Trump backs effort to improve gun background checks

[webfact]

Trump backs effort to improve gun background checks

By Jeff Mason and Timothy Gardner

 

Adin Chistian (16), student of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and his mother Denyse, look at the crosses placed in front of the fence of the school to commemorate the victims of the mass shooting, in Parkland, Florida, U.S., February 19, 2018. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

 

PALM BEACH, Fla./WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Monday that President Donald Trump supports efforts to improve federal background checks for gun purchases, days after a shooting at a Florida school killed 17 people.

 

Trump spoke to Senator John Cornyn, a Republican, on Friday about a bipartisan bill that he and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy introduced to improve federal compliance with criminal background checks, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said.

 

"While discussions are ongoing and revisions are being considered, the president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system," Sanders said in a statement.

 

Students, many using the mantra NeverAgain, are mobilizing around the country in favour of stronger gun laws after the deadliest high school shooting in U.S. history took place on Wednesday at Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where a former student is accused of murdering 17 people using an assault-style rifle.

 

Previous mass shootings in the United States have also stirred outrage and calls for action to tighten U.S. gun laws, with few results in Congress.

 

Trump, who visited survivors of the shooting and law enforcement officials on Friday night before spending the weekend at his property in Palm Spring, Florida, is a strong supporter of gun rights and won the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, the powerful gun lobby group, for his 2016 presidential campaign.

 

He angered some students by suggesting in a tweet on Saturday that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had missed signs that the school shooter was troubled because it was distracted by its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. The FBI has acknowledged it failed to act on a tip flagging concerns about the suspect, Nikolas Cruz.

 

Many Republicans generally oppose measures to tighten gun restrictions, citing the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms.

 

Former President Barack Obama and many of his fellow Democrats unsuccessfully pushed to pass gun control legislation after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012.

 

Cornyn and Murphy introduced their bill to improve federal background checks last November, days after a gunman killed more than two dozen people in a church in Texas.

 

The bill, called the Fix NICS Act, would ensure that states and federal agencies comply with existing law on reporting criminal history records to the national background check system.

 

Cornyn, of Texas, had complained when introducing the legislation that compliance by agencies was “lousy.”

 

Students are planning a "March For Our Lives" in Washington on March 24 to call attention to school safety and ask lawmakers to enact gun control.

 

Some students reacted with caution to Trump's support on background checks.

 

“We want to prevent mass shootings from happening and while this could have happened with other types of weapons, NeverAgain believes school safety should be priority right now, not just background checks," said Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student Kali Clougherty, 18, referring to a campaign for gun control. "This is about the victims. Don’t forget that; we never will."

 

Trump is scheduled to host a "listening session" with high school students and teachers on Wednesday.

 

Dozens of high school students protested in front of the White House on Monday, chanting “We want safe schools!” and “Hey! Hey! NRA how many kids did you kill today?”

 

Crystal Jordan, a 15-year old from Spotsylvania, Virginia, said it was scary to go to school now.

 

“It’s OK to obtain a gun, like a handgun, but not an assault rifle,” she said, adding that she hoped Trump and Congress would issue laws to strengthen background checks, ban assault rifles and prevent people with mental problems from accessing guns.

 

(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Timothy Gardner; Additional reporting by Katanga Johnson in Florida; Editing by Alistair Bell and Lisa Shumaker)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-02-20

[Samui Bodoh]

2 minutes ago, webfact said:

The White House said on Monday that President Donald Trump supports efforts to improve federal background checks for gun purchases, days after a shooting at a Florida school killed 17 people.

While improved background checks would probably be a good thing, there are other actions which would likely be better.

 

Why not ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15? What civilian actually needs these things?

Why not do away with the "gun shows" all together? Guns are dangerous; limit their sales to registered, liscensed stores only.

Why not do away with large magazines?

 

While I loathe guns, I recognize that many Americans like them. Fine. However, I have to ask; how many mass shootings until you actually do something? Do they need to be more frequent? Monthly? Weekly? Daily?

 

Americans- what will it take to see some action against mass shootings? (serious question)

 

[NumbNut]

39 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

While improved background checks would probably be a good thing, there are other actions which would likely be better.

 

Why not ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15? What civilian actually needs these things?

Why not do away with the "gun shows" all together? Guns are dangerous; limit their sales to registered, liscensed stores only.

Why not do away with large magazines?

 

While I loathe guns, I recognize that many Americans like them. Fine. However, I have to ask; how many mass shootings until you actually do something? Do they need to be more frequent? Monthly? Weekly? Daily?

 

Americans- what will it take to see some action against mass shootings? (serious question)

 

 

Because 2nd Amendment! You cannot change an Amendment! You cannot change ANY amendment! Anywhere!

 

No amendment anywhere has EVER been changed!!!

[isaanbanhou]

8 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

 

Because 2nd Amendment! You cannot change an Amendment! You cannot change ANY amendment! Anywhere!

 

No amendment anywhere has EVER been changed!!!

 

I'm not American so excuse my ignorance of amendments.  The bible has changed, it's been around a lot longer and allegedly "gods" words. The right to bear arms was written in 1791

 

." The most advanced weapon at that time would probably have been either the Kentucky long rifle, capable of firing two or three .60 balls per minute out to an accurate range of 300 yards, or the 6-pound field gun, which could fire a variety of projectiles 1500 yards, usually one shot every two minutes."  www.quora.com/What-were-the-most-advanced-arms-available-in-1791-the-year-that-the-Second-Amendment-was-passed

 

The thought that America is now a hostage to military assault rifles because someone wrote something 220 years ago is a little ridiculous to me. What will America do when arms are robotized?  what if an arm could kill a 1000 people at once?  I really don t understand why a nation would allow mass murder because 220 years ago because it is a "right to bear arms".

[thaibeachlovers]

42 minutes ago, NumbNut said:

 

Because 2nd Amendment! You cannot change an Amendment! You cannot change ANY amendment! Anywhere!

 

No amendment anywhere has EVER been changed!!!

You might want to rethink that. Look up the 18th amendment and the 21st amendment.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

While improved background checks would probably be a good thing, there are other actions which would likely be better.

 

Why not ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15? What civilian actually needs these things?

Why not do away with the "gun shows" all together? Guns are dangerous; limit their sales to registered, liscensed stores only.

Why not do away with large magazines?

 

While I loathe guns, I recognize that many Americans like them. Fine. However, I have to ask; how many mass shootings until you actually do something? Do they need to be more frequent? Monthly? Weekly? Daily?

 

Americans- what will it take to see some action against mass shootings? (serious question)

 

The reason it's business as usual, IMO, is because the NRA ( IMO rightly ) considers that any restriction in gun ownership would be just the thin end of the wedge in an attempt to remove the right to own weapons. As the NRA is a strong lobbying force, it is able, apparently, to get politicians to support it's desire for no restrictions.

If the Dems want to restrict gun ownership, they need to start by stopping lobbying, but of course they benefit from lobbyists as well, so that's unlikely to happen.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

While improved background checks would probably be a good thing, there are other actions which would likely be better.

 

Why not ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15? What civilian actually needs these things?

Why not do away with the "gun shows" all together? Guns are dangerous; limit their sales to registered, liscensed stores only.

Why not do away with large magazines?

 

While I loathe guns, I recognize that many Americans like them. Fine. However, I have to ask; how many mass shootings until you actually do something? Do they need to be more frequent? Monthly? Weekly? Daily?

 

Americans- what will it take to see some action against mass shootings? (serious question)

 

Chicago has a lot of shootings and ( apparently ) some of the toughest anti gun laws in the US. I doubt if many of the guns are legal, so if they can't stop it in Chicago, or other US cities with high shooting rates, why would stricter guns laws in the rest of the US make a difference?

[Samui Bodoh]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Chicago has a lot of shootings and ( apparently ) some of the toughest anti gun laws in the US. I doubt if many of the guns are legal, so if they can't stop it in Chicago, or other US cities with high shooting rates, why would stricter guns laws in the rest of the US make a difference?

You are correct that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the world; that is why the guns there come from Indiana.

 

But, you seem to be a gun rights person (not sure how to put that...), let me ask a question.

 

I believe, following the logic of 'only Nixon could go to China', that a solution to US mass shootings must come from the pro-gun (is that an acceptable term?) side.

 

Any thoughts? My solutions wouldn't be accepted...

[stevenl]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The reason it's business as usual, IMO, is because the NRA ( IMO rightly ) considers that any restriction in gun ownership would be just the thin end of the wedge in an attempt to remove the right to own weapons. As the NRA is a strong lobbying force, it is able, apparently, to get politicians to support it's desire for no restrictions.

If the Dems want to restrict gun ownership, they need to start by stopping lobbying, but of course they benefit from lobbyists as well, so that's unlikely to happen.

There already are restrictions in gun ownership.

[Khun Han]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Chicago has a lot of shootings and ( apparently ) some of the toughest anti gun laws in the US. I doubt if many of the guns are legal, so if they can't stop it in Chicago, or other US cities with high shooting rates, why would stricter guns laws in the rest of the US make a difference?

 

Less guns in general circulation would mean less guns available to make their way illegally to places such as Chcago. But it's a moot point, because there are so many guns in circulation in the US that this 'horse' bolted long ago.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

You are correct that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the world; that is why the guns there come from Indiana.

 

But, you seem to be a gun rights person (not sure how to put that...), let me ask a question.

 

I believe, following the logic of 'only Nixon could go to China', that a solution to US mass shootings must come from the pro-gun (is that an acceptable term?) side.

 

Any thoughts? My solutions wouldn't be accepted...

But, you seem to be a gun rights person

Well, I believe in the right to own a gun to protect myself and significant others from being harmed or killed by bad people that I could not defeat without an equaliser.

 

I have already posted my "solution" to mass shootings in schools, but to repeat- have armed security patrolling the grounds and corridors. There are probably thousands of ex servicemen that would not be too old to do the job, and willing to do so.

Armed police secure public gatherings, but apparently not allowed in schools. Why not?

[thaibeachlovers]

24 minutes ago, stevenl said:

There already are restrictions in gun ownership.

Any FURTHER restrictions in gun ownership.

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, NumbNut said:

Because 2nd Amendment! You cannot change an Amendment! You cannot change ANY amendment! Anywhere! No amendment anywhere has EVER been changed!!!

NumbNut, you can type 1,000 exclamation marks, but it doesn't make you right.

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about rifles.  It references the 'arms' of the time it was written:  smooth-bore single shot guns. If you want to use gun-huggers' warped interpretation, then I can buy a loaded bazooka and carry it around downtown, ....or plant land mines all around the perimeter of my property. 

 

Gun insanity has become institutionalized and the new-normal for the US.  Any halfway reasonable person agrees that military style weapons and ammo (owned by private citizens) should be as illegal as owning chemical weapons or rocket launchers.

 

Trump's hollow utterance in the OP, is like putting a little band-aid on someone who has 3rd-degree burns covering 80% of her body.

 

[Berkshire]

2 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

While improved background checks would probably be a good thing, there are other actions which would likely be better.

 

Why not ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15? What civilian actually needs these things?

Why not do away with the "gun shows" all together? Guns are dangerous; limit their sales to registered, liscensed stores only.

Why not do away with large magazines?

 

While I loathe guns, I recognize that many Americans like them. Fine. However, I have to ask; how many mass shootings until you actually do something? Do they need to be more frequent? Monthly? Weekly? Daily?

 

Americans- what will it take to see some action against mass shootings? (serious question)

 

Background checks aren't going to change anything.  And since gun laws have to be approved by the NRA, nothing meaningful will ever be enacted into law.  Short of confiscating all guns (will never happen), America is stuck with the status quo.  So innocent Americans will keep dying.  Guaranteed.  It's the price American society is willing to pay for the "right to own guns." 

[tigermoth]

2 hours ago, NumbNut said:

 

Because 2nd Amendment! You cannot change an Amendment! You cannot change ANY amendment! Anywhere!

 

No amendment anywhere has EVER been changed!!!

Well it's about time an amendment was changed. Ban all hand guns completely except for law enforcement officers and the like. Ban all automatic and semi automatic weapons. Single shot rifles ok but owner must have comprehensive background check and have good reason for owning one e.g. gun club member, farmer etc. This is similar to Australian and New Zealand law. Stop quoting the bloody 2nd ammenment all the time which was drawn up in the 1700's when personal defence in the creation of a new nation was important. Only law enforcement and the military need guns in todays civilisation that is the USA. All these bandaid solutions are a complete waste of time.

[tigermoth]

48 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

NumbNut, you can type 1,000 exclamation marks, but it doesn't make you right.

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about rifles.  It references the 'arms' of the time it was written:  smooth-bore single shot guns. If you want to use gun-huggers' warped interpretation, then I can buy a loaded bazooka and carry it around downtown, ....or plant land mines all around the perimeter of my property. 

 

Gun insanity has become institutionalized and the new-normal for the US.  Any halfway reasonable person agrees that military style weapons and ammo (owned by private citizens) should be as illegal as owning chemical weapons or rocket launchers.

 

Trump's hollow utterance in the OP, is like putting a little band-aid on someone who has 3rd-degree burns covering 80% of her body.

 

Exactly

[Somchai Logic]

3 hours ago, NumbNut said:

 

Because 2nd Amendment! You cannot change an Amendment! You cannot change ANY amendment! Anywhere!

 

No amendment anywhere has EVER been changed!!!

Really??? What about the Prohibition Amendment? 

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, tigermoth said:

Well it's about time an amendment was changed. Ban all hand guns completely except for law enforcement officers and the like. Ban all automatic and semi automatic weapons. Single shot rifles ok but owner must have comprehensive background check and have good reason for owning one e.g. gun club member, farmer etc. This is similar to Australian and New Zealand law. Stop quoting the bloody 2nd ammenment all the time which was drawn up in the 1700's when personal defence in the creation of a new nation was important. Only law enforcement and the military need guns in todays civilisation that is the USA. All these bandaid solutions are a complete waste of time.

drawn up in the 1700's when personal defence in the creation of a new nation was important.

That's not what the second amendment is for. The reason still stands.

[attrayant]

3 hours ago, NumbNut said:

Because 2nd Amendment! You cannot change an Amendment! You cannot change ANY amendment! Anywhere!

 

No amendment anywhere has EVER been changed!!!

 

Can nobody detect the obvious sarcasm here?

[HappyinNE]

Why do we keep making schools "Gun Free Areas"?  Obviously it and other laws do not stop it.  I am not comfortable going to Gun Free Areas.  No I do not now own any guns.  Train and issue guns to school adults.  I have no objection to armed teachers.  Now a school is like shooting fish in a barrel.  You don't have to worry about effective counter measures.

[PatOngo]

Trump backs effort to improve gun background checks.

 

"Are you a good guy?"

"Yes sir"

"Well give this boy a gun!"

[farcanell]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

drawn up in the 1700's when personal defence in the creation of a new nation was important.

That's not what the second amendment is for. The reason still stands.

The very first words of the second amendment are roughly.... “ a well regulated militia, being nessesary for the security of the state”

 

so does the reason still stand?

are these nutters part of a “well regulated militia”?

are these nutters acting “for the security of the state”?

 

by definition, an amendment is a formal change to a law or contract etc etc.... so... amend the amendment, it’s not written in stone... it’s an amendment, changeable by definition.

 

resistance to change, is what stops it being changed, not when it was written, or by whom it was written, or what British laws it was allegedly based on, or regarding what weapon it was origionally referencing... etc etc etc

 

but..... Americans must agree.... I believe that a simple referendum should be held,  and the results complied with (whichever way it goes).... ask the people vs leaving the decision to politicians being influenced by big business.

 

and before being pilloried over suggesting a referendum, by the crowd that believes governments are elected to make these decisions, I firmly believe referendums should only be held on the most divisive of issues.... after representatives have failed to satisfy the electors on stand alone issues

 

that said... unfortunately, I can think of at least two other issues needing interference by the electors...

 

1/ dreamers

2/ the Wall.

and..... lol... maybe healthcare... best I stop ???

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, farcanell said:

The very first words of the second amendment are roughly.... “ a well regulated militia, being nessesary for the security of the state”

 

so does the reason still stand?

are these nutters part of a “well regulated militia”?

are these nutters acting “for the security of the state”?

 

by definition, an amendment is a formal change to a law or contract etc etc.... so... amend the amendment, it’s not written in stone... it’s an amendment, changeable by definition.

 

resistance to change, is what stops it being changed, not when it was written, or by whom it was written, or what British laws it was allegedly based on, or regarding what weapon it was origionally referencing... etc etc etc

 

but..... Americans must agree.... I believe that a simple referendum should be held,  and the results complied with (whichever way it goes).... ask the people vs leaving the decision to politicians being influenced by big business.

 

and before being pilloried over suggesting a referendum, by the crowd that believes governments are elected to make these decisions, I firmly believe referendums should only be held on the most divisive of issues.... after representatives have failed to satisfy the electors on stand alone issues

 

that said... unfortunately, I can think of at least two other issues needing interference by the electors...

 

1/ dreamers

2/ the Wall.

and..... lol... maybe healthcare... best I stop ???

 

 

a well regulated militia, being nessesary for the security of the state”

and what does personal defence have to do with a militia?

 

A referendum...................

Only if it meets the same criteria as a constitutional amendment. To allow a simple referendum would be to give the people of California and the east coast too much power over the rest of the country simply by numbers.

 

so... amend the amendment, it’s not written in stone... it’s an amendment, changeable by definition.

So, just do it.

Edited February 20, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[rudi49jr]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Can nobody detect the obvious sarcasm here?

I was just going to say the same thing! Apparently many TV-members are sarcasm-challenged

[dunroaming]

8 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

While improved background checks would probably be a good thing, there are other actions which would likely be better.

 

Why not ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15? What civilian actually needs these things?

Why not do away with the "gun shows" all together? Guns are dangerous; limit their sales to registered, liscensed stores only.

Why not do away with large magazines?

 

While I loathe guns, I recognize that many Americans like them. Fine. However, I have to ask; how many mass shootings until you actually do something? Do they need to be more frequent? Monthly? Weekly? Daily?

 

Americans- what will it take to see some action against mass shootings? (serious question)

 

There won't be any improved background checks.  It is just the Liar In Chief trying to sound like he is doing something.

[mike324]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Chicago has a lot of shootings and ( apparently ) some of the toughest anti gun laws in the US. I doubt if many of the guns are legal, so if they can't stop it in Chicago, or other US cities with high shooting rates, why would stricter guns laws in the rest of the US make a difference?

majority of the mass shootings in schools are with guns bought legally.

 

Chicago is the most gang infested city in the USA, half of those killed are from gang related incidents.

 

Stricter gun laws makes a difference when it comes to young teenagers being able to commit mass shootings in school, or even normal folks in public.

[Khun Han]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43135584

[HLover]

"Never again"?  Seems a more realistic mantra would be used.

[NumbNut]

21 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Can nobody detect the obvious sarcasm here?

Thanks attrayant! Next time I might get my crayons out so I can draw a picture eh!