5 ms·

IT's a bit weird. On the one hand, general feeling for 'gun control' has gotten less popular (and < 50% feel we 'need stricter gun control' - http://www.washing

IT's a bit weird. On the one hand, general feeling for 'gun control' has gotten less popular (and < 50% feel we 'need stricter gun control' - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/s...), on the other hand, 90% of Americans think we need expanded background checks ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/03/90-percent-of-americans-want-expanded-background-checks-on-guns-why-isnt-this-a-political-slam-dunk/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/03/90... ). What's absolutely bizarre to me, though, is how many people seem to treat expanded background checks as a -major issue- when it comes to voting. As in, I've seen threads where people have said "OMG, this Democrat wants to require background checks when private gun owners sell to other private gun owners! Thank God all the polls are favoring the Republican!" Nevermind the economy, civil rights, etc, we have to be able to legally sell guns to each other without the government knowing about it!

hga 12y ago
One big problem with "expanded background checks" is the gaping distance from that seemingly innocent phrase and what's actually proposed, and in the recent case of Colorado, imposed. These are "flypaper laws", clearly designed to zap innocent gun owners as well as what they're ostensibly supposed to do, which in practice turns out to be nearly zilch, preventing temporary transfers, AKA lending your gun, at gun ranges, while hunting, etc. It's telling that back when there Colorado has some serious flooding, the authorities felt compelled to promise that they wouldn't prosecute people who temporary placed their guns with friends or relatives on higher ground. It's a major, in your face issue, never mind those of us who know our 20th Century history and are therefore rather allergic to "the government knowing about it". Or the implication that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is not a fundamental civil right.

hga 12y ago

One big problem with "expanded background checks" is the gaping distance from that seemingly innocent phrase and what's actually proposed, and in the recent case of Colorado, imposed. These are "flypaper laws", clearly designed to zap innocent gun owners as well as what they're ostensibly supposed to do, which in practice turns out to be nearly zilch, preventing temporary transfers, AKA lending your gun, at gun ranges, while hunting, etc. It's telling that back when there Colorado has some serious flooding, the authorities felt compelled to promise that they wouldn't prosecute people who temporary placed their guns with friends or relatives on higher ground. It's a major, in your face issue, never mind those of us who know our 20th Century history and are therefore rather allergic to "the government knowing about it". Or the implication that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is not a fundamental civil right.