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/43-43/12948-who-runs-the-nra

  • 0

    SuperLib

    So once again it comes down to the paranoia of the NRA which says any kind of responsibility attached to gun sellers and owners is a step towards the government invading homes. LaPierre knows the current system amounts to a voluntary background check since people can get them from other sources that do no checking. And apparently to him that's the best it's going to get and we should stop trying.

  • 2

    samwatters

    My 2 cents worth: the real reason the NRA is against registration is because it is the step before the legalizing and requiring of biometric gun handles. These handles are custom made and can only be fired by palm/finger prints that match prints of the person who registered that particular gun. This would have rendered useless the guns Adam Lanza used as well as any gun stolen. Unfortuately it would add $US50 to the cost of each gun, greatly inhibit exhibition/gun show sales and end internet sales.

  • 2

    LFRAgain

    "With a national database of firearms registered, what are the odds that database would not be hacked or otherwise abused? Look at the example of the NY newspaper that published the names and addresses of legal gun owners. Imagine that on the national scale."

    So what if that information is illegally accessed and abused? By the NRA's official estimation, gun owners are automatically prepared to deal with the sinister by virtue of possessing a firearm. If someone acts on the information gleaned from such a database and the gun owner doesn't like it, why, then he or she can simply shoot the offender. Stand Your Ground Laws and whatnot.

    OR. . . .

    We could all take a measured dose of sanity and the NRA leadership could work really hard to pull their heads out of the deepest pits of ignorance and paranoia and try to be a part of society, rather than a fringe group of loons waiting for the chance to shoot its way out of said society when the going gets tough. The first step would be to can this jackass who speaks for a small minority of NRA membership.

  • 0

    Surf O'Holic

    Canada had a national long gun registry law which was repealed one year ago.

    " Despite spending a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a long-gun registry, Canadians never reaped any benefits from the project. The legislation to end the program finally passed the Parliament on Wednesday. Even though the country started registering long guns in 1998, the registry never solved a single murder. Instead it has been an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from patrolling Canadian streets and doing traditional policing activities."

    It was a massive waste of tax-payer money, and did nothing to reduce nor prevent gun crime, so it was scrapped. If the goal in the US is to reduce national unemployment by creating the tens of thousands of new positions that would be required to manage such a program that would at best be of no effect on reducing crime as the Canadians discovered, then let Feinstien put it on her tab.

  • -2

    Surf O'Holic

    " So what if that information is illegally accessed and abused?"

    Ok, then how about a national registry database of all gun-free residences? Surely, no one would access that information nefariously.

  • 1

    2020hindsights

    It was a massive waste of tax-payer money, and did nothing to reduce nor prevent gun crime, so it was scrapped.

    So US should learn from Canada's mistakes when they build their gun registry.

    Critics say such a registry could lead to taxes on guns or to confiscation.

    And that's a bad thing? ;-)

  • 2

    2020hindsights

    The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre said on “Fox News Sunday” that background checks for all gun purchases would lead to a national registry of gun owners.

    They have a registry for car owners and it seems to work OK without any issues. What's wrong with doing this for gun owners?

  • 2

    FightingViking

    @basroil

    How is it childish when it is my right as a FREE law-abiding American citizen to own a gun. Proud to say it and I would say it every single time, has nothing to do with growing up.

    That's the whole problem...

  • 1

    Dennis Bauer

    Doesn't the NRA have "most" gun users in their database?

    What will he say next make a crying youtube video "leave the gun alone!"

  • -4

    Surf O'Holic

    「 Critics say such a registry could lead to taxes on guns or to confiscation.」 " And that's a bad thing? ;-)"

    Yes, it is. Particularly to every LEGAL gun owner.

  • -3

    Surf O'Holic

    " They have a registry for car owners and it seems to work OK without any issues. What's wrong with doing this for gun owners?"

    When certain specifications of existing cars becomes politically incorrect and thereafter illegal, then the owners of those cars may have to relinquish them. For example, minimum fuel effeciency could be set to ban cars that don't meet the new standard or emissions testing. That would hit certain parts of the population much harder than others.

  • -2

    billyshears

    Ok, then how about a national registry database of all gun-free residences? Surely, no one would access that information nefariously.

    ...except maybe a gun-toting robber, who (with that kind of information) would have no fear of reprisal once inside the said person's residence?

  • -1

    Surf O'Holic

    @billyshears,

    Yeah, that's the point.

  • 2

    JanesBlonde

    Why can't Americans balance the "right to bear arms" and "sensible gun control regulations"?

    10,000+ deaths a year by hand guns alone would not be tolerated in any other country in the western world .... apart from the USA.

    I mean, who really needs 4 assault rifles in their house .... unless your living in Iraq or north Africa.

  • 0

    JDB829

    What else can you expect from a person of this caliber !

  • 3

    minello7

    A good solution would be , all guns registered to their owner, and then if that gun is used in a felony even if the owner wasn't the person using it, he or she gets charged with the crime. Sort of make people think about owning a gun.

  • 1

    Laguna

    Dragging this out is in the interest of the NRA. Debate over assault weapons? - Ka-ching! - the paranoid go running to load up. Possible blanket gun registration? Ka-ching!

    The irony is that it is the very mega-corporations so many gun-happy paranoids are opposed to - Halliburton, for example - that own the gun manufacturers and are profiting from this madness.

    samwatters, the NRA would LOVE a debate about requiring biometrics on handguns. Ka-ching! The only hope is a national standard with a grandfather clause phased out over, say, a decade, so that the surplus of guns will either be handed in voluntarily or confiscated.

  • 1

    Kabukilover

    I would not trust LaPierre with a loaded gun. I hope this is the beginning of the end of the NRA.

  • -4

    Surf O'Holic

    " The only hope is a national standard with a grandfather clause phased out over, say, a decade, so that the surplus of guns will either be handed in voluntarily or confiscated."

    The last word is the left-liberal-socialist-whatever's actual goal.

    Those who take such a position(it's your right) are cordially invited to relocate to a jurisdiction where individuals have only the collectively-approved permissions. Say....France?

  • 2

    Thunderbird2

    The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre said on “Fox News Sunday” that background checks for all gun purchases would lead to a national registry of gun owners. Critics say such a registry could lead to taxes on guns or to confiscation.

    Sounds like a sensible idea to me... I'm shocked that there ISN'T a registry on gun owners. Bloody well should be with the number of loonies running about with weapons.

  • 2

    Tamarama

    The NRA should be exculded from this debate altogether. There is no way they can offer a balanced perspective on this at all.

  • -1

    sailwind

    The NRA should be exculded from this debate altogether.

    Most of the time a lobbying groups like the NRA aren't really given that much press actually. Planned Parenthood, AARP, AMA generally only get mentioned when politicians are trying to curry there endorsements come election time. The Media narrative is to demonize the NRA right now so they'll get plenty of bad press.

    Low information voters with room temperature I.Q's after relentless negative articles on the NRA will hopefully internalize that they bad, bad, bad and get popular support going for stricter gun laws.

    Those voters that have a bit more intelligence that can't easily be manipulated through sound bites can pretty much be counted on when ask if the NRA is going to pretty much oppose any and all gun regulation to answer with a collective "Duh"......It's their entire purpose for existing in the first place to protect private gun ownership.

    But we need a villain here and the NRA is it in the media's narrative driven reporting right now.

  • 2

    Laguna

    .It's their entire purpose for existing in the first place to protect private gun ownership. But we need a villain here and the NRA is it in the media's narrative driven reporting right now.

    Very well-written post, Sail, except that you're missing the point. No one is trying to take away your guns; in fact,entertaining the idea that someone is trying to take away your guns might in fact be evidence that you're too imbalanced to possess a gun.

    Society is demanding more responsibility from gun owners and from society towards gun owners, and the NRA is opposing even the most common-sense, simplest measures. They may be digging their own grave; after the short-term "ka-ching!" phase of gun gluttony is over, Americans may come to see them as what they are. On the other hand, they may succeed in gumming up the process to the point where no progress may be made. In either case, they are a vile group, and lumping them in with other public advocacy groups is ridiculous.

  • 2

    SuperLib

    sailwind: Low information voters with room temperature I.Q's after relentless negative articles on the NRA will hopefully internalize that they bad, bad, bad and get popular support going for stricter gun laws

    There are low information voters on each side of the issue, sail. I've seen you bring this up before.

    The press doesn't need to make the NRA the bad guy. Putting out commercials talking about the President's kids does that just fine.

  • 5

    badman

    I find it ironic that La Pierre testified before congress several years ago asking for universal background checks and now that Obama and the Dems are proposing that he is pattently against it.

    That contrarian atmosphere in US politics is slowly dragging them to their own demise.

  • -3

    Surf O'Holic

    " in fact,entertaining the idea that someone is trying to take away your guns might in fact be evidence that you're too imbalanced to possess a gun."

    That sounds an awful lot like a personal insult, alleging that another person may be mentally "imbalanced".

  • 0

    Surf O'Holic

    " Society is demanding more responsibility from gun owners and from society towards gun owners, and the NRA is opposing even the most common-sense, simplest measures." Try reading what the NRA actually states regarding gun safety:

    http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

  • 0

    RomeoRII

    The NRA should be exculded from this debate altogether

    If anyone believes that more gun control laws will reduce violent crime, then they're not informed enough about the facts to even be in the debate.

    RR

  • 1

    slumdog

    Kelly and LaPierre agreed on one point: More people seeking to buy guns illegally should be prosecuted.

    Hey, LaPierre, how are you going to know if the guns were bought illegally if you do not have a proper registry system in place? Mind reading, perhaps?

  • 0

    slumdog

    If anyone believes that more gun control laws will reduce violent crime

    I believe fewer illegal guns will reduce gun-related violent crime. Heck, I believe fewer guns will reduce gun-related violent crime. I love the idea of living in a place where it is pretty much unheard of to be a victim of a gun-related violent crime.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    "Ok, then how about a national registry database of all gun-free residences? Surely, no one would access that information nefariously."

    Because owning a gun is something that involves the most solemn degree of responsibility. Like owning an automobile. Automobile's have to be registered. They are taxed.

    So, unless you're suggesting non-car owners be entered into a database, I'm not sure if you're being serious or not.

  • -1

    LFRAgain

    Surf O'Holic,

    "The last word is the left-liberal-socialist-whatever's actual goal."

    That you can condense opposition to willy-nilly gun usage in the United States is testament to how truly out of touch the NRA is with what Americans are actually feeling on this point.

    No one is threatening to take away your guns. You can stop whinging about that right now.

    What people want, reasonably and rightfully so, is for gun owners to take greater responsibility for the ownership of guns.

    You try to bash anyone who disagrees with you over the head with the 2nd Amendment, yet you seem all to willing to overlook the part about gun ownership being "well regulated."

    No, no, don't even attempt to argue with me about what the 2nd Amendment "really" means. You either believe the 2nd Amendment allows for citizen militia to exist and own firearms for the protection of a free State or you don't. You can't just cherry pick the 2nd Amendment for meanings that suit your needs. Like a conservative Supreme Court did.

    Guns need to be well regulated. And right now, they are anything but.

  • -2

    sailwind

    Laguna

    Society is demanding more responsibility from gun owners and from society towards gun owners,

    It's Liberal Democrats that only are only really demanding this.

    LFR

    What people want, reasonably and rightfully so, is for gun owners to take greater responsibility for the ownership of guns.

    Again its Liberal Democrats who has made this their priority by going after legal law abiding gun owners and dismissing everything else in the discussion as not worthy of any consideration such as getting rid of the gun free zones, as they aren't preventing gun violence at all and in fact may actually encourage it.

    Society if anything as a whole is not demanding a pound of flesh from law abiding citizens who own firearms. This is what many Liberals want and many Democrats are after but not society .as a whole. Society is more after coming up with a better way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those that should never have their hands on a weapon in the first place as the priority then trying to make all law abiding gun owners somehow culpable for acts of insanity by deranged individuals.

    NRA will always resist this but for contrast Planned Parenthood is no different as an activist lobbying group. They will also always resist any attempt to restrict abortions including what many would consider quite resonable things such asproviding counseling to minors and parental notification as they also view anything at all that may prevent the procedure being performed as a slipperly slope toward getting momentum built toward banning abortion entirely.

    The difference though is huge in press coverage between to two groups. The liberal media mainly supports the right to chose and also supports further restriction on guns. Any objective look at the coverage received between the two organizations in the press is quite revealing . Both the NRA and Planned Parenthood are in the forefront of the two most very contentious issues in American politics. Planned Parenthood is usually lauded as in the forefront of woman's health while the NRA is usually portrayed as gun nuts who could care less at the carnarge guns cause.

  • 0

    slumdog

    It's Liberal Democrats that only are only really demanding this.

    I don't think so.

    Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws, Still Oppose Bans

    A significantly higher percentage of Americans -- 62% -- do favor banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines, generally defined as those that contain more than 10 rounds. Also, nearly all Americans -- now 92%, up from 83% in 1999 -- favor laws that require people attempting to purchase guns at gun shows, including gun dealers, to undergo background checks.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx

  • 0

    sailwind

    I don't think so.

    No offense, but nothing in the gallup poll results supports the premise at all that:

    Society is demanding more responsibility from gun owners and from society towards gun owners,

    Or

    What people want, reasonably and rightfully so, is for gun owners to take greater responsibility for the ownership of guns.

    Support for banning the sale of high-capacity magazines is not demanding any more responsibility from gun owners, its only changing the gun market by Government intervention as to what can be bought and sold on it for purchase legally.

    The poll results does support my position though with the back ground checks as I stated:

    Society is more after coming up with a better way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those that should never have their hands on a weapon in the first place as the priority then trying to make all law abiding gun owners somehow culpable for acts of insanity by deranged individuals.

  • 0

    slumdog

    No offense here either. However, your claim that it is only Liberal Democrats that want change in the US seems to be mistaken.

    The survey found that an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of Americans favor mandatory background checks for private firearm sales and those at gun shows, as well as stronger laws to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing guns, according to the poll.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-14/bipartisan-majority-favor-background-checks-for-gun-buys.html

    Society is more after coming up with a better way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those that should never have their hands on a weapon in the first place as the priority then trying to make all law abiding gun owners somehow culpable for acts of insanity by deranged individuals.

    How do you expect to keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those that should never have their hands on a weapon if you are against background checks and against registering weapons? Again, mind reading?

    Society in the US is clearly in the majority in favor of background checks and it makes perfect sense.

  • 0

    slumdog

    Unless you have something to show me that the majority of people in the US are in fact against background checks, you should realize you are mistaken in claiming this is only some Liberal Democratic fight. It certainly does not seem to be.

  • 1

    SuperLib

    It seems that the biggest reason why gun regulation won't work is because there are too many guns. It also seems that the reason everyone needs to be armed is because there are so many guns. And unless I'm wrong, the NRA's position is that we need to get as many guns on the street as possible.

    See something wrong with this picture?

  • -3

    sailwind

    How do you expect to keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those that should never have their hands on a weapon if you are against background checks and against registering weapons?

    Require that in order to purchase a fireman the buyer must produce three references. Just as anyone does when filling out a job application. The references must be contacted by the seller before the purchase can take place. They're answers will not be revealed to the person using them and If any of the references indicate "bad idea"....no sale.

    Doesn't cost 500 million dollars or create a new massive unwieldy new Government run bureaucracy. Doesn't infringe on privacy issues such as making doctors report patients and it really would have a pretty minimal impact on what is already an accepted society normal practice in asking for a voucher for ones good conduct and character before being entrusted with something.

    I see no 2nd amendment issues with this and I see it as being 10000 percent more effective than the proposals out there. If your going to make policy and are actually sincere in it and not for political gain but for the real common good within our constitutional boundaries. You need to understand the main perpetrators of spree killings and that they have pretty common characteristics. They're almost always young males, loners and have exhibited some pretty disturbing behavioral signs prior to going on their rampages, Loughner in Tuscon , the Virginia Tech shooter, Aurora Colorado shooter. In short they are in their own fantasy world and there is no way in God's green earth that these guys would ever get three people to vouch for them that they could be trusted to buy a gun. It wouldn't stop it from happening completely. Lanza would have still stolen his mother's guns but it sure would get down to as close to zero as you can reasonably expect in a free country that has the 2nd amendment enshrined as a birthright for her citizens.

    This is what is I call looking at what I think would be a real smart policy approach outside of political B.S. And my gut feeling is that it would actually work for the entire country no matter what region .

  • 0

    slumdog

    Require that in order to purchase a fireman the buyer must produce three references.

    I think purchasing those is generally illegal with or with references.

    The references must be contacted by the seller before the purchase can take place.

    I have two problems with this:

    1) It does not make sense to attempt to make sellers into detectives. It is not their job and most will not be that good at it.

    2) References can and do lie.

    And my gut feeling is that it would actually work for the entire country no matter what region .

    Certainly references could be a part of the approach, but alone I doubt they would be enough. Even a mentally ill person can probably get a few more mentally ill aquaintances to act as references. I can't see trusting this to fate any longer.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • 営業/建設機械  

    営業/建設機械  
    MB Japan 株式会社、埼玉県
    給与:給与要相談 歩合制 給与参考例・・・2013年度営業職月給平均 45万円  
  • TOEICインストラクター

    TOEICインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:時給 3,000円 相談可
  • TOEFL・IELTSインストラクター

    TOEFL・IELTSインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:時給 3,500円 相談可
  • 海外留学担当者

    海外留学担当者
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:月給 25万円 ~ 35万円 相談可
  • PR and Communication Specialist

    PR and Communication Specialist
    Italian Chamber of Commerce in Japan、東京都
    給与:給与についての記載なし

More in World

View all

View all