American Patriots Should Know About 7 Gun Myths and The Gun Background Check System

American Patriots Should Know About 7 Gun Myths and The Gun Background Check System

With the U.S. Senate having voted to take up legislation to strengthen gun laws, which will likely include a bipartisan proposal to expand federal firearms background checks, Media Matters reviews myths the media has promoted about the background check system.

How do federal background checks work?

Would proposals to strengthen background checks force family members to run checks on each other?

Are sellers at gun shows required to perform a background check on buyers?

Is supporting background checks politically risky?

Could expanding the background check system lead to a national gun registry?

Do background checks violate the Second Amendment?

Do background checks actually stop criminals and the mentally ill from buying guns?

MYTH: The Federal Government Doesn't Currently Perform Background Checks On Gun Purchasers

Mamet In Newsweek On Background Checks: "How Are They Checked? Are They Checked? By What Agency, With What Monies?" In his January Newsweek cover story, playwright David Mamet was seemingly ignorant of the fact that federal law requires individuals who purchase firearms from licensed dealers to undergo a criminal background check:

    Yes, but we should check all applicants for firearms for a criminal record?

    Anyone applying to purchase a handgun has, since 1968, filled out a form certifying he is not a fugitive from justice, a convicted criminal, or mentally deficient. These forms, tens and tens of millions of them, rest, conceivably, somewhere in the vast repository. How are they checked? Are they checked? By what agency, with what monies? The country is broke. Do we actually want another agency staffed by bureaucrats for whom there is no funding? [Newsweek, 1/28/13]

FACT: While There Is No Federal Background Check Requirement For Private Transactions, Sales Through A Licensed Dealer Are Checked

FBI Has Run Instant Background Checks On Purchases From Licensed Dealers For More Than A Decade. From the FBI's website:

    The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm -- by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.

    Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn't otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials. [FBI, accessed 4/11/13]

MYTH: Proposals To Expand Background Checks Would Place Onerous Burdens On The Transfer Of Firearms Between Family Members

NRA Past President Marion Hammer: Expanded Background Checks Would Mean "Having To Do A Background Check On Your Own Mom Before You Could Give Her One Of Your Guns For Protection." In a January 23 op-ed published at gun news website AmmoLand, Hammer claimed that expanding background checks would interfere with transfers of firearms between family members and hunting partners:

    Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

    Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

    Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

    That's what "universal background checks" do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners. [AmmoLand.com, 1/23/13]

FACT: Every Major Legislative Proposal To Strengthen Background Checks Has Exempted These Transfers

Manchin-Toomey Proposal Exempts Firearms Transfers to Family, Friends, Neighbors. According to the press release detailing their amendment to expand the background check system, under the legislation developed by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), "Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks." [Manchin/Toomey press release, 4/10/13]

Obama Administration Proposal Included "Common-Sense" Exemptions For Family Members, Temporary Transfers. The White House fact sheet on Obama's proposals to strengthen gun laws states:

    Congress should pass legislation that goes beyond just closing the "gun show loophole" to require background checks for all firearm sales, with limited, common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes. [The White House, accessed 4/11/13]

The Fix Gun Checks Act Of 2013 (HR 137) Contains Exemptions For Family Gifts And Other Circumstances. The proposed legislation, which was largely included in the latest effort to strengthen the background check system but will likely be replaced by Manchin-Toomey's proposal, would also exempt temporary transfers of weapons for hunters and transfers of weapons to individuals in imminent danger:

    ''(f) EXCEPTIONS.--Unless prohibited by any other provision of law, subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any transfer of a firearm between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee, if--

    (1) the transfer is a bona fide gift between immediate family members, including spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren;

    (2) the transfer occurs by operation of law, or because of the death of another person for whom the unlicensed transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will;

    (3) the transfer is temporary and occurs while in the home of the unlicensed transferee, if--

    (A) the unlicensed transferee is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms; and

    (B) the unlicensed transferee believes that possession of the firearm is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the unlicensed transferee; [H.R. 137, accessed 4/11/13]

MYTH: There Is No Such Thing As The Private Sales Loophole

NRA News Host Cam Edwards: People Prohibited From Owning Firearms Cannot Exploit The Private Sales Loophole. During the January 3 edition of Cam & Company on NRA News, host Cam Edwards first told guest Jim Geraghty, who writes for the National Review Online, that Geragthy was "incorrect" in his assumption that background checks are not required at gun shows. Edwards would later acknowledge that private sellers at gun shows conduct sales without running a background check on customers, but he also claimed that it was impossible for individuals prohibited from owning firearms under federal law from obtaining weapons through this process. [Cam & Company, 1/3/13]
FACT: Private Sales Without A Background Check Are Extremely Common, Including At Gun Shows And Online

Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence: Private Sales Loophole Has Been Exploited By Gun Traffickers And Used To Supply Firearms To Criminals. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence explained how a deficiency in federal law concerning how firearms sellers are licensed allows dangerous individuals to obtain firearms without a background check:

    The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms must be licensed. Although Congress did not originally define the term "engaged in the business," it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"). That Act defined the term "engaged in the business," as applied to a firearms dealer, as "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms."

    Significantly, however, the term was defined to exclude a person who "makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."

    Consequently, unlicensed sellers may sell firearms without conducting background checks or documenting the transaction in any way. In addition, because federal law does not require private sellers to inspect a buyer's driver's license or any other identification, there is no obligation for such sellers to confirm that a buyer is of legal age to purchase a firearm. As a result, convicted felons, minors and other prohibited purchasers can easily buy guns from unlicensed sellers.

    According to a 1999 report issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the current definition of "engaged in the business" often frustrates the prosecution of "unlicensed dealers masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons." A June 2000 ATF report found that unlicensed sellers were involved in about a fifth of the trafficking investigations and associated with nearly 23,000 diverted guns.  A national survey of firearm ownership conducted in 1994 determined that 60 percent of all firearm sales in the U.S. involved federally licensed dealers, while the remaining 40 percent of firearms were acquired from unlicensed sellers. [Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, accessed 4/11/13]

New York City Undercover Investigation: Most Private Sellers Agreed To Sell Firearm To Someone Who Said They Couldn't Pass A Background Check. In an investigation of 10 websites in 14 states that allow unlicensed sellers to list firearms for sale, undercover investigators working for the City of New York found that 77 out of 125 sellers agreed to go forward with a firearm sale after the purchaser said that he could not pass a background check. [City of New York, December 2011]
MYTH: Supporting Background Check Expansion Is A "Risky" Move For Senators

Fox News: Amendment Is A "Risky Balancing Act" For Manchin, Toomey. Reporting on their compromise amendment to expand the background check system, Fox News correspondent Doug McKelway said that Manchin and Toomey are engaged in a "risky balancing act" because they represent states where "the Second Amendment is considered sacrosanct," suggesting that their legislation is controversial. [Fox News, Special Report, 4/10/13, via Nexis]
FACT: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Expanding The Background Check System

National Polls Show Massive Public Support For Expanding Background Checks. According to an April 10 Huffington Post article:

    Eighty-six percent of Americans support strengthening background checks for guns in some way, according to an ORC/CNN poll released Wednesday.

    Requiring background checks at gun shows was the most popular proposal, with 83 percent of those polled favoring the idea. Seventy percent want checks when gun owners who aren't dealers sell their weapons, and 54 percent support checks when guns are sold or gifted between family members.

    The current laws, which require gun stores and businesses to run background checks, were favored by 89 percent of Americans.

    Most polls since the shooting in Newtown, Conn., have shown upwards of 80 percent support for some form of enhanced background checks. A HuffPost/YouGov poll found that nearly three quarters of the public supported universal background checks. [Huffington Post, 4/10/13]

Poll: 88 Percent In Toomey's Home State Of Pennsylvania Support Background Checks On Every Gun Purchase. [MAIG release, 3/5/13]

Recent Polling Demonstrates Strong State-Level Support For Expanded Background Checks, Even In Red States. According to a series of polls for Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), which supports expanding the background check system, a proposal to expand the system to include all gun buyers is supported by:

    83 Percent Of Utahns. [MAIG release, 3/5/13]
    94 Percent Of Floridians. [MAIG release, 3/5/13]
    94 Percent Of North Dakotans. [MAIG release, 3/5/13]
    87 Percent Of Oklahomans. [MAIG release, 3/5/13]
    90 Percent Of Arizonans. [MAIG release, 3/5/13]
    85 Percent Of Louisianans. [MAIG release, 3/5/13]

MYTH: Background Check Expansion Could Lead To A National Gun Registry

Fox Host Bolling: Proposal Is "Knocking On The Door To A National Registry." On Fox News' The Five, co-host Eric Bolling said of the Manchin-Toomey proposal: "We're so close to this background check in this form being a national registry. It is knocking on the door to a national registry." [Fox News, The Five, 4/10/13, via Nexis]
FACT: Proposal Reaffirms That A Federal Registry Is Illegal

Manchin-Toomey Legislation Includes 15-Year Prison Term For Attempting To Create A Federal Registry. The Huffington Post reported:

    The background check compromise set to be introduced on Thursday will explicitly bar public officials from creating a national gun registry, penalizing those who do with a felony charge carrying a prison sentence of up to 15 years.

    That language of the bill is still being crafted. But multiple Senate aides briefed The Huffington Post on that specific provision, which was included to alleviate the concerns of pro-gun advocates who have warned that any expansion of background checks would pave the way for a registry.

    In actuality, a federal registry of gun ownership is already prohibited under law. But the lawmakers crafting a compromise -- Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) -- wanted to ensure a smoother passage for their bill, so they made the punishment more severe. In addition to a potential jail sentence of 15 years, officials who create a gun registry or misuse federal records on gun sales or ownership would face a monetary fine. [Huffington Post, 4/10/13]

MYTH: Expanding Background Checks Violates The Second Amendment

Fox News: Legislation Could Constitute An "Infringement Of The Second Amendment." McKelway reported that Republicans may oppose the Manchin-Toomey proposal because they "are under tremendous pressure not to cave on any infringement of the Second Amendment." [Fox News, Special Report, 4/10/13, via Nexis]
FACT: Supreme Court Has Stated That Background Checks Do Not Violate The Second Amendment

Highest Court Reaffirmed That Efforts To Prevent Felons And The Mentally Ill From Obtaining Firearms Is Permissible Under The Second Amendment. In the 2008 Supreme Court case, District Of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that the Second Amendment is "not unlimited" as "commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Justice Scalia continued:

    [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." [District of Columbia v. Heller, 6/26/08, via Google Scholar, emphasis added]

MYTH: The Background Check System Doesn't Prevent Criminals From Obtaining Weapons

WaPo's Parker: Criminals Won't Submit To Background Checks, So System Has "No Real Practical Purpose." In her Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker wrote that while she supports expanding the background check system, she thought the system had little impact:

    Universal background checks are a perfectly good idea, except that they won't stop the burglar who recently cleaned out our house of all our legally purchased rifles and shotguns, including an antique that had belonged to my great-grandfather, who, as sheriff of Barnwell County, S.C., confiscated the gun from the triple murderer he tracked for three days and finally killed. (I want that gun back, please.)

    Those guns are now in circulation among an element of society that has no intention of submitting to a background check or any other well-intentioned effort to ensure that only good guys have guns. [The Washington Post, 4/9/13]

FACT: Background Checks Prevented The Sale Almost 2 Million Firearms In System's First 15 Years, Largely To Criminals And The Mentally Ill

Between 1994 And 2009, Nearly 1.8 Million Applications For Firearms Transfers Were Denied. NBC News reported:

    The numbers show that background checks do keep guns out of the hands of at least some people who are not supposed to have them. Nearly 1.8 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied between the passage of the law in March 1994 and December 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The FBI and state law enforcement denied firearm purchases to 153,000 people in 2010 alone, the most recent year for which data is available. [NBCNews.com, 4/10/13]

Not a single Democrat has proposed banning the ownership of guns. The expanded background check and going back to the assault weapons ban are simply two common sense gun safety measures - like requiring people to use seat-belts. Why are the anti-American zealots at the NRA - The National Right to Kill Children Association,  lying and exaggerating about these modest changes in the laws already regulating guns? That is just what lunatics do.

How America's Sleazy Fast Food Industry Screws Over Workers and Capitalism

How America's Fast Food Industry Screws Over Workers and Capitalism

The gulf between CEO pay and staff McWages is shockingly wide: a strike serves this system of super-exploitation right.

Last week, approximately 400 workers in the fast food industry went on a one-day strike protesting the "McWages" that keep them them living at or even below the poverty line. Despite their modest demands – the workers want to be able to exercise their right to form a union without intimidation or harassment and they want to be paid a living wage of $15 per hour – they face an uphill battle to achieve them.Fast food workers take part in a protest at a McDonald's restaurant in Harlem, New York for better wages, 4 April 2013. (Photograph: VIEWpress Corp/Corbis)

One of the catch phrases used by striking workers was "we cannot survive on seven twenty-five," a reference to the insulting $7.25 average hourly wage most fast food workers in New York get paid. This paltry sum, which adds up to less than $300 pre tax for a 40-hour week, would not amount to a living wage anywhere in the country, and doesn't even come close in New York, one of the most expensive of cities in the US to live in. That is the federal minimum wage, however – and it's not hard to imagine that employees would be paid even less than $7.25 an hour if their bosses could get away with it.

One striking worker, Joseph Barrera, who works for TacoBell, told MSNBC's Chris Hayes that when he started working at the chain, at the age of 15, he was paid $7.15 an hour. Six years later, as a supervisor, his pay has increased to $7.25 an hour, a ten cents raise. If you're finding it hard to imagine how Barrera makes it through the month on such meager wages, that's because he can't. He says he often has to skip meals or walk to work because he can't afford the subway fare and he hasn't bought clothes in years. He'd like to be able to get married and start a family, but doing so on his full-time supervisor's salary is impossible.

Treating an employee this badly might be excusable if the company that hired him was struggling for survival, but this is far from the case. Yum Brands Inc, which owns Taco Bell, as well as KFC and Pizza Hut, proudly boasts on its website an EPS growth of 13% in 2012, an increased dividend for shareholders of 18%, and a net income of $1.6bn. Rival fast food companies like McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's are all doing similarly well: according to Business Wire, fast food is one of the fastest growing industries, thanks to a competitive cost advantage.

Yet, the fast food companies are not only unembarrassed about how they exploit their workers, but they actually seem to think they are doing employees like Barrera a favor in providing him with a job that is a step above indentured servitude. This attitude is evident in the various statements made by the companies to the media following the strike. Burger King issued a communique saying that the company has provided "an entry point into the workforce for millions of Americans" and that they "offer compensation and benefits that are consistent with the QSR [quick service restaurant] industry".

McDonald's also waxed lyrical about their commitment to their workers, and said that "employees are paid competitive wages and have access to flexible schedules and quality, affordable benefits." The National Restaurant Association went a step further and seemed to be almost looking for sympathy with their statement that "the industry provides more than 13m jobs, that could be jeopardized if the minimum wage goes up." My personal favorite was this nugget, also from the National Restaurant Association:

    "The industry is one of the best paths to achieving the American Dream."

If the American Dream circa 2013 has morphed into a nightmare of inescapable poverty and struggle, then I guess they have a point. I think, however, most hardworking Americans – and surely, anyone who puts in a grueling 40-plus-hour week at a fast food restaurant counts as a hardworking American? – have higher expectations of the American Dream than the fast food industry has in mind for them. But perhaps the National Restaurant Association was referring to senior executives and those lucky few who end up as CEOs, because for them, the fast food industry is dreamy indeed.

In general, CEOs in the US earn 380 times what their average employee earns. That rather shocking disparity starts to look almost modest, however, when compared with the fast food world. In 2011, the CEO of McDonalds earned over $20m, which means he was paid nearly 1,333 times more than the average crew member or cashier, who earns around $8 an hour or less. Even if those employees were to get their wish of earning $15 an hour, the CEO would still be earning 640 times more than them.

But don't expect McDonald's CEO, or any of the fast food restaurant CEOs, to accept this outrageous pay disparity as a reason to raise their employees wages. The only way workers will ever change their situation is to mobilize and strike. But going on strike when you are not in a union, and are easy to fire and replace, is incredibly risky. Last week, 400 workers took that risk regardless – and as long as the media and the public keep paying attention, it will be difficult for their companies to make them suffer for it.

So far, it's one-nil for the brave 400. Imagine what could happen if all 13 million of their colleagues followed their lead.

Sadhbh Walshe is a film-maker and former staff writer for the CBS drama series The District.

 One can also imagine that Social Security and Medicare funding would be in better shape if more workers earned a living wage. Is this the America we want to live, are these the ideals we want to live up to- creating millions of wage slaves.

Wacko Rand Paul (R-KY) Must Think Blacks Have Amnesia

Wacko Rand Paul (R-KY) Must Think Blacks Have Amnesia

So now we know the basis of Kentucky's libertarian Sen. Rand Paul's strategy for expanding the Republican Party's appeal to African Americans: amnesia.

That's the only conclusion I can reach after watching the C-SPAN broadcast of Paul's 52-minute appearance today at Howard University. He deserves credit for appearing before a potentially hostile audience to make the case for conservative policies with which most black voters utterly disagree. But he also deserves strong criticism -- even derision -- for pretending that there's any mystery about why most black folks are so skeptical about the GOP. He wants us to forget the party's recent history -- and his own.

So in his speech today, he asked, "How did the party that elected the first black U.S. senator, the party that elected the first 20 African-American congressmen, become a party that now loses 95 percent of the black vote? How did the Republican Party, the party of the Great Emancipator, lose the trust and faith of an entire race?"

He went on to argue that blacks began to switch their long-standing allegiance from Republicans to Democrats during the Great Depression. "The Democrats promised equalizing outcomes through unlimited federal assistance, while Republicans offered something that seemed less tangible: the promise of equalizing opportunity through free markets," Paul argued.

"Now, Republicans face a daunting task," he continued. "Several generations of black voters have never voted Republican and are not very open to even considering the option. Democrats still promise unlimited federal assistance, and Republicans promise free markets, low taxes and less regulations that we believe will create more jobs."

He left out the part that Republicans almost always leave out when they lament their lack of support from African Americans: the racial realignment that occurred during the 1960s, when Democratic politicians like President Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert F. Kennedy became champions for equal rights, and Republicans reinvented their party as a harbor for segregationists.

The simple truth is that the present-day Republican Party has virtually no resemblance to the Republican Party of, say, 1960, when Richard Nixon got 32 percent of the black vote in his race against John F. Kennedy. Four years later, the Republicans nominated right-wing Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who based his campaign on opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By 1968, Nixon had wholeheartedly accepted Goldwater's advice to "go hunting where the ducks are" by adopting a so-called Southern strategy dedicated to wooing segregationists like Strom Thurmond.

They consolidated their approach in 1980 when Ronald Reagan delivered the first major speech of his campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. Reagan gave a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" -- code words for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southerners. Ever since then, the GOP has been the party of white privilege.

Paul seems to think that black voters are supposed to forget all that very recent history. He didn't mention any of it in his speech today, or in answers to two pointed questions posed by Howard students.

On top of that, he doesn't want us to remember that in a 2010 interview with the Courier-Journal, he took issue with parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination in public accommodations such as hotels and restaurants. He says he has never been against the Civil Rights Act, but his opposition is on tape. Who are we supposed to believe -- him or our lying eyes?

 The scary part is that Rand probably did not feel like he was lying, he has come to believe the crazy version of history put out by anti-American zealots like Glenn beck and the pundits at Fox News.

How Walmart, ExxonMobil, and Coke Buy Latino Friends in Congress

How Walmart, ExxonMobil, and Coke Buy Latino Friends in Congress
Lobbyists and corporations that employ them can't give gifts to lawmakers—unless they funnel the money through a nonprofit.

 6 states that might criminalize taping animal cruelty
Several statehouses are pushing bills that could severely hinder food industry whistleblowers

UnAmerican Crackpot Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) Threaten to Filibuster Gun Safety Bill They Have Not Even Seen

UnAmerican Crackpot Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) Threaten to Filibuster Gun Safety Bill They Have Not Even Seen

Thirteen Republican senators have pledged to filibuster a senate debate about new gun safety measures, insisting in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that they will “oppose any legislation that would infringe on the American people’s constitutional right to bear arms, or their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance.” The threat, which Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) first made last week without seeing the bill, comes just days before the body prepares to consider the first comprehensive gun legislation in the aftermath of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The package will expand restrictions against gun trafficking, invest in school safety and provide for universal background checks of all gun purchases.

But one top Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), is speaking out publicly against the group, questioning the wisdom of promising to filibuster legislation that lawmakers have yet to finalize:

    After Mr. Coburn was asked multiple times an identically worded question about whether he would join Mr. Paul’s effort to block gun legislation as he traveled around Oklahoma in recent days, Mr. Coburn bristled at the idea that Mr. Paul would threaten to filibuster a bill before its contents were made final.

    “Is that about filibustering a bill to protect the Second Amendment, or is that about Rand Paul?” Mr. Coburn said at a town-hall meeting at the Oklahoma Sports Museum in Guthrie, Okla., on Wednesday. “I’ve done more filibusters than Rand Paul is old,” Mr. Coburn said, but he added that he doesn’t announce such moves before he understands the bill.

Coburn is working on compromise legislation that would expand background checks to all gun purchases, but would not require private sellers to keep a record of the transaction, which gun safety advocates say would ensure that checks are being properly conducted and allow the entire chain of custody to be reconstructed in the event the gun is later recovered in a crime.

Should the Republicans proceed to filibuster on the motion to proceed to the gun package, Reid could take advantage of a new Senate rule “by promising each party two amendments on the legislation.” “Under that scenario, Paul and his allies would still get a chance to raise their objections on the floor for hours on end, but they couldn’t stop the Senate from starting debate on the bill,” Politico reports.

Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) are planing to keep a bill from even being voted on that 92% of the public supports. These same freaks don't seem to mind that it is harder to get on a plane then it is to buy an assault weapon with a large magazine. The average American's driving privileges are more regulated than guns. None of these radical zealots have said anything about that part of the 2nd amendment that says militias should be "regulated".

The NRA or National Right to Kill Children Association Proposals That Will Turn Our Schools into Gun-Crazy Nightmares

The NRA or National Right to Kill Children Association Proposals That Will Turn Our Schools into Gun-Crazy Nightmares

The NRA doesn’t just want to put armed teachers, armed guards and volunteer vigilantes in schools to prevent more school shootings. It wants to turn schools into veritable prisons, where security staff patrol and lockdown schools, and indentify and spy on problem students and employees, according to an NRA-sponsored report [3] that included model legislation to allow such measures.

The National Federation of Teachers [4] and well-known civil rights advocates [5] slammed the report [6], issued by former GOP congressman and Department of Homeland Security official Asa Hutchinson [7]. They said militarizing schools with more guns was not the answer to gun violence. Nor was putting more police into schools, particularly in communities of color. That only increases hostilities for students, not safe learning environments.

What follows below are 16 excerpts from the 225-page report [3] showing how the NRA would choose to deal with the potential for gun violence—primarily by locking down schools, making every student and school employee a suspect, and arming a cadre of security officers with legal authority to shoot back.

Notably, the report does mention that anti-bullying programs have an important role to play in lowering hateful acts. It also says that all school employees, contractors or community volunteers carrying guns should have extensive background checks, which pro-gun lawmakers in Congress are saying would be unacceptable in new federal gun controls.
But the bottom line is that the report [3] by Hutchinson’s security-oriented consulting firm for the NRA would militarize schools and turn them into lightweight versions of modern prisons. Nowhere does it suggest the obvious—that taking guns out of circulation will lessen their use. Instead, it seeks to make guns in schools the new normal.

1. Only more guns will stop violence. “It is the belief of the National School Shield Task Force that many schools across the country stand to benefit from the presence of armed security and, in the quest to make our schools safer, should leave no option off the table.”

2. Unarmed officers can’t do the job. “The presence of a security guard or off-duty policeman when there is an active shooter is mostly ineffective unless the security officer is armed. Without a weapon to defend them, even the most heroic individuals are unprepared to defend against violent attackers armed with guns.”

3. The NRA should train armed school staff.“The NRA has the nationally recognized expertise to develop and implement the stringent training courses required by this model program. It is recommended that the professional training programs that are approved by the states for armed school personnel use private sector approved and certified trainers as well as traditional state law enforcement trainers.”

4. This training should be privatized or donated.“Because of the limitations of federal, state and local funding for school safety, there is an important role that can be filled by a private non-profit advocacy and education organization. The National School Shield is in a position with adequate funding and support from the NRA to fulfill this important national mission.”

5. Four options for an armed presence.“A School Resource Officer (SRO) is a uniformed, armed and sworn law enforcement officer, usually drawn from local police or sheriff’s departments... The second possibility is introducing privately contracted security personnel… The third possibility is introducing armed citizen volunteers.... The fourth option involves arming personnel already at the school for whom security is not their primary duty – for example, teachers, principals, or custodial staff.”

6. Assume no school is safe.“Finally, a school must take steps to prevent and mitigate those events that are entirely unpredictable and even unfathomable. Using a phrase from the security field, this area of consideration can be summed up as follows: ‘Just because there is the absence of a threat does not mean there is no risk.’”

7. Track and spy on ‘problem kids.’“Each school should develop a threat assessment team, which will work in coordination with mental health professionals… The team will be responsible for evaluating all threats, including the surrounding circumstances, and conducting an investigation to determine whether the threat is serious. After all appropriate assessments have been made, the team should create a written safety plan by integrating all relevant findings, and should determine whether to refer the student to a school psychologist for a mental health assessment and, if necessary, to the school resource officer for a law-enforcement investigation.

8. Overview: spy on kids, lock campuses, position guards.“This includes developing a knowledge of commonly identified ‘pre-incident indicators’ that historical inquiry of such events suggests may be helpful in identifying and interdicting potential assailants before they engage in violence. Another part is physical, involving the construction, installation, and maintenance of appropriate physical security barriers beginning with the outermost perimeter of school grounds, extending to the exterior of the school building, and continuing through the interior of the school itself. Finally, a third part is comprised of establishing appropriate daily procedures that complement various components of a school’s physical infrastructure or, where that physical infrastructure is lacking, compensate for that potential gap in security.”

9. Identify ‘troubled’ kids and track them.“Schools should have a dedicated Threat Assessment Group or Behavioral Intervention Team (BIT) that meets at a minimum once every two weeks and preferably weekly. These teams should employ a multi-disciplinary approach to not only assess existing threats but also focus on preventing the threat or crisis from occurring.

“The team tracks 'red flags' over time, detecting patterns, trends, and disturbances in individual or group behavior. The team receives reports of disruptive, problematic or concerning behavior or misconduct (from co-workers, community members, friends, colleagues, etc.), conducts an investigation, performs a threat assessment, and determines the best mechanisms for support, intervention, warning/notification and response.”

10. Spy on schoolwork for violent fantasies.“A student intentionally or unintentionally reveals clues to feelings, thoughts, fantasies, attitudes, or intentions that may signal an impending violent act. These clues can take the form of subtle threats, boasts, innuendos, predictions, or ultimatums. They may be spoken or conveyed in stories, diary entries, essays, poems, letters, songs, drawings, doodles, tattoos, or videos.”

11. Monitor social media use and posts.“The rise of social media has expanded the arena in which students express themselves and communicate with one another. For many adolescents, these new platforms do not merely supplement traditional mediums of communication, but are often the primary means through which they communicate. Therefore, it is important that adults with a stake in school security adapt to this changing landscape.”

12. Watch school employees.“History has unfortunately shown that adults are also capable of posing threats to the occupants of a school. To the victims of an attack and those surrounding them, it hardly matters whether a fellow student or an adult committed the act; the more important thing is that a potential offender – regardless of age – is identified and stopped before they commit the act.

“While the conditions and motives that lead an adult to commit a violent act at a school typically may differ from those of a student, it is also believed that an adult, such as an employee, that commits a violent act does not ‘snap’ but rather displays behavioral indicators over time that lead up to the event.”

13. Background checks for employees (but not gun buyers).“It is also recommended that schools perform a pre-employment background check and periodic rechecks on all employees.”

“If a school decides to employ the services of one or multiple forms of security personnel, it is recommended that schools perform a pre-employment background check on all of these individuals, whether armed and unarmed. The following list includes the types of information the school should consult as part of a pre-employment background check within the laws governing access and use for making informed hiring decisions: Former employment data; DMV records; Residential address history verification; Credit check; Criminal records check; Education verification; Civil history; National wants and warrants; Social security verification; Drug testing; Finger print screening."

14. Limited access to buildings.“In high-risk schools, an entry control point or a manned guard building with corresponding levels of screening and a sturdy gate may be ideal; in others, active monitoring at exterior entry points may be deemed unnecessary, impractical, or counterproductive. A third option is to allow free entry and exit during designated arrival and departure times, while enacting more stringent perimeter screening and access control during daytime school hours and after school hours.”

15. Remove unnecessary plants and trees.“School officials should be cognizant that, if misused, misplaced, or neglected, landscaping can conversely be detrimental to school security, providing hiding places for people, weapons, and explosive devices, blocking lighting, inadvertently providing routes of unauthorized access, blocking lines of sight necessary for natural surveillance, or damaging other security devices.”

16. Surveillance cameras in schools and buses. “Surveillance equipment installed on the outdoor grounds of a school or on the exterior of the building itself can serve several purposes. For one, cameras help distinguish between outsiders who do not belong on campus and students and employees who do. This ability can be helpful, especially to administrative or security staff who may gain from extra time in identifying a threatening individual approaching the school and taking appropriate preventive measures.”

The Security State vs. Common Sense

These measures and others in the NRA-sponsored report would require state legislatures to pass new laws granting legal immunity to people carrying guns inside schools. The appendix of the 225-page report suggests legal language for that legislation, which is typical of rightwing lobbying efforts—and undoubtedly would be a boon for privatized criminal justice services.

This is not shocking to the average conservative gun fetishists who worships their gun like a magical god that can solve any problem.

Sinister Anti-American Conservative Ben Carson Goes On Crazed Rant Against Critics

Sinister Anti-American Conservative Ben Carson Goes On Crazed Rant Against Critics

Dr. Ben Carson has pivoted from apologizing "if anybody was offended" by his anti-gay comments to attacking his critics, some of whom he says are "racist[s]" who are trying to smear him as a bigot in order to silence him.

Carson, who has been lauded by the conservative media and treated to dozens of Fox News appearances over the past few months, lashed out at his critics during an April 1 interview on The Mark Levin Show.

The noted surgeon and Johns Hopkins University neurosurgery professor has been subject to harsh criticism, including from students and staff at Johns Hopkins Medical School, since he compared gays who support marriage equality to pedophiles and practitioners of bestiality during a March 27 interview on Fox News' Hannity.

During that appearance, Carson said, "Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. So, it's not something against gays. It's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications."

Carson had previously written in his 2012 book that marriage equality could destroy America like the "fall of the Roman Empire."

After LGBT medical students called for Carson's replacement as the commencement speaker for the class of 2013, he attempted to claim that he hadn't been "equating" gays with pedophiles or those who engage in bestiality, while apologizing "if anybody was offended." He also said he would be willing to step down as commencement speaker.

But on Levin's show, Carson went on the offensive, saying that the criticism he has received proves that he's right that "political correctness is threatening to destroy our nation because it puts a muzzle over honest conversation." He added that "the attacks against me have been so vicious because I represent an existential threat" to his critics, who he says "take my words, misinterpret them, and try to make it seem that I'm a bigot."

After Levin claimed that Carson has been "attacked also, in many respects, because of your race" because "a lot of white liberals" don't like black conservatives, Carson replied, "Well, they're the most racist people there are. Because you know, they put you in a little category, a little box, 'you have to think this way, how could you dare come off the plantation?'"

Carson's accusation echoes Rush Limbaugh, who said that Carson's experience shows that if minorities "dare stray from the Democrat Party plantation," they will "pay the price for that." Fox News' Megyn Kelly has also rallied to Carson's defense. Meanwhile, right-wing media figures like Fox's Eric Bolling and the Daily Caller's Matt Lewis have criticized conservatives for pushing Carson as the savior of the GOP so quickly.

Carson voices the same cultural values as 15th century inquisitors who call anyone who disagrees with them, evil. he has a skill set and good for him. Thank goodness he does not determine public policy. He sees anyone who is a patriotic American ( non-conservatives) the same way tyrants throughout history has seen those who fight for freedom, economic and social justice.