HuffPo Gun Control Outline: “I don’t want to lose a vote on this,” said one progressive gun control advocate. “If we go too soon and we lose a vote then we are f**ked.”

Someone help me out with something. What is the difference between “universal background checks” and “a national gun registry”?

undefined(Via HuffPo WASHINGTON)  — Just days before Vice President Joe Biden issues a sweeping series of recommendations on gun policy Tuesday, the outline of his suggestions is coming into focus.

Multiple sources close to the talks tell The Huffington Post that the vice president will make universal background checks for all gun purchases the “top priority” of his suggestions. The idea has broad support among politicians in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, as well as backing from some traditionally pro-gun rights voices. The clearest sign that background checks will be the centerpiece of the Biden recommendations, however, is that a number of gun control advocacy groups have also deemed it such, as opposed to focusing their efforts on higher-profile measures, such as those that would limit the types of guns available for purchase.

That said, those measures will also likely end up in Biden’s set of recommendations as well, according to an administration official. The White House pushed back Friday morning on reports that it is shying away from including some form of an assault weapons ban in its final legislative push out of concern that it was too heavy a lift through Congress.


“Those reports are false,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich told The Huffington Post Friday. “The president has been clear that Congress should reinstate the assault weapons ban and that avoiding this issue just because it’s been politically difficult in the past is not undefinedan option.”

The question confronting the administration at this juncture concerns process as much as policy. After inviting input from virtually all stakeholders in the gun policy debate, the vice president’s team has a general idea of what recommendations it will put forward in its final proposal on Tuesday. Among the other ideas likely to be included are funding for more police officers and first responders, a more comprehensive federal database on gun violence and gun purchases, more direct coordination between state and federal law enforcement officials, a push for better mental health care services and measures to deal with gun violence and pop culture.

But what’s uncertain is the best way to get those policy prescriptions into law. Does the undefinedWhite House introduce one comprehensive package in hopes of passing the most thorough response possible to the wave of mass-shooting violence? Does it pare down that package if it runs into opposition on the Hill? Or does it pursue separate votes on individual items so that at least some legislation is passed, with hopes that legislative success begets more legislative success in the future?

The White House declined to address questions about procedural tactics. But on and off the Hill, pro-gun control officials are gravitating toward the latter option.

“I don’t want to lose a vote on this,” said one progressive gun control advocate. “If we go too soon and we lose a vote then we are fucked.”

undefinedThe most illustrative example of this conundrum involves the literal gun control component of the equation. While the administration will put restrictions on military-style firearms in its recommendations, both the White House and advocates are far more bullish on the prospects of prohibiting high-capacity ammunition magazines.

“I have never quite heard as much talk about the need to do something about high-capacity magazines as I have heard spontaneously from every group I have met with so far,” Biden said prior to a stakeholders’ meeting on Thursday.

There’s reason for such bullishness. Over the past days several Republican lawmakers have said they could, in fact, support action on high-capacity magazines but would oppose any ban on assault weapons.  (continue reading)


About these ads
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, A New America, Dear Leader - Creepy POTUS Worship, media bias, Potus Gun Ban, Predictions, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to HuffPo Gun Control Outline: “I don’t want to lose a vote on this,” said one progressive gun control advocate. “If we go too soon and we lose a vote then we are f**ked.”

  1. Thomas says:

    The anti-gun groups and elected politicians loudly proffer the term “gun show loophole” with full knowledge that the general public has no idea what the term means. They infer that guns may be bought at gun shows without a background check. Those of us who are pro 2nd. Amendment should make it clear that this is not the case. Furthermore, where are the NRA and other pro 2A groups when this disingenuous tactic is used? The truth should be proclaimed in a large forum to counter this misleading talking point.
    I would be surprised if the majority of congressmen and women were aware of the truth as well.

    • lovemygirl says:

      My conservative congressman sure has disappointed me. I’ve re-written a response 3 times so far but it is close enough to send soon. He is ignorant about guns and is falling for the BS being thrown at him.

  2. Sentenza says:

    Unless you’re a prog who is making their propaganda. Then the law doesn’t apply:

    If you’re one of them, you’re exempt from the law.

  3. lovemygirl says:

    I’m beginning to really despise some people, not because they are ignorant but because they blatently lie to get their way. There is nothing (or very little) being talked about that will help prevent future murders but plenty being sugar coated to sound like doing something good but actually achieves their gun ban goals.
    10 rounds+ is now “High Capacity” and accepted by the masses as such because the Media will not educate?

  4. lovemygirl says:

    Like every law passed for decades they add a title that sounds good and people buy into it without reading the fine print.
    “Universal background checks for all gun purchases” sounds great to the masses, who could be against checking someone isn’t a Felon or Loon before they buy a weapon?
    What does that really entail? Who knows, maybe an NFA check taking 6 months, photo ID, fingerprints, National Database, current owners of their current weapons, family checks, local authority checks, extreme costs per weapon, buying a Government approved safe, ammunition limits, banning bulk purchases of ammo and on and on.

    GD it! Where is even the Conservative press at in exposing this before they shove it down America’s throat.

  5. lovemygirl says:

    As if contacting Smokin’ Joe will do anything, but I tried.

    Dear Mr. Biden,
    I have grave concerns concerning the talk about high capacity magazines. I’m not sure what type of Beretta you have but unless it is a single stack .45 I would assume its capacity is greater than 10 rounds. The concept of arbitrarily picking 10 rounds as the limit to defining “high capacity” regardless of caliber does not even pass the smell test. You said they would not take your handgun or shotgun but it sure sounds like they want mine.

    BTW, I don’t believe there should be any limit so maybe I just fell into the trap of them saying, OK, 10 was too low, we’ll make it 15 to please the gun nuts.

    • howie says:

      They do not care about the magazines. They want to nullify the constitution. They want to take guns away from the population. It is a thorn in their side. It has already been pretty much shredded. The left has all the pieces in place. The GOP is committing suicide. The last resort is the states, but they are pretty much just hollow shells that are funded by the Federals anyway. This house of cards is coming down. What a mess. What next?

      • lovemygirl says:

        Moving Barrett to a close by friendly jurisdiction? Hell, if offshore banking can thrive then offshore gun manufacturing can. Smuggling is the easy part in today’s open borders.

        • howie says:

          Four years of this? Ugghhh. I think it is total breakdown of the system. The Federal Government has failed. It is so far past bankrupt the President now wants to mint trillion dollar coins. He is backed by a whole political party. Good Grief. The illegals are going to be running the other way.

          • lovemygirl says:

            It is becoming scary. Not only does the political elite believe they won, therefore to the victor goes the spoils, but most people I run into think that. The balance of power and the three main branches of the Feds counter balancing each other seems lost on most. The very concept of the State and locals being the real power is foreign to the young. I am trying to instill what I can in my youngest, but the brainwashing, no, more like the lack of teaching the fundamentals for decades has taken its toll.

          • Coast says:

            Four years…yep, sadly so. In fact, Obama’s next four years has not even started. It will be a horrible ride, that’s for sure.

      • woohoowee says:

        “They want to take guns away from the population.”

        Coming from the same regime that armed drug cartels and certain ME “rebels”.

  6. ottawa925 says:

    Part of Biden’s suggestions to the annointed one will come after his meeting with gaming industry and hollywood. Re: Hollywood … I found this interview with Tarantino interesting in that he refuses to discuss the subject of movie violence and it’s connection to this let’s confiscate everyone’s guns business. His movie BTW is up for academy award for Best Picture. Oh yes. Now, in all honesty, what are the chances this movie wins best picture in view of the latest clamour re: gun violence? Quentin obviously is worried that his style of movie making is going to hamstring his ability to make more movies of this type. It’s amazing to me that Quentin has never really tried to do anything else. More and more his movies are becoming repeats of the one before it. Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs were his best, and he’s never really been able to top them. In any event, instead of berating the interviewer here, he should have addressed the issue in an intelligent manner. Instead, what I hear him say about his latest Django Unchained, is that a dialog about slavery is necessary. That we haven’t discussed it enough. Really! I thought the Civil Rights Act was in 1964. Let’s see that’s FORTY NINE years ago! We need to stop the get the white guy for something that happened 200+ years ago, and start bringing ppl together, not dividing them. He thought it would be nice to have a black hero for all the blacks out there that like his movies. A movie where the black hero shoots all the white people. Now could you possibly in your wildest imagination picture a director, writing and directing a movie where the hero is white and goes around killing all the black people. OH YEAH, that would go over really big. like Ed Sullivan would say … a really big shouuuuuw!!! It’s insane. Seems every year Hollywood wants to put on the really big shouuuuuw with stories of black people being treated poorly by whites. This year we will have TWO movies … Lincoln and Django Unchained. In the years we don’t have the blacks being treated poorly by whites, we have movies about gays so we can understand them better. I remember distinctly, without knowing the subject matter, renting The Crying Game along with some other movies for my Mother and Father to watch when they were alive. I also remember them throwing that movie at me and stating in a loud emphatic manner … don’t ever bring a movie like that into this house again. I had no idea what they were talking about. It was only later that I found out. Oh well, you live and you learn. Yet they loved Porkey’s. Go figure.

    • lovemygirl says:

      So he felt as a white guy it was imperative of him to deliver a black hero for black Americans? OMG, the epitome of “White Guilt” on steroids. Gee, like there have been no black heroes before he did the film? BTW, I am not a movie goer, but the Hollywood stereotype of a drug addicted actor/director seems readily apparent in this interview. Did they pee test him?

      • lovemygirl says:

        Can we please drop Tarantino off in Anacostia DC for just a night to see how the folks that were looking for a “Black Hero” all this time that came from him react to his “high”ness on the street? Now, that would be a great YouTube 1:36 video.

    • LouDaJew says:

      I lost a lot of respect for QT after watching this. white guilt is for people who live away from large groups of African Americans. the white flighters need to be forced to live in Atlanta for one year and seee if they feel the same way. I’d personally like to see a reality TV show with my theme.

    • scubachick75 says:

      I thought the Lincoln movie was interesting. Django unchained was so stupid, I made it 10 minutes before I turned it off (watched it online) I can’t believe they even made a movie like that.

    • ottawa925 says:

      BTW, I, as someone who is older … ok … old …. I was offended that Quentin would suggest that moviemakers as they get older loose their mojo in the ability to deliver a great movie. I totally disagree with that. First, Quentin is 49. How much OLDER is he talking? He doesn’t say.

      Hitchcock was born in 1899, and some of his better and more well known movies where AFTER 1949.

      Martin Scorsese is 70, and the last thing I saw by him was Shutter’s Island, which I enjoyed and kept me guessing.

      Kubrick was 71 when he died. His last film was Eyes Wide Shut, and although a controversial film it was typical Kubrick style. BTW, they say Eyes was about the Illumaniti, and it was the Illuminati that killed him for letting out too many of their secrets.

      Clint Eastwood has in recent past been putting out some good movies too and he’s 82.

      Roman Polanski is 79. In 2002 he did The Pianist, which I liked and Ghost Writer which I found insteresting in 2010. I could go on, but why fill pages.

      So I have no idea what Quentin is talking about. He should take his sweet spot and shut it.

  7. Sharon says:

    Don’t be disappointed in the “conservative press.” I think the lesson is different than an issue of disappointment. We are just learning that the “conservative press” is not so conservative after all. Aren’t we?

    I totally don’t get why letters are being sent to Biden or any congressmen. I haven’t noticed that anyone in Washington DC is actually representing anyone’s interests other than their own, and I certainly haven’t noticed that any of them are taking counsel from anyone except their minders. Are they?

    Continuing to make decisions and making contacts as though these are normal times is truly and deeply a waste of personal resources. Isn’t it?

    • lovemygirl says:

      I thought my rep was different. Every other Tuesday there was a Town Hall call where we spoke.. Then it became once a month, then it became he did respond, but with a form letter. How the blank do the people get term limits passed when the crooks are in charge?

      • Sharon says:

        We already have term limits at the ballot box, but that’s not effective with low information voters or with voter fraud. I don’t think that having “term limits” embedded in law would change what we’re dealing with, because there seems to be a never-ending supply of folks running for office who are willing to say anything to get there, and willing to be co-opted after they get there.

        There are so many laws being ignored by the authorities (both elected and appointed) now. It seems that having something written “in law” is not worth much.

        Many years ago, I read a rather funny bit in the Reader’s Digest (MANY years ago–probably the 60’s), I think it was in the Humor in Uniform section. The story goes like this:

        The country boy enlists in the Navy and now he’s in basic training. Kid can’t swim. No matter what they do, the kid just can’t learn to swim. The rest of the class moves on. The instructors work with him awhile longer. Finally, they give up and decide they’re just going to push him through with the rest of his group.

        The instructor walks over, looks him in the eye and says, “Son, if your ship ever goes down, just sink to the bottom and run like hell for shore, because you’re sure not going to get there any other way.”

        This time frame we’re in right now reminds me of that story. It seems like it is time to just “sink to the bottom” and I’m wondering how long it will be before we feel anything like firm ground (even if it’s the proverbial bottom of the barrel) under our feet. It’s confusing.

        I get the feeling that Americans, as a group, won’t really start fighting (whatever that means) until they are completely convinced that they have no choice. Most of our reactions still seem to have that “We’ve got to figure out what we’re doing wrong–why don’t they hear us?” They are making choices, and we’re responding to their choices, instead of initiating something they don’t expect.

        At some point, Americans have to make choices that stop feeding the co-dependency.

        • lovemygirl says:

          If we start firing upon them, they will squash us like a bug and televise us as radicals. For the short term I say ignore any orders, don’t even respond. But that is short term.
          Something they don’t expect, non violent, but with the stick still behind our back is best. Filing endless tax extensions? Disconnecting from the grid? It does have to start Local is all I know to be successful.

      • cajunkelly says:

        I just wrote all my representatives, both state and US level. To all, both filthy progs and so-call conservatives I stated that “I expect you” to propose and/or support whatever legislation is necessary to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of their constituents.

        We’ll see.

  8. Allfal says:

    To answer the question at the start of the article, in theory, there is some difference between universal background checks and registration. The NICs check records, according to law, are not suppossed to be kept. There have been documented instances of them being kept beyond the allowed time. I believe that time is 90 days, but i may be wrong on that. The 4473 filled out at the time of the transfer is required to be kept by the Federal Firearms license holder. If he closes up shop, he must transfer those forms to the BATFE, who keeps the records forever. If they instituted universal background checks and followed the law, it would make little difference in tracing a crime gun. The reason is ATF can access records of the manufacter, the distributor he sells to and the FFL dealer where the gun ends up. If the dealer sells the gun, a 4473 is created. That stays on file with the FFL and the NICs { background check } is supposed to be deleted in a certain period of time. If that gun is used in a crime, a trace is run. ATF knows which dealer sold a particular gun. Calling a cooperative dealer or going to the shop if they fail to cooperate reveals the complete ID of who purchased the gun. The FFL dealers are required to provide that information.

    The problem is, that with universal background checks, they are attempting to prohibit private face to face sales. So if person A buys a gun from an FFL and sells it to another person, according to the proposed new law, a new NICs check would have to be done, but no 4473 would be created. The quick trace would reveal the original owner, just as before. If NICs records are not kept The original owner could be contacted and asked what FFL he used for the transfer. If he was not able to provide that information, the trace ends there. Even if the new laws required a 4473 for private party transfers, those records are not on a data base. They are kept by the FFL. So, universal background check is not exactly registration but it certainly is a leap in that direction.

    The universal check is an infringement on personal freedom. Liberals love to use the example that people have to register their cars. This is not true. Anyone can purchase a vehicle and never register it. It only has to be registered to be operated on public highways. Most any vehicle can be purchased and kept at home, used and driven on private property or taken and raced at a private track and never be registered.No background check, no requirement to have a license or insurance. If only we had that freedom with a Constitutional right.

    • howie says:

      If all three branches of government fail to uphold the constitution. There is no constitution. The system has failed. There is no check. There is no balance. There is no freedom to be infringed upon. If both the Senate and the House pass an unconstitutional statute, the President signs it, and the courts uphold it, the constitution is irrelevant. We may have reached that point.

      • Coast says:

        Remember, our freedoms come from God, not government. Government can only protect those freedoms, or infringe upon those freedoms, but it can’t create freedoms. The constitution is still relevant, but we now have tyranny, which is an illegal from of government unless the constitution is repealed in a legal process.

        • howie says:

          It would be relevant if it was applied..if it is not applied it is useless. The system of checks has failed. When a majority in all three branches is willing to violate their oath of office. We may be there. The upcoming gun legislation, if it passes will be an example. It will be unconstitutional for sure. The only question will be the level of the unconstitutionality. Now. 5 members of SCOTUS at least are willing to use one part of the constitution to violate other parts of it.

          • Coast says:

            I understand your point, but useless and irrelevant are different. Anyone in government that is not following the constitution is thus breaking their oath, which is an act of treason. Laws the violate the constitution are not lawful. If all checks and balances are gone in the three branches of govt, the only one remaining are the people. Until the constitution is repealed or replaced lawfully, it still law of the land, and its up to us to keep it that way. God help us all.

    • lovemygirl says:

      Thanks for the explanation, My headaches continue after a week of the flu and reading those regs makes them worse. All I know instinctively is nothing good is coming from a law being rewritten by Feinstein before the children was buried, Obama’s crocodile tears made me hate him as a fellow human. I mentioned something about it to my Father, who had guns, hunted until 20 years ago, taught me, sent me to training, took me out a few times, but hasn’t owned or used a weapon in 2 decades immediately had harsh words for Dianne Feinstein. You would have to understand my WW2 vet father never speaks that way about anyone but Feinstein got his dander up.

    • howie says:

      Don’t fprget. Judicial review of legislation is only a SCOTUS precedent. Not in the constitution. It comes from 1803. Marbury v Madison. Roberts does seem to have problems with it.

  9. Coast says:

    Two questions that are not being asked are: Home many lives have been saved because of guns, and how will any of these proposed changes stop similar shootings? People who believe that the government is trying to do the “right thing” should stop and really think for a change, if they can.

    • howie says:

      The debate is the problem. We are debating the 1st and 2nd amendments. And others too. A crossfire style debate over clear constitutional rights is a problem in itself.

  10. michellc says:

    Universal background checks would mean if Grandpa dies the only way you could legally take possession of Grandpa’s gun is to take the gun to a FFL and pay a fee, most of the FFL I know will charge $20 – $50 to run the check and do the paperwork.
    My brothers who have been gun owners their entire life have been trading guns with each other since their teens, universal background checks would now make them felons unless they transferred the gun to a FFL in order to do the trade.
    Something else that was shared with me the other day by a FFL was they are approving fewer FFL applications, she said this started after Obama was elected. Before Obama for every 12 applications 10 were approved, post Obama the number is like 1 for every 12. Approving just enough to not make it look suspicious. There have also been according to her several who have lost their FFL for minor violations such as the badges showing up and you having one gun in your store that you haven’t cataloged yet, they look in your book and don’t find the gun’s serial number.
    So that is something to chew on when they talk about universal background checks, the government controls who receives a FFL, the government decides who can keep their FFL. The government controls the background checks. Remember Fast and Furious, remember who they were planning on taking the fall?
    I’m sure though that’s just my conspiracy theory that the government would make it that there were fewer and fewer dealers, which in turn, makes it harder and harder to buy a gun when you have fewer FFL to even conduct the background checks and then even fewer of those background checks being approved. Think of Obamacare and you can see where this could go.
    Don’t forget they have also been talking background checks for ammo which would mean you could only buy ammo from a FFL.

    Now the Aurora shooter bought his guns through their background system, the Sandy Hook shooter took his Mother’s guns, the firefighter shooter had his guns purchased for him by a friend/neighbor.

  11. Coast says:

    In my opinion, background checks are ok, as long as there is no gun registry. Registry will allow the government to know exactly what you have; they have no legitimate reason for that information. I’ve purchased several firearms in the last few years, and personally I haven’t had any issue getting immediate approval. The cost for me is usually $5 for the background check, or $15 to $20 if the dealer is conducting a transfer sale…which means I’m not buying directly from that dealer. The check itself is somewhat of a joke, asking questions like “are you a fugitive from justice” or “are you an illegal alien”…stuff like that.
    About two years ago I decided to sell two rifles, chambered in 22LR. When I took them to my local gun shop, I was told that if I left them on consignment and later decided to take them back, I would have to complete and pay for the background check in order for the shop to release them back to me. I guess the logic there (if any) is the possibly that they could have been stolen, to discourage steal and sell behavior.

    • michellc says:

      I’ve been chewing on this as well. Our state laws says no gun registry and no tracking of guns. However, a background check the FFL is given a confirmation number, the feds can easily be keeping these confirmation numbers with the name. A dealer has to show paperwork to the ATF of all serial numbers of their guns. So it’s not too farfetched to see there is a very good way to have you on their not public or really even legal registry list.

      With these guys you can’t think well it makes sense for background checks, we’ve been doing them with no problems, it’s just to make sure a felon doesn’t get a gun. That way of thinking is I would do everything by the book, I wouldn’t track people without their knowledge.
      The background check is more than just what you put on paper, they run you through a database. and the dealer is given a confirmation number to say the government cleared this person to buy a gun.
      Universal background check means if you want to gift your child a gun, sell a gun, trade a gun, then you and the other party will have to have the government’s approval and be cleared by them.
      A gun is my property, not the government’s property, yet the government can tell me unless I do as they say and get their approval I am not allowed to do what I wish with my property. If we lived in a country that followed the constitution that is unconstitutional.

      That is how we have gotten where we’re at is compromising with them, so they have gradually changed the way people think, When we should be thinking constitution and following the constitution, not what people want the constitution to say.

    • tessa50 says:

      I am sure this has been covered by other posters, but here is how I feel about this–background check, well gee they know you have a gun right there. I am beginning to believe they don’t care what type of gun you have just that you do have one. That is all they want to know, who has them. Is like you said the questions are a joke, and certainly will not deter crime. Also, has been said over and over, a criminal WILL get a gun banned or not.

  12. brocahontas says:

    No mention of going after gangs and organized crime. That is a shocker.

  13. scubachick75 says:

    Since when has a ban on anything ever fixed the actual problem? The ban on alcohol in Alaska actually caused more problems and made the problem worse!

  14. czarowniczy says:

    One thing you DO NOT see in Congress is their asking the sheriffs of counties that border Mexico, from Texas thru California, to testify on (a) what is the REAL state of border security in their AORs and (b) what they really think about gun control. I know that in my rural area we have had numerous incursions by Usual Suspects from New Orleans who pull robberies, thefts and home invasions as they believe that the distance between farms and the paucity of deputies makes us easy targets. Imagine what will happen as the numbers of bandidos ilegales flood north from the Southwest and spread out even more than they have. As I’ve said before, we received special indoctrination when we (Army) worked the US border on how to deal with Mexican military and police who’ve been encountered way north of the US border without permission – some security. Looks a lot to me like Obama et al wish to have the population as disarmed as possible so that they cannot respond to advances of actual and potential Democratic Party members.

  15. ottawa925 says:

    Not sure if any of you remember the murder of the husband and mother of Judge Joan Lefkow in Chicago. I remember being a lil pissed that taxpayer money had to pay for her protection. I am of the mind that if you make a sufficient salary … you should pay for your own protection. It’s not like she’s POTUS or something. Whether I was right to think that or not … here is a chicago trib article from the Washington Post, about protection for Judges and Attorneys.

    From the article: “Threats against the nation’s judges and prosecutors have sharply increased, prompting hundreds to get round-the-clock protection from armed U.S. marshals. Many federal judges are altering their routes to work, installing security systems at home, shielding their addresses by paying bills at the courthouse or refraining from registering to vote. Some even pack weapons on the bench.”


    “”I live with a constant heightened sense of awareness,” said John Adams, a federal judge in Ohio who began taking firearms classes after federal Judge Joan Lefkow’s family was slain in Chicago and takes a pistol to the courthouse on weekends. “If I’m going to carry a firearm, I’d better know how to use it.”

    • ottawa925 says:

      One more from the above link: “Sibley Reynolds, a state court judge in Alabama who prosecutors said was threatened last year by the son of a defendant convicted of stealing about $3,000, packs a Colt automatic pistol under his robe.

      “I don’t go anywhere without my security with me,” Reynolds said.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s