By Matt Williams, The Guardian
A pro-gun lobby group broke ranks with the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) on Sunday, stating it would endorse a bill that includes expanded background checks.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Bear Arms, which is said to represent around 650,000 members, told its supporters via email that it was backing proposed legislation due to go before the Senate this week. The news was later confirmed by senator Joe Manchin – one of the architects of the comprise bill – in a tweet.
A spokesman for the pro-gun rights group later told the Washington Post that they had decided to back the legislation because “we believe it is the right thing to do”. But it comes just days after the group sent out a press release seemingly mocking the concept of wider background checks on buyers and suggesting that gun laws never work.
The bill proposed by Manchin, a Democrat, and Republican senator Pat Toomey would see background checks increased to cover both commercial sales both online and at gun shows. But private sales would be exempt.
The NRA had initially said the compromise was a “positive development” but later hardened its stance, and threatened political retribution to any senators who backed the bill. But an email from the Citizens Committee to its members suggests that the Manchin-Toomey compromise satisfies its demands. The website Politico.com quoted the message as contrasting Manchin and Toomey’s “balanced approach” to more “draconian” measures being proposed by gun control advocates.
A vote on the compromise bill could come as early as Wednesday, lawmakers said Sunday. “We expect the vote this week. Wednesday is probably the most likely day for the Manchin-Toomey alternative,” said Toomey on CNN’s State of the Nation.
But even with the support of anti-gun groups such as Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns and, now, one group on the other side of the debate, it is not clear if there exists enough political will in Washington to push the legislation through. “It’s an open question whether we have the votes. I think it’s going to be close,” Toomey said Sunday.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2013
I think that there should be expanded backround checks but they should be expanded to a point. They should get more backround checks for online sales of guns because people put these things online because either they dont need it or dont want it, and they population spends alot of time on the internet. So what better place to put a gun sale, than on the internet. I also think that they're shouldn't be backround checks at gun shows because people go to those things because they want to see old weapons that were used in WW2, and old western revolver's and stuff like that.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Hodek
Per. 3
I agree with Matt. They should definitely put background checks on guns and possibly the people who have used them. It would make no difference but it may be a little safer. At least to know what you're buying and from who.
ReplyDeleteDavid Hoang per.3
I think that is a very reasonable and sensible position to take. I myself am not against guns personally, but I do believe that they are too easy to obtain relative to how much damage they can do. Background checks are a good way to balance the two competing interests here. I just hope the NRA doesn't sabotage it all...
ReplyDeleteI think we should have these background check before buying a gun. Even Medic histroy should be check.
ReplyDeleteTappe p7th
I think this is stupid for people to do that.I understand if someone is trying to attack then you can shoot the person but if not why kill them their really is no point to do that.I wish the world could have peace and no fighting what's so ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I like hunting animals but if they get rid of the guns then I won't be able to hunt anymore:( This is really stupid and dumb that they are doing this...can't life be normal without any of this stuff happening to the world.
ReplyDeletechelsey jensen p.7
Chelsey, if you think about it, background checks should really be the first thing you go through when you get a gun. (That's what this article is about.)
DeleteAnd if someone is running after me trying to murder me, I would want to kill them before they can get me first, because if I just wound them, they would come after me seeking revenge if I just wounded them.
I think that it is a good thing that the people are checking there records to see if they can have a gun on them. If the record is bad and the people have done bad things they should not have a gun around them. I feel that the government is doing the right thing by looking at the gun reports on people.
ReplyDeleteAshleyotto p2
I think that background checks should be conducted. I think this because it would not keep a regular person from getting a gun, but it would help prevent some weapons from being sold to people who want to do harm to other people with it. Unfortunately, some criminals will manage to get weapons no matter what gun laws are.
ReplyDeleteJared Streiff p.2
I am all for gun rights. I do believe that background checks should be conducted whenever a store is selling the gun to a person. However, I do believe that when the fathers of our freedom put the second amendment in the Bill of Rights to make sure that the people of our country would be able to fight of the U.S. government if it ever got to big. I think any innocent, perfect record person should be able to buy whatever gun they would like to get their hands on. I would be okay if these people would have to get certain permit to purchase and own a certain type of gun.
ReplyDeleteBrian Snyder
Period 3
I believe that background checks are a safe way of minimizing the crime rate. There may be ways of obtaining a gun illegally, but until we come up with a way to diminish those markets, this is what we should do.
ReplyDeleteBut guns aren't the only weapons out there. I do think we forget about that sometimes too.