The background check that was fought for and put in place by the NRA was done in the 1990s after Bill Clinton instituted a wait period for handguns. The NRA stated that a wait period still did not stop felons and others who were prohibited and that an instant background check was the way to go. They got the legislation passed and thus we have the check system now; the government did not come up with the background check idea.
And a couple years after the background check system was put in place, the NRA stated that the mentally ill should also be put on list. This push for the mentally ill to be added to the list has been advocated for for some 15 years now.
Please, get up to speed on what is really happening; it is not 1968. Google is failing you.
ETA: I’ve been arguing on the internet for a loooooonnnnggggg time. I have no expectation of reaching @awcntdb. But I do think there is some value in providing as much information as possible for others so they can form their own opinions.
The current background check was instituted by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. The NRA fought bitterly against this law, at first when it was proposed in 1987 and then later when Bill Clinton became President. When it became clear that the bill was going to pass, the NRA managed to get the bill’s five day waiting period to sunset after five years, when the NICS was to come into use.
After the bill was enacted, the NRA sued the government over the bill, contending that requiring state officials to carry out background checks was unconstitutional. They wanted the entire Brady Act overturned. They prevailed on the background checks, but the court ruled that the background checks were “severable” from the rest of the bill so the entire act was not overturned. States can still have state officials carry out background checks, and some states do.
What the NRA “fought for” was to reduce the background check as much as they could. They didn’t fight for any background check enhancements at all. They fought AGAINST the Brady Act for six years, and when it was enacted over their opposition, they sued to get it overturned.
@awcntdb, assuming that the NRA did not, in fact, fight for background checks, would that change your opinion about the organization or about gun safety legislation in general? Somehow, I doubt it.
It is so incredibly frustrating to me to read Facebook posts, and worse to watch elected officials, blatantly misstate the content of Obama’s gun control executive order, it’s legality, and the status of gun regulation in general. The gun manufacturers fund the NRA, the NRA funds republicans, republicans twist the facts to justify their refusal to enact reasonable gun control legislation, FOX news amplifies their twisting of the facts, and so on.
I seem to remember a certain politician saying that mental health should be focused on in this issue. Let’s see how this goes. I hope that this helps the situation. I hope that Cardinal Fang is right. #42
I remember a lot of politicians on both sides saying mental health should be focused on. Many of the Presidential candidates of both parties have cited mental health as an important issue in addressing gun violence. I’m not going to cite names here, because this is a bipartisan mantra. Rather than focus on party identification, we should look at the proposed policies and the proposed legislation.
I think mental health issues are very important and are looked at by many people as a weakness or lack of discipline or whatever ignorant thing many people wrongly believe.
“get over it”
“toughen up”
“don’t be weak”
“she just looking for attention”…ummmm no it is biological and can be treated and controlled. most primary care doctors will not treat mental health issues or even ask about mental health issues and many people will hide it anyway. if a patient brings it up they quickly refer them to a psychiatrist. no primary care doctor will report anything, and if they do they will get sued.