Democrat Legislator Says Party Told Him Not To Attend Giffords Gun Control Event

Far more interesting than the substance of former Congresswoman Gabbie Giffords’ argument for gun control while she was here in North Dakota – it was the usual preaching about “common sense reform” with the crowd nodding along, because they’re pro-common sense you know, and few actually understanding what’s being proposed – was the fact that Democrats avoided her as though she was carrying some sort of airborne communicable disease.

Well, most Democrats anyway. Neither Senator Heitkamp nor the state Democrat Party did a thing on their own to acknowledge that Giffords was in the state, and that was telling. More telling are the comments from state Senator Tim Mathern, a Democrat who did show up at the event.

“A number of my colleagues encouraged us not to attend lest it be a liability to attend politically and I thought, ‘well I’m going anyway,'” Senator Mathern told Valley News Live’s Ashley Bishop (pertinent video at the 6:37 mark).

That’s a startling admission, confirming the Democrats’ cynical position on gun control. At heart they’re for it, but publicly they can’t acknowledge it in North Dakota because it wouldn’t be politically convenient.

Mathern also seemed to be surprised at how small the crowd was.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • WOOF

    What’s startling about differences of opinion within parties ?
    What kind of party prohibits dissension in its ranks?

    • SusanBeehler

      Especially when it comes to the three way split the Republicans in our state seems to have going on, Tea Party Patriot, Libertarian, and the Republican than you have those within these groups calling fellow conservatives, rinos and liberatards if they have a different opinion or approach to a policy.

      • kjuu

        Oh good. So you are pro-Libertarian et al? Good to know!

      • sbark

        Dem’cats circle the wagons to protect a Charlie rangle tax evasion, a Tim Geithners tax evation, a Hillarys Benghazi, a Obama’s IRS and NSA scandels, a Clintons LIe under Oath or stained dress………….
        the GOP circles the firing squad internally …….but it also dumps its Ted Stevens, its Newts, its Nixons………
        …….the end result, it all lets LIberalism grow like a black mold under the kitchen sink

        • $8194357

          Did you fail to mention shoving Barry care down the
          nations throats as well?
          We had to pass it to see what was in it, huh…
          FORWARD comrade lockstep party line citizens,,,
          Forward to tyrannical statist lockdown.

    • $8194357

      Fascist liberal DNC, huh…
      RINO Republican anti conservative go along to get along, perhaps?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      There is nothing at all wrong with Mathern going.

      It is interesting that Democrats told him not to go in light of claims that 80% of North Dakotans support what Giffords is pushing.

  • Roy_Bean

    It’s not that they don’t support her position, they just don’t want to admit that they support her position. We have to vote for them to see what they stand for. Kind of like Obama care.

    • Captornado

      Of course when one looks at Heitkamp and her litany of non-answers it could be argued that even after being elected we still don’t know where she ‘OFFICIALLY’ stands.

  • devilschild

    Tim has a different POV and he’s entitled to it. He wasn’t on the winning side of the ACSC lockout either. I give the man kudos for putting himself out there and standing behind his convictions whether they are popular or not.

    • Tim Hines

      Absolutely! I gotta agree a hundred percent!

  • OldmanRick

    Midterms are just around the corner and some dims are fearful that they might lose their cushy jobs since obummerscare is coming around also. Voters might be angry when they feel the added bite to their pocketbook.

  • ellinas1

    Headline: “Democrat Legislator Says Party Told Him Not To Attend Giffords Gun Control Event.”

    Somewhere in the article: ““A number of my colleagues encouraged us not to attend lest it be a
    liability to attend politically and I thought, ‘well I’m going anyway,’”
    Senator Mathern told Valley News Live’s Ashley Bishop”

    Man oh man! This Port guy is a fact twister.

    • Guest

      Yep. Most issues are worded deceptively, framed, taken out of perspective, or changed to fit an agenda.

      • ellinas1

        Man oh man! This Port guy is a fact twister.

  • SusanBeehler

    Rob, Senator Mathern did not say “how small the crowd was.” He stated “I am suprised at the number of people.” He did not say the small number of people, I took it as being surprised at how many did come out. All in perception. Also I have looked for all those NRA tshirts as your operative claim in your other story about Fargo I did not see any in all the photos and videos I have seen. What do you think is actually being proposed? They were here to support having background checks on all gun show sales and all internet sales.

    • joe mauer

      Rob twist and turn facts to fit his stories? I am shocked!

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      You should go back and listen to the segment again.

      • SusanBeehler

        I heard wrong? He did or didn’t say just “number of people” How could I have missed “small” was he mumbling? I better get my hearing tested.
        I hear “the” you hear “small”? Maybe the Senator arrived for the pre ‘event’ when the public had not arrived yet.

        • SusanBeehler

          Maybe people just line up down the block to get into the Atomic Cafe everyday and Senator Mathern is used to seeing many more people lining the streets of Fargo to get into one of the cafes. Hmm! Someone’s perception is off,if that is called small, is it Rob’s or the Senator? Small maybe compared to ???????????

    • shooter 22

      ” They were here to support having background checks on all gun show sales and all internet sales.”

      You know that is another left wing red herring. You know that what it’s really about is private sales.

      Weakeno22ther you get a table at a show to sell part or all of a collection, put an ad on Bis/Man online, or in the newspaper doesn’t matter.

      It’s about CRIMINALIZING PRIVATE SALES!

      Susan knows, but for those who don’t, read the bill that failed.in congress.

      These demrats are some devious sobs, they always have to hide behind lies. Then when their law passes you get to find out what’s in it.

      • SusanBeehler

        How are you going to know the person answering your ad can buy a gun and pass a background check if you don’t do a background check? You have a crystal ball or x ray vision to discern who can buy at your private sale? With our state having people moving in from all over the country, who is the good law abiding guy and who is the bad? Do you flip a coin or would a background check be a way to tell? It is not about criminalizing private sales, it about not privately selling to a criminal. Read the S649 amendment that was proposed. YOU don’t have to guess at what was in it or you don’t have wait until a law passes to know what is in it. YOU just have enough initiative to look it up and then READ! http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c113:1:./temp/~c113lBmZ0M:e3293:
        Any future bills of any type you could also look up on this website. Get the information, don’t yipe about it tell you have read it.

        ” bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren” would have not required a background check

        • henrycat

          To show how ridiculous this idea of background checks has gotten, Colorado’s law went into effect on July 1st whereby a background check must be done on “any” transfer of guns, even if it is to loan it to someone. To show how absurd this law is and how ridiculous the sponsors were, If I buy a shotgun and my Son buys an AR-15 and have a background check done and approved on the same day, and we want to swap weapons the next day in order to try them out, we have to both go through another background check before the guns can be loaned to each other lest we break the law…… How stupid can you get????? Answer….. take a look at the Colorado legislature….

          • SusanBeehler

            I do not think it is ridiculous. I think it is ridiculous to think it is okay for anyone’s son, grandson, or nephew to borrow a gun and shoot up the school or other family members or take guns without permission. The Manchin-Toomey bill did not include what you say the Colorado background check includes. Colorado has been the scene for mass shootings,easy access to guns was part of the problem. This great grandfather did the same thing twice a year and this year had a bad outcome http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-fourth-of-july-shootings-20130705,0,2998516.story How stupid can some gun owners get??????? You best know where your gun is in Colorado if you want to avoid breaking the “transfer” law. Put a chip in it like you do a hunting dog, so you can find if lost or stolen or borrowed.

          • henrycat

            Susan……. you cannot protect everyone from everything… There is such a thing as overkill and Colorado has accomplished it….. Do gooders like yourself do nothing but punish law abiding and properly trained gun owners.

          • SusanBeehler

            I don’t think it is overkill. In North Dakota there is a ban to shoot a bottle rocket, a background check is not a ban: it is a reasonable safety law. How would you be punished by a background check?

          • henrycat

            Susan….. I leave you with a message by Mark Twain…. It says it all….

          • Tim Hines

            Just my opinion, but I feel compelled to ask: was that a heartfelt belief not to engage, or just a lack of a more sustainable response?

          • henrycat

            It was a heartfelt need to not make a more sustainable response…… You see there are none so blind as those who will not see….. There is a point at which one stops kicking a five hundred pound sponge and expecting it to move……

          • Tim Hines

            Fair enough…I just guess that we have different interpretations of when to stop kicking….

          • Lianne

            Amen!

          • $8194357

            Liberal nanny state convoluted logic…
            Are bottle rockets included in the second amendment to the Constitution?
            Those are local fascists who’s nannism is locally fascist.
            One a Rule of Law Constitutional right.
            The other a bike helmet law for liberal retards.

        • Shooter 22

          Susan, I will not waste my time with you. You are a rabid ideologue and a semi-idiot. I said private sales would be criminalized, and that is a fact. Read the convoluted thing. Then you point out the feeble exemption for inheritance to shore up your lies! You are the perfect example of a bad example!
          The poster child of a brain-wormed demorat that explains how this once great country got to the sorry state we are in today.

          • SusanBeehler

            Thank you for your wild labels and name calling. What would be the chargeable crime for a private gun sale? Misdemeanor, felony, what would be the punishment and how would you become a criminal? Did you read the law?

          • LenYol

            What would be the chargeable crime for a private gun sale?”

            Selling a firearm without a FFL

          • $8194357

            OWS’er…
            10X

        • JoeMN

          It is not about criminalizing private sales, it about not privately selling to a criminal.
          _______
          You must be insane to believe a criminal won’t get a gun simply because law abiding citizens must be subjected to this back round check

          • SusanBeehler

            Private sales is how most guns are getting into the criminals hands, they get them from friends and relatives. If you are law abiding you will follow the law and the criminals will stand apart and could be charged with it. Currently there is not much deterrent at a point of sale. In 2010 80,000 people were stopped from buying a gun because they failed a background check.

          • Hoth

            “In 2010 80,000 people were stopped from buying a gun because they failed a background check.”

            No, they weren’t. Over 95% of those denials are false positives that get overturned upon review.

          • SusanBeehler

            False positives? Are you talking pregnancies or people who cannot buy guns, What research do you base that stat on?

          • JoeMN

            Table 2. NICS denials by FBI referred to ATF field divisions in 2008

            Cases
            Percent
            FBI denials referred to ATF Brady Operations
            78,906
            100%
            Brady Operations referrals to
            ATF field divisions
            5,573
            7%
            Delayed denials
            2,472
            3%
            Standard denials

            3,101
            4%
            Not referred to field or overturned
            73,333
            93%
            https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf

          • Hoth

            Here is one story on it.

            http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967

            If you wish to read more (I’m sure you won’t) just search google for “NICS false positives”. You’ll find many articles from many different sources.

          • SusanBeehler

            I went to it, interesting. More interesting for me is this comment in the article “These numbers are just one of the reason that no study by criminologists or economists has found that the federal Brady Law has reduced national crime rates.”

            But we know from stats the population has risen yet the gun homicide rate has fallen even more — by 49%, from 7.0 to 3.6 per 100,000. The rate for non-fatal gun crimes fell even more sharply, by 72%.

            So why? What was the reason for the drop? This is where the research needs to be done. Cause and effect. Did or didn’t background checks play a role?

          • Hoth

            You are misunderstanding the statement you quoted. What is being said is that this huge big deal program only 140 bad guys were stopped from purchasing a weapon. It’s not that they don’t know if the Brady law has worked, it’s that they know that stopping 140 people from buying a weapon won’t change anything. “no study…has found that the federal Brady Law has reduced national crime rates.” It’s an incredibly ineffectual law.

          • $8194357

            Ideological blind make it fit my point of view pre determined outcome educated useful Lenin’s idiots, they are, huh…

          • tony_o2

            Of those 80,000 people, how many were prosecuted for lying on their applications? How many people knew they couldn’t pass, provided false information, and got caught?

            Prosecutors say that they don’t have the time and resources to try these cases and simply ignore them. After all, the background checks already did their job by preventing these sales.

            On the surface, expanded background checks have the potential to prevent certain dangerous people from buying a gun. But what about enforcing the background check laws and prosecuting those that attempt to break them?

          • SusanBeehler

            Not many are prosecuted but they are prevented from buying a gun. If you are a law enforcement officer and only have x amount of tax revenue to do your job and x amount of hours, how would you spend your time and money chasing the guy lying on the form or finding the killer of the body you have laying in the morgue, answering the 911 call of a crime in progress? What would be your priority if you can’t do it all?

          • tony_o2

            If 80,000 people tried to buy a gun and were stopped, what do you think the number is for people that successfully lied on their background checks? A couple, a dozen, a hundred? If there is no punishment (prosecution) for trying to illegally obtain a gun, what is there to stop people from trying?

            I understand that law enforcement only has so much resources to catch and prosecute these people. But I thought this was all about prevention?

          • JoeMN

            Equal amounts of guns are obtained by criminals are by friends and family, and on the street.

            http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/

            All you are doing is creating a larger demand for illegal gun sales.

            The answer involves freeing up prison bed space so these dangerous criminals can be locked up longer by stopping the practice of incarcerating low level drug users.
            http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17
            Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%),
            burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%),
            those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and
            those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons
            (70.2%).
            Got that Susan ?
            We had those illegal gun buyers and sellers in prison, and we let them out.

          • SusanBeehler

            I would say there might be a problem with “law abiding” or “private” sales providing guns to criminals.
            Equal? No slightly more guns are obtained from friends and family more so than on the street
            • 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member• 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/#ixzz2YGQBOyOp

            Joe if the solution is to keep them locked up than I say lets tax those family and friend gun buyers who are providing the criminal buddies with guns. Gun owners need to be part of the solution, because currently they may be contributing to the problem.

          • JoeMN

            So now you want to punish legal gun buyers and sellers for the actions of lawbreakers by TAXING them ?
            I say this because the same criminal who will be slipping by your back round checks will also be avoiding your tax

            BTW we just had a bunch of those criminals who are buying or selling currently illegal guns locked up.

            Why did you let them out ?

          • SusanBeehler

            Taxation is a punishment? Why do your gun owner friends and relatives give or sell them guns?
            Sorry I do not have the keys to the prison.

          • JoeMN

            They do not.

            A friend or family member which supplies a criminal a weapon, is in all likelihood a criminal themselves.

            And most certainly ( as those rearrest stats I provided point out) as they supply the recently released felon with his next gun.
            Se, they are already committing a crime no back round check can catch.

            But it’s rather fascinating, Susan how you can claim to be powerless against a government which miserably fails with the tools already given to them, yet still become the biggest advocate to expand it’s authority.

          • SusanBeehler

            “A friend or family member which supplies a criminal a weapon, is in all likelihood a criminal themselves.” this statement based on your opinion? or you just assuming grandpa gave the gun to Johnny and Johnny goes to the school and shoots his classmates. Sort of like how Adam Lanza was able to accumulate an arsenal from his momma,the “prepper” and the game room to learn strategy and plan with his video simulations of killing. When did grandpa and momma become the criminal before buying his gun, before Johnny or Adam took the gun? How do you tell when a “law abiding” gun owner becomes a criminal, at what point? It is fascinating the gripe the NRA and other gun lobbyist have had over the resources to make our ATF more effective, how the ATF has had to run with out a department leader because those we elect refuse to allow the agency to work by moving forward with speedy approvals, it is fascinating. I am not powerless, if I was you wouldn’t bother talking to me.

          • Hoth

            You take a story about a crazy kid who murders his mother, steals her guns, and goes on a killing spree and then you equate it to gun owners giving/selling guns to criminal friends/relatives? The leaps of logic your delusions take are astounding.

          • SusanBeehler

            Adam Lanza had a gun safe in his bedroom. His mom bought those guns for Adam or at least she easily allowed him to have access to them. She was crazy in love with her guns.
            http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/warrants-released-newtown-investigation-article-1.1301082 No I did not take just take that one story this is actually a pattern of most school shooters getting guns from a relative or friend, remember most of them are not old enough to buy a gun legally, so where do you think they are getting their guns? I have found they have gotten the gun they used in these shootings from a grandpa, uncle, mom, or brother. Google school shootings and you will find articles where it states they got their guns from a relative. Many family “transfer” their guns between each other frequently. When does that “transfer” become a crime especially if Johnny has been able to use the gun at any other time he wants? Do you have children? Are your children allowed access to your guns?

          • JoeMN

            How would your back round checks have stopped Lanza from stealing those weapons ?

            Why do you blame “Preppers” for the actions of a mad man ?
            _______

            How do you tell when a “law abiding” gun owner becomes a criminal, at what point?

            There are places where all citizens are treated as though they are potential criminals.

            It’s called a totalitarian state.

          • SusanBeehler

            We are talking two different things background checks and stopping a school shooter. It is not one thing that will fix the problem with gun violence. Background checks I believe is a start. Nancy was a prepper.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            If background checks aren’t about school shootings, then why did Giffords invoke Newtown while in ND?

            And your talk of a “good start” is exactly why gun owners don’t trust you people.

          • SusanBeehler

            Newtown was the motivating factor, a changing factor for many people to wake up and take a look at gun violence. Just like most wouldn’t worry about a flood unless you see the rising river. You may have been involved in gun issues for a long while but, Moms Demand Action and groups like Gabby’s are just getting started.

          • JoeMN

            Now you blame the dead mother.

            Just wondering if you will ever get around to blaming the shooter himself for his actions ?

          • SusanBeehler

            Why don’t you think she was part of the problem? There is plenty of “blame” to go around. I think she played a role in this, she bought many of the guns, she trained him. She contributed to the problem.

          • JoeMN

            So are you suggesting that if her son had not killed her first, she would have joined in the malaise ?

          • SusanBeehler

            “joined in the malaise” I would hope not. I am suggesting she contributed to the problem, she provided the means for him to carry out his crime. If she would have been more aware of his writings, his obsession of the killing through his video games basically practice for his real life scenario he was going to carry out, she could have decided not to continue to buy guns and ammo for him. She was an enabler, which is something which can happen in a parent/child relationship when one of them or both have a mental illness or addiction. From the warrants and items collected it appears she was like a “dealer” to him supplying him, feeding his obsession or compulsion.

          • JoeMN

            From the warrants and items collected it appears she was like a
            “dealer” to him supplying him, feeding his obsession or compulsion.

            ______

            Even if (as you assert) she taught her son to kill, how would the back round checks you advocate on Nancy Lanza have made any difference ?

          • SusanBeehler

            A background check is something we should have all gun sales. It is the place to start with filling the holes in our gun laws. Nancy and her son are a product of a run away gun culture, that you do not change with just a background check. It took years to get to the state we are in, change will not happen overnight. In 2011 when you go back to the Giffords shooting, some lawmakers talked about the mental health system, something which is still being talked about today. It is not easy breaking down the barriers just to talk about our gun culture, let alone have real change. I am not okay with a society which does nothing legislatively after the tradegy like at Newtown, to date that is what has been done NOTHING!

          • JoeMN

            . I am not okay with a society which does nothing legislatively after
            the tradegy like at Newtown, to date that is what has been done NOTHING!
            ______
            And I am not OK with politicians who knee jerk react by passing legislation which would do NOTHING to prevent a similar tragedy

          • JoeMN

            So lets consider the evidence in a place where guns are tightly regulated

            http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-violence-july-6july-7-20130706,0,34361.story

            At least 67 people have been shot across the city since Wednesday afternoon during this long holiday weekend, 11 fatally.

            It would appear that “doing nothing” would in fact save lives.

          • Guest Observer

            You have firmly confirmed now that you really are the village idiot! A good thing breathing is automatic for you.

          • $8194357

            Since the IRS was put upon America in 1913, taxation is indentured servitude to the communist world governance agenda.
            (rule by elitist oligarchy steering committee
            and agenda)
            Call it what ever you want…..
            But that is what it really is and is used for…..

          • henrycat

            There are gun laws on the books now that address the illegal transfer of guns….. Enforce those first before adding new laws…

          • LenYol
        • Thresherman

          I’d call you a Fascist, expect that you are not even smart enough to realize that that is what you are advocating. You have just said that we should consider people guilty. unless they can prove their innocence.

    • Thresherman

      Well then Susan, how about we go back to the time of when Giffords was shot and recall how all you fair minded liberals were oh so very quick to accuse Sarah Palin as an accessory to murder before it was learned that the shooter was a mental case with decidedly leftist leanings? You guys have tried to flush that down the memory hole and yet you have the gall question a crowd count. I mean, falsely accusing someone of a capital crime must surely rate as a more reprehensible act than missing a crowd size by a couple of dozen people, if indeed that is the case.

      As for the balance of you statement, are you in favor of placing restrictions on Constitutionally protected rights? Or only those wit which you disagree? In short, do you think a Constitutionally outlined right means what the language says it means or does it mean what liberals want it to mean?

      • SusanBeehler

        Sorry I was asleep during that time and I was unaware of “gun violence”. Never heard Sarah Palin had anything to do with Arizona, sorry. It is not a memory hole if you never heard of it before. I do know an NRA board member Sandra Forman ran a campaign for a R candidate against Gifford in 2008. Before Gabby was shot in the grocery store parking lot; someone shot out the glass door of her office. Jared was just crazy, his distorted thinking not political affiliation was the motivation of the shooting. Political parties are not a shooter, a person with a gun, shooting a gun is a shooter. Constitutionally we have been allowing background checks expanding them is just not discriminating against certain sales;equal protection.

  • SusanBeehler

    Heidi must not have sent you the release Rob, “Senator Heitkamp released this statement on Giffords scheduled trip to North Dakota: “I welcome former Congresswoman Giffords and her husband to North Dakota. While we may not agree on every method of reducing gun violence and keeping guns out of the hands of the seriously mentally ill and criminals, Gabby, Mark and I all believe that we need to take some real steps towards addressing gun violence in this country.” http://www.kxnet.com/story/22695999/gabrielle-giffords-plans-trip-to-north-dakota

    • ellinas1

      Heidi does not check in with Port when she says or does something.
      She does not need Port’s permission to fart, even though that is what Port wants.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      She responded to a request for comment because she had to.

      Not a word before the event.

      • SusanBeehler

        Who made her respond? YOU stated “Neither Senator Heitkamp nor the state Democrat Party did a thing on their own to acknowledge” you never said anything about a request or she “had” to. What kind of “a thing” were you expecting? She acknowledged them.

        • zipity

          Aren’t you late for a gathering at the Democratic Underground…?

        • Guest Observer

          You really are liberal pain in the ass! Does it come natural or did you subscribe to a liberal taking point school?

          • SusanBeehler

            thank you

      • Guest

        Keep spinning those wheels and trying to shift the goalposts.

  • ShortAndBald

    Thought it was a bit telling that on the KVLY morning program they referred to GIfford’s trip twice as a visit to promote “gun safety” as opposed to what it was – – promoting gun control…

    • SusanBeehler

      Background checks are on the people buying them not on the gun.

      • kevindf

        So it’s really about “people control?”

        • SusanBeehler

          Don’t you believe in trying to keep the insane and criminals from hurting themselves or others?

          • JoeMN

            You don’t really believe you can keep the insane and criminals from hurting themselves or others with laws that only affect the law abiding ?

          • kevindf

            Shall we return to the “snake pit” days prior to JFK?

          • henrycat

            There is no way that you are going to stop the “insane” from hurting themselves or others without a modification of the HIPAA law. Contact your Senator or Representative to start that conversation….. good luck….

        • $8194357

          10X
          leftist social engineering the elusive false utopia…

  • RCND

    The issue of background checks, on the surface, may sound harmless enough. But, what has always concerned me is… Who gets to decide who gets to exercise their right to keep and bear arms? Most likely bureaucrats after all is said and done.

    What guarantees do we have that conditions disqualifying someone from exercising this right won’t be expanded from what they are now, to a wide overarching list that will exclude a large percentage of the population from exercising this right? There are no guarantees because the rules will be written and enforced by bureaucrats

    Last and most important , can we really trust the federal government (or any other for that matter) with the responsibility to enforce laws which directly impact one of our basic civil rights in a fair and impartial manner? After what we have seen with the IRS and NSA, it is pretty clear we cannot. Our government has shown it is irresponsible with the power they have already been given. Giving them anymore is beyond foolish

    • SusanBeehler

      The government already has the power to change those conditions to disqualify someone now with the background check we have in place, so those who continually talk about “mental health”, may get something which disqualifies many more and could be more subjective. Including internet sales and gun show sales is not totally changing the system we have in place now, it is only including sales which are currently being excluded now. When background checks were put into place back in the 90’s the market place did not exist as it does now, the internet market place was just beginning. It would be no different than NOT having a do not cal list; we did not have one of those when phones were first introduced, because the market placed had not developed “telemarketing”. Laws need to be changed as our society changes and the technology/product/service changes. Murder by a gun did not become more common until the six shooter was invented, it is common sense to update laws.

  • awfulorv

    A sizeable amount of potential attendees left when it was announced that they’d be allowed gawk at, but not touch, her wounded cranium.

Top