Compromise sets up likely Senate debate on gun laws
April 10th, 2013
11:30 AM ET
1 year ago

Compromise sets up likely Senate debate on gun laws

Washington (CNN) – Two U.S. senators, a Democrat and a Republican, announced on Wednesday they had reached a compromise on expanding background checks on firearms buyers to include gun shows and Internet sales.

The deal reached by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, sets up the likelihood of a major Senate debate on gun legislation starting as soon as Thursday, when the chamber is expected to overcome a GOP filibuster attempt to block the proposals.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Gun control • Gun rights • Senate
soundoff (11 Responses)
  1. Gurgyl

    This nation needs total gun-bans.

    April 10, 2013 10:18 am at 10:18 am |
  2. The Elephant in the Room

    I can`t tell you how unimpressed I am by where the American people, as respresented by their politicians, have allowed this conversation to slide.

    April 10, 2013 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  3. ST

    Well done grown ups good thinkers. You are doing something beneficial for the present and future generation. Bravo!

    April 10, 2013 11:04 am at 11:04 am |
  4. rs

    One thing the gun nutters need to learn is that these steps (small as they are) are responsible and logical- especially given their rather silly, uniformed, scare tactic arguments about background checks leading to all sorts of things including nervous ticks and skin rash.

    The choice is clear- we do reasonable, sensible things to curb needless gun deaths in America now- or the solution will be far, far, worse. If there are more Newtowns, you WILL see the call to end or restrict the 2nd Amendment (just like the GOP is currently trying to end the 17th for example). No one wants that.

    Growew up, and do the right thing now, or your "hobby" my really be affected later.

    April 10, 2013 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
  5. steve

    The majority of internet sales go through an ffl dealer. Any purchase at a gun show from a dealer
    All these go through background checks. This law will be much ado about nothing.

    April 10, 2013 11:49 am at 11:49 am |
  6. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    As long as they debate the proposed law and not block it, I am fine with that.

    April 10, 2013 11:57 am at 11:57 am |
  7. Name lynn

    Why so much talking about gun and gun laws, people will be getting guns with or without back ground checks.

    April 10, 2013 12:09 pm at 12:09 pm |
  8. much thunder..little rain

    two of the best senators..good job

    April 10, 2013 12:14 pm at 12:14 pm |
  9. rs

    In the end, debate and discussion on guns in America is a good thing. It is high time the majority of Americans get to help define the role of guns in our society, and not the tiny, overl-radicalized, irresponsible minority that IS the NRA.

    April 10, 2013 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  10. 82ndABNVET

    I want to provide you with an opinion article I recently found.......this will just be some excerpts, but you will get the gist of why these new proposed background check laws will do nothing.

    "Authorities in Connecticut have revealed that Lanza spent a lot of time researching potential targets before his murderous rampage. He picked Sandy Hook Elementary, we're told, because it appeared to him to be an undefended soft target.

    The question that should suggest itself is this: Suppose Lanza knew Sandy Hook had an armed guard and other security measures? If that were the case, he might well have gone elsewhere, or not committed his evil acts at all.

    The new "tougher" gun laws in Maryland and Connecticut appear to be the result of high emotion, not logic and clear thinking.

    What will happen in Connecticut and Maryland when there is another shooting at an undefended target? Will politicians call for even "tougher" gun laws? There is much debate and anecdotal evidence about whether concealed carry laws deter criminals, but logic would seem to suggest they do. Isn't that why many homes have burglar alarms and security systems, as well as guns? If a burglar knows a home is defended doesn't logic suggest he might try a house that is unprotected?"

    Adam Lanza gained access to his mother's legally purchased firearms, killed her, and then gunned down 26 more before shooting himself.

    This proposed legislation would have done nothing to stop this from happening. His mother bought the guns, which were stolen and used against her and those children and teachers.

    People looking to commit these types of acts will look for easy targets. They will look for schools, such as Sandy Hook which lack security measures and armed guards/police. They know they will be able to overpower anyone trying to stop them. They know that no one will shoot back.

    The only thing that stopped Adam Lanza was knowing law enforcement was about to get to him. Only then did he commit suicide. If the cops had been just a few minutes slower, more children and teachers would be dead.

    Granted, maybe a teacher carrying a weapon would not have stopped Adam from killing all 26. But maybe he would only have killed 20. 6 more kids/teachers could be alive today. Maybe the same 26 would have been killed. It is a risk, but one that I am sure many people would take. I would rather have a good person with a gun, at least capable of stopping a bad person. Maybe they cant. Maybe the decide not to, to keep from injuring more. But, at least there is the chance that if they can safely confront the bad person, maybe they can save lives.

    More of a focus needs to be on locking criminals away for good (gang members, drug dealers, thugs) and really taking a hard look at mental health.

    Criminals will never submit to a background check. They will continue getting thier guns via the blackmarket or by stealing them.

    April 10, 2013 12:37 pm at 12:37 pm |
  11. jkane sfl the gop national disgrace party will be swept out like the trash they are in2014 ?

    The nra threats againest congressmen are empty threats when 90% of the voters tell you to do something . As romney found out you can't buy an election when 90% of the voters are against your position. How much money did these fools flush down the toilet for romney in the last election and fail. It's your money that's why don't send any to the nra or gop!!!!

    April 10, 2013 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |