And as I have also pointed out - which you have apparently overlooked - there are loopholes in the current laws. You only have to undergo a background check if you are purchasing a gun from a store. You do not have to undergo one through a private sale or a purchase at a gun show, unless there is an existing state law in force.
Which one of those loopholes did Adam Lanza use to get his guns? Which closed loophole would have prevented this?
Are you aware that there were early reports that he tried to buy a gun, was denied for multiple reasons, and still found a way to do this?
If anything, Newtown is an example of how laws like this do very little to prevent those who are determined. It's a crazy notion, I know, but criminals don't obey laws, so new laws rarely affect them.
The proposed legislation was intended to make a uniform system across every state for every sale.
Failing uniformly. Good idea.
Perhaps the problem is in the wording of the legislation.
Have you actually read it to know, or do you just trust the word of Barack (I killed 11 children last week) Obama?
Because I fail to see how you can allow someone who is mentally unstable and potentially dangerous to purchase a weapon and still call your society more free because of it. There are certain mental disorders that manifest in violent tendencies, and while they might be rare, allowing those few individuals to purchase a weapon only enables them.
This requires exemption from health privacy laws (HIPPA) how? The current background check system just checks a list of names of former violent fugitives. Why not just add the names of patients reported to be a possible danger to themselves or others, which is already an allowed activity? Why open your entire medical record to this system?
I take HIPPA seriously as both a patient and an employee in public health. I have had to sit through HIPPA training, I have had to fill out multiple forms giving medical decision authority to specific individuals in my life, and have seen just how important this is. Health privacy is a huge fracking deal and it, in no way, needs or should be sacrificed at the alter of false security.
As for the Attorney General possessing a list of every approved gun, don't you think it would be a good idea for someone to know where all of the guns are? If, for instance, one is stolen and used in a violent crime, the authorities would be able to track the weapon back to its owner, and establish when and where it was stolen. This would enable them to apprehend a violent criminal faster.
Yes, because stolen weapons are infinitely easier to find by knowing who used to have the gun.
Another scenario is that a body is found with a .44 bullet in it, as the cause of death. Now every .44 owner within a certain radius is a person of interest. How long before legislation is pushed to allow ballistics matching on all those .44s without a warrant or just cause, in the name of catching the criminal faster?
The words "impulse buy" should never be used to describe the sale of a weapon.
Why not? You may have considered buying one, given it thought, discussed with your spouse, and decided you want one. But prices are kind if high. Then you are at a flea market while on vacation far from home and you see one you like for a good price. But there will be a background check, it may take longer then the flea market is open. The vendor is from Ohio and you are from Georgia. Meanwhile, the criminal met his vendor in the alley.
One assumes that there would be a system in place to facilitate it.
You make it sound like its an app. The last time the government tried to develop a new electronic system was for VA records Since then the paper backlog is big that the structural integrity of the floor they are stored on is bring compromised. Yeah, let those guys put a system in place to facilitate the process. They can't even do it for the people we are supposed to care about.
The customer would pay a bond to the vendor, as a sort of security deposit. Then vendor would then have to run the background check, and would be entitled to keep the downpayment should the customer fail the check. If the customer passes, they then pay the remaining amount, and receive the gun - even if it has to be sent to them.
So now a gun buyer should gamble on if they pass or not? They won't try if they know they won't pass.
And you do know there are strict rules on shipping weapons, especially interstate shipping, right? Some states have even stricter rules.
As for people who receive guns through an inheritance, a will is a legally-binding document, and so it would not be difficult for a provision to be included where a background check is carried out on the intended receipient before the will is read.
Opening medical records to scrutiny because your dad died, even if you don't want the gun. Awesome. That's almost as offensive as inheritance tax. And you can't just say,"Eh, let my brother have it."
The fact that you said "if" leads me to believe that it is a genuine concern of yours, however remote you think the chances of it happening are.
In a world with Bradley Manning, vague answers on domestic drone use, warrantles wire tapping, Homeland Security domestic terrorist profiles naming whole political philosophies, and politicians like Michael Bloomberg, who wants to regulate you down to the foods you eat, yes it is a believable possibility. And lets not ignore the fact that this country exists purely because this happened with our previous government. There was a war and everything.
No check, no gun. That's the way it works.
Creating black market sales. That's the way that works.
If the store is too expensive and/or the sale cannot be completed in time, one assumes that the customer would be able to opt out before completing any stage of the transaction.
The customer shouldn't have to opt out because the government is a hinderance.
The fact that you're so quick to dismiss it demonstrates that you're in no position to judge it.
I went to college with survivors of the Paducah shooting. I was their age when it happened in a school in my state and I personally saw them struggle with PTSD as college freshmen. You have no idea what I am in a position to judge. I don't wave that fact around like some flag of legitimacy because, unlike the president, I have respect for the dead and those left behind.
Not in the US.
That's what the ratings system is for.
It is a voluntary, industry-created system here where we put our own pants on and don't ask the government to protect us from ourselves.
It's intended to keep violent games from impressionable children. Minors need to be accompanied by an adult when purchasing any game with a particular rating, and the burden of responsibility falls to parents to ensure that their children play games with appropriate content.
I wonder why some feel parental responsibility must be mandated by law.
I'm sorry, but that is disrespectful. You don't like my argument, so you pick at one of the details and claim it's exploitative, and try and use that to undermine my entire argument, as if you're trying to shame me into silence. But that in itself is exploitative, and therefore disrespectful.
You want me to not think at least part of your argument is disrespectful? Then don't argue against statistics with, "Tell the families that." Don't dispute logic and statistics by playing on heart strings.
I know this makes me sound like an ass, but here goes: Tragedy happens. Life sucks. People die. As long as humans live and breath this will be an undeniable fact. I have very personal and intimate knowledge of this and if I reacted to every crisis with my emotions I wouldn't be able to get out of bed.
If suggesting we slow down and examine situations with logic and critical thinking is disrespectful, then so be it. I want a working solution.
You want to know what I hear when I read your posts? This:
"My right to own a gun is more important than the rights of ten people to live free from the threat of violence. And even if, by giving up my own right to own a gun, I could better protect the rights of those ten people, I wouldn't do it, because my fear of enabling some vague and baseless threat to take form is more justified than the grief that any victim of gun violence has ever experienced."
This reminds me of something:
Benjamin Franklin
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Is this really about the victims? Really? When any gun control people talk like this all I hear is hypocrisy.
And it is hard not to when this was a publicly admitted strategy by the president's chief of staff.
After that, what should I think when the president trots out victims' families?
If they cared about children being killed they would be arguing this all the time. They wouldn't wait for a strong emotional event, they would create a well-formed argument based on logic and statistical data that stands on its own merits at any time. If the deaths of children were more than a tool there would be outrage at a joint US/NATO strike
killing 11 children last week. Where was the outrage? Where are the emotional reactions, the stories of their young lives? Why don't we complain about malaria killing millions of kids in Africa and fight to allow DDT? Are the birds that much more important?
Call me disrespectful all you want, but be ready to explain why it only matters when you have a specific political policy to push.
You put great emphasis on the Second Amendment. Perhaps, though, you should consider Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person."
What about my security of person? See this is the problem with this wish list of happy thoughts, it self contradicts and is impossible to implement.
If, by giving up your right to bear arms, you could better guarnatee the right to life, liberty and the security of person, then it is a price worth paying a hundred times over.
I don't think this legislation better guarantees jack squat. And giving up one liberty for someone else's? Read my sig quote.
The constitution/amendments (the right to bear arms bit) aren't written in stone it's getting a bit old and outdated now, although the majority of it is still valid and valuable of course. Maybe its time for a few updates before it turns into another bible! 
(only a joke please don't take that seriously)
