Maybe you should run for office, Mac. Or would you rather sit on your backside all day and complain? You have all the answers? Then put your vast knowledge and intellect to work.

I would lose in a landslide, see, I'm not Santa Claus who doubles the food stamp rolls and welfare recipients, who vote to continue their trip to the mailbox every week.

Un-huh.

Sully...Let's not let this rare moment go by unappreciated. McClown knows he is a loser. Soak that in...I sure am !

Unfortunately, it's the citizens of this country that are the ultimate losers.

Your knack for taking a person's comments and twisting them into something it wasn't is legendary on the Patch and it's all due to your lack of reading and comprehension skills. That is what is "absurd and disgusting".

Chuck, calling Hadiya "inaguration girl" was insulting. You don't realize it, and that's understandable given your rants in the past. There is gang violence and the guns flowing unchecked into Chicago that have been purchased by straw buyers is what's legendary. They are bought at gun shows by the trunk load, no questions asked. websites promote the sale of guns from individual to individual without any checks. Universal background checks have a 92% approval. Governing based upon the doom survivalist's and the NRA backed right wing refusal to bring some sensibility to gun ownership is not going to happen. The Democrats will get Universal Background checks and the untraceable sales will end. That will be a start to ending the gang violence created by the unlimited flow of untraceable guns.

Maybe if the people in those areas where that girl got killed cared more about themselves, thing like this wouldn't happen. But as it is, they don't care and neither do I. What I do care about is the misdirection you people attempt to use in going after law abiding people like me. Go blow smoke up someone else's back end bud, because that's all it is... smoke and b.s.

Then why be so concerned about Universal Background checks? It's the doomsday Government gonna take my guns thing isn't it? That's BS and you know it.

Actually I'm not worried about the government getting my guns. That's just not going to happen in my life time.
Where as UBC is concerned... as long as it doesn't lead to a national data base, registering my firearms or interfering with me gifting my firearms to my law abiding family members, I could care less. If you can't see the rational of any of the three things I said above, then we don't have anything else to talk about.

How would a background check interfere with transferring to another law abiding non-mentally Ill person? You go to a dealer and get the paperwork done. How is a National database a problem? Don't you want North Carolina to tell Illinois that your gun carrying neighbor has a new felony conviction? Please explain why you don't want to register our firearms? I'm not necessarily advocating that, but since you're against it...why? I also don't think that registration by existing gun owners is part of the Universal Background Check.

Your questions were answered in below comments. I agree with those answers, so no need to repeat them here.

Ronnie, Universal background checks will help end the flow of guns into gangs. Why would law abiding citizens not want the checks? Polls show 92% do.

RB, first off Polls don't matter when it comes to the Constitution. Not so long ago polls would say it is ok to deny African-Americans the right to vote. Second off, you have lies, damn lies, and statistics, so Im not sure 92% of people support it, but let us put that aside. I would be in favor of increased background checks. I don't call them universal because they are not, criminals do not care about background checks when they buy guns off the streets.

Forcing private sellers at Gunshows to use background checks is fine by me. However, I should be able to transfer firearms to family members without the use of a FFL/background check. A lot of folks ARE concerned though that these UBC policies are really just a way for the government to build a gun registry. Include in any new background check policies a stipulation that specifically forbids the government to save this information for more than is required for the background check, and specifically forbid a registry, and you have my support. It will not end the flow of weapons to gangs, but it might slow things down. See that was not so hard.

You're almost there. If your family member is a felon or has a history of mental illness and a danger to society....what would prevent uncle Ronnie giving him/her a gun? gangs won't present themselves for a background check, but the trafficking of guns would slow and that's progress. This is not all solved by background checks, there's education etc. but it's a start. Please note I am not saying law abiding citizens should not have guns...just the opposite. We probably disagree about the need for an AR-15 but that's not what is possible now. Universal refers to ending loopholes like gun shows, individuals and Arizona. You can't transfer a car without paperwork, similar rules should apply to a deadly weapon.

Here is what would prevent uncle ronnie from giving a felon a gun. Common Sense, doing the right thing, worries about legal liability. If I know that my family member is prohibited from owning a weapon, and I give him one, wouldn’t I be breaking the law? I certainly would be acting irresponsible. We cannot legislate everything.

By the way, the difference between a car and a gun is pretty simple. Guns are RIGHTS and protected by the constitution. Courts have ruled that driving a car, on the other hand, is a privilege.

Democrats want to take away your firearms? Please explain, because that's not true unless you have a history of mental illness? Are you a felon? If yes, then we want to catch that fact through a universal background check and prevent you from buying a gun. Yes, you got me. Is it mental illness or a felony that has you so worried about having your guns taken away?

I don't trust Democrats, they lie. When they passed Obamacare they created a new special board, a governing body with more power than congress, which cannot be revoked. They did the same with Dodd-Frank. They claimed that abortion would not be funded by Obamacare, yet it is. Why would I trust anything one of these low life good for nothings say?

"Read my lips no new taxes"
George H. W. Bush, Republican
"I can see Russia from my Porch"
Sarah Palin, Republican
Iraq has WMD's
George W. Bush, Republican
"Fair and Balanced"
Fox News, Republican

Abigail, they want to disarm us because that is the last stop before tyranny. Total control can't be had unless its' citizens are defenseless. This debate has nothing to do with hunting or even protection in the home it has everything to do with tyranny. The state run media has to make up the debate but when you cut right to the quick, its tyranny plain and simple. Just ask Hitler, Mao, Stalin... Death by government happens each day, about 500 person were killed in Chicago by their government alone just last year.

It's interesting that nobody on your side wishes to even acknowledge the real problem. This seems to be a trend with your (hate the word) ilk. Thats because everything with you and your friends is politics, pure and simple. Your guys would rather see Jesse and Phlager marching and accomplishing nothing, since it is a photo op for your guys. Why fish in the wind, when you can fish in the fertile waters,like when you have a guy in custody who is convicted on using a gun for bad reasons. It looks better for your guys to make it appear as those they care.

How is the request for Universal Background checks marching with 'Jesse'? Jackson, I assume. 'ILK' that's the word Vicki brought to this through one of her rants. Pick something original. Chuck calls me "legendary". Macko.....what's wrong with universal background checks? I don't understand your point about 'in custody'. Are you suggesting I'm against convictions for gun crimes? If so, wrong. I am for enforcement and strengthening of gun laws. Chicago has a horrible problem of catch and release of parolees caught with guns for example. Very few are prosecuted. I agree with Rahm that the sentence should be increased and the crimes prosecuted. Over 50% are not. The other issue is the no snitch rules in the gangs, a touch problem to solve. All this does nothing to negate the fact that guns flow easily into Chicago due to no background checks at many gun shows and sales from individual to individual. Notice I said nothing about AR-15's, that's anon starter in this Congress. Now, once you dig into something unrelated to the background checks...please tell us are you for them or against them?

Do you think the CEO of a company would last more than five minutes if he told his stockholders, geez our sales and profits are down but its not my fault, its the guy who ran things here before. Folks like Durbin, Obama, Sec Clinton, all failures, are lucky they don't run Apple.

Putting a little red sticker on guns at the plant sounds like a plan too. They could track the guns, unless someone pulls off the sticker.

The universal background check is required upon the TRANSFER of any firearm. That would include passing a family heirloom down to a son or daughter; leaving a firearm with a trusted person should you be moving to an area where such firearm is not allowed. It would be a defacto method to tax and eventually confiscate legally owned firearms. Those owned illegally would continue to be so owned, since, by definition, outlaws defy law.

Just so I understand. Protecting your ability to will a family heirloom is as important as preventing someone from going to Indiana and loading there trunk with guns and then selling them to gang members? Someone was recently caught doing that. Lets say it is that important, do you also protect the gang member who gets shot, giving him the right to reach for his gun and hand it to an associate gang member as he lay bleeding "here, the Bloods got me, I am done for, you can have my gun...go get 'em". You see, it just never ends. There needs to be tracking of transfers.

Great, background checks, universal whatever, that should keep these dangerous gangs in check. Cross another problem off the list, wow, first healthcare, then the economy and now this. Simply remarkable.

McCloud, you refuse to accept that solving the gang problem is multiple steps that include much of what has been discussed on here. Ending the free for all about getting guns to gangs has got to help and it does not keep guns from law abiding citizens. You'll argue the point simply to argue and that gets old. Move on.

What gets old is your 75 year old ideas, all tried and all failed. That doesn't stop you. You are the one who needs to move on. Democrats in power for over 75 years shrug their shoulders and feel the pain of the victims, and offer up failed ideas. Gang members convicted of any crime minimum 10,000 years, solution end of story.

The gang problem and killings that we are talking about is a south side problem. It's a socioeconomic issue among other issues. Gun are not the root cause of it.
If they can not solve the underlying issues and feel the need to kill each other, let them kill each other and keep it confined there... I don't care what so ever. When they get tired of it, maybe THEY will get off their own back ends and clean up their own house or the ones that get enough will pack up and move.
Curtailing and infringing law abiding citizens rights for the act of the gang violence is simply not facing the underlying cause and simply trying to pass the buck. It's tragic they kill each other, but it is their tragedy and theirs alone till they decide otherwise.

RB;
Just so you understand, (which I seriously doubt you will), the issue is an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms. It is clearly stated in the US Constitution, amendment 2. Universal background checks is a violation of what the US Supreme court has already ruled upon.
A transfer means when something goes from one hand to another, (like in willing an heirloom to a descendant), but it also means if I hand you my weapon to use at the range, if I bring it into a gunsmith to work on it, it is an uneforceable, do-nothing, feel-good piece of window dressing.
The gangs will not pay any attention to it... hell, even the US Justice department was running illegal guns down to the Mexican drug cartels, (one of which was used in the murder of a US Border Patrol officer).
What part of infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens will do nothing to change violence, (gang or otherwise), don;t you understand?

I agree with McCloud (12:45 pm) and Charles (2:58 pm)--excellent comments.

Sorry, McCloud, that only works for Democrats. Besides if they didn't have something in their hand (in this case, the phone), the thumb of said hand would be you-know-where. The remaining hand is in your wallet.

I just got a canned response from Brad regarding his party line mantra, which to me makes him a disgusting example of a politician. If there was any doubt in my mind of where his loyalty is, it's not with his constituents, but with Chicago democratic mind set.

Your comment is creepy. What is a reengineering project? Sounds alot like Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and other intrusive Democrat policies. We just want to be left alone, to be free and persue happiness. Maybe you should turn off the wacky radio where these weird ideas get passed. How ironic, you guys are the engineers who pass costly legislation that grab power in violation of the Constitution. Wack job.

I'm an atheist who could care less about the gay issue one way or the other. Nice try though. The rest of your diatribe is just more of your usual. I think I'm done with this thread for today.

After getting constant illogical pushback about 'Obama's fault' to anything from McCloud I cracked and lumped more of you into the ' intellectually suppressed''category than true. So, to most of you I apologize. I realize most of you have legitimate concerns about being able to own guns. I also strongly agree you have that right, within reason. Regulations are already placed on that right (such as no felons), so to those that say regulations destroy the right to bear arms, wrong! Secondly, the gang problem is something we should all care about. It is not just a South Side Issue. They are a criminal business with deep roots through the city and some of the burbs. They deal drugs and yes they traffic guns. Any fewer guns in their hands is a good thing. Enough, have at it.

I think we need to dust off Old Sparky.

It's safe to assume this individual would not follow the proper channels in obtaining a firearm.

What gun restrictions that violate the Constitution? Shouldn't that be left to the Supreme Court? By the way, they have ruled that some regulation of guns does not violate the 2nd ammendment. So, if you are such a strict Constitutionalist, why would you buck the Supreme Court.

Look up Heller. Scalia said there can be restrictions upon gun ownership and there were restrictions when the framers wrote the Constitution...you pick and choose data like Schulte used to.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119

Charles, clear this up for me. I think you have the right to own guns for hunting and protection. I believe there should be background checks of anyone purchasing a gun, including closing the Good Show and Individual Sales loopholes. How is that anti gun ownership?

She should appeal for two reasons. One, I doubt that our State Leglislature can get it together enough to put some control around concealed carry. If they don't it will be the Wild West around here. Two, the Supreme Court needs to decide for once. As the dissenting opinion said...“The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether .. the individual right to keep and bear arms at home under the Second Amendment extends beyond the home". Why wouldn't you want it settled for once? I know you and others want to be able to carry anywhere, anytime and you feel it's your constitutional right, so why not? Maybe you're a little worried about Scalia?

There's already a bill that has been drawn up. HB0997 and it was crafted by a southern Democrat, Brandon Phelps. He's one of the good guys.

Most other States have some regulation around CC and if the Leglislature does not act, we will have NONE. So, no that's not like 49 other States.