I'm having a hard time understanding why gun rights advocates are against universal background checks. If you're a responsible adult who's not a felon and you want guns for hunting or protection, why wouldn't you want this?

I haven't heard or seen anything indicating Second Amendment rights will be compromised. Where do they get the idea the government will create a registry, include a tax and confiscate weapons? Is it National Rifle Association fear-mongering, or do some who fear this actually have something to hide?

Had these reforms been in place, or if existing laws had been enforced, would the horrific shootings we've seen have taken place? Maybe, but can't we try?

By the way, if you drive a car, practice medicine or own a salon or tavern, you must have a license. Were you afraid the government would take your vehicle or business because you had to have one? Get real!

We live in a violent world, and I don't see that changing. But we can do our part, which includes getting rid of violent videos and TV programs, too.

Congress hasn't managed to accomplish much over the past few years, so why would I have hoped they would now? They sold their souls to the NRA.

-- Marilyn Simons, Linden

Letters editor for Wisconsin State Journal

You might also like

(6) comments

NotACynic
NotACynic

Extra stuff, buried in the bill! Hmm ... I wonder if that could explain other famous votes from the past ...

Where would we get such a crazy idea that a registry would be created? Where oh where? Well right out of the mouths of many of the people that are pushing for this. it is a step in that direction. It very much opens the doorway for that next step. How would you expect them to enforce these laws of non-transfer if they don't have a registry of who onws what in the first place? It's called putting the pieces together and figuring out where it leads. Even without that I am against it. If this bill were in place it would not have prevented any of the tradegies or mass shootings oveer the years. NONE of them. In a few cases the culprits would have been using the guns illegally, but I don't think that would matter much after they committed mass-murder. i.e. In Sandy Hook he took and used his mother's guns. He didn't legally own it but even under this law he could have and he could have legally borrowed it, so it wouldn't stop or prevent anything. What we need are bettter laws surrounding mental health issues. IDing them and allowing family or professionals to intervene and take preventative measures. Stronger penalties for criminals using guns and serving full sentences. Don't impose more laws against common people who have done nothing wrong while we continue to weaken the penalties against those who actauly have and are committing crimes. That is backward.

NotACynic
NotACynic

Careful, Marilyn. Making WAY too much sense here ...

firefightn15
firefightn15

She may be making way too much sense if she were telling the whole story...the Manchin/Toomey proposal included much more than background checks. As a gun rights proponent, had the background portion been stand alone, I would have liked to see it passed.

It wasn't stand alone and some of the garbage that was written into it deserved to be shot down. It created language that redefined the term "transfer" as it was used. The proposal as written now, depending on how interpreted, makes it illegal for people, while target shooting on private property, to let a friend(who is with you)to take possession of your firearm and shoot it.

To not let a piece of trash legislation make it's way through is NOT selling their souls to the NRA, it is being responsible to their states in knowing what they are voting for.

Put up a stand alone background check proposal and take the vote...if it doesn't pass, I will howl with you but his isn't Obamacare....we learned from that one....you don't vote for and pass something and then read what's in it!

BTW, for those that truly care about what was in it and want to have the facts:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text

I do not know whether Marilyn has read it or not, but for others, at least read it before suggesting that the legislators sold their souls...IMO, they got it right on this one.

Dad
Dad

Thanks for the link, Firefightn15. Man, that is hard to read. I can't remember ever having to look up 'curtilage' before now. From what I read, there isn't any interpretting to be done. You absolutely couldn't let a friend shoot your gun in your or his back meadow. You could still loan him a gun during hunting season or at a duly licensed and regulated shooting range, but you'd have to be with him at all times.
I also agree that if they had a vote just on the background check, it would have passed. Of course, you can't make political hay out of a bill without a poison pill hidden away to guarantee its failure to pass.

firefightn15
firefightn15

I had to look up curtilage also...apparently it is only inclusive of anything directly attached to your residence....

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Exchange ideas and opinions on posted articles. Don't promote products or services, impersonate other site users, register multiple accounts, threaten or harass others, post vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language. Don't post content that defames or degrades anyone. Don't repost copyrighted material; link to it. In other words, stick to the topic and play nice. Report abuses by clicking the button. Users who break the rules will be banned from commenting. We no longer issue warnings. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.