John McCain Still Backs Closing Gun Show Loophole
Amid some confusion over his positions on gun control, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain plans to tell a National Rifle Association meeting Friday that he still supports closing the gun show loophole. "He will reiterate his support for background checks at gun shows," said a campaign spokeswoman. Groups opposed to McCain have been playing up comments from the senator following the Virginia Tech shootings that the nation doesn't need any more gun control laws. Associates, however, say that strong support of the Second Amendment does not clash with McCain's long-standing support for criminal background checks at gun shows where dealers can sell weapons without requiring instant background checks like more traditional stores that sell handguns. McCain's comments will likely lead to some grumbling among the NRA crowd, but organization officials say that McCain is a better supporter of the Second Amendment than either of the Democratic presidential candidates.
When he arrives, he will be met with a newspaper ad--seen above--from the pro- Barack Obama group American Hunters and Shooters Association. The small group backs limits on purchases and has been at war with the far larger NRA. The ad says that McCain was for closing the gun show loophole "before he was against it," but McCain officials say that charge is false and built on wrong claims that his rejection of gun control laws following the Virginia Tech massacre was a repudiation of his continued support for background checks at gun shows. Ray Schoenke, president of American Hunters, told Whispers this morning that he is pleased to hear that McCain still supports closing the gun show loophole but wants to "keep his feet to the fire" on the issue. "We welcome that," he said, though added that he felt "Obama is more in tune with American hunters and shooters."
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (11) | Print
Reader Comments
Reduction of Smaller Gun Dealers is to many in 188 the State ; Texas !!
1. We should reduced the number of renuals Applications on Type-01 Licences (State Licences Too!! There is over 3000 F.F.L.s Licences too!! We should cut it down by 0.60% too.Or cut it down to "(2500)" F.F.L.s Gun Dealers of Type-01 Licences too!! Get Better controll of keeping track of Gun sales ,by Gun Shops ,Sporting Gun shops or Junk shop & Gun shops too! Reason is: the numbers of Street Gangs of different groops too! GS-13, M.O.D. of Aisa People groops in 5 states to and growing too. The Gun stores are being targeted an robbed an conceal Weapons Handguns & ammo is cliened out too!! Ransacked & shotguns Rifles & Ammo is cleaned too!! Solution is: Let's Cut the Number downed to (2,250 F.F.L.s Licences Dealers of Type-01 Licences & State Licences too!! The State Police Country Sheriffis, City Police Township,Police ,Towm police would Aprechated it, that you care about there safty too! agreed!!! Let"s cut down the Extra Gun Dealers are Smaller Businnes out is to many of them too! In one location too!! Let"s get to woeked now!!!!!
gun control dangerous to americans
In a time of unrest, (to be polite), such as war, conflict with terrorists, who may eventually target American schools the way they do in their own countries, etc. It is insane to limit the rights of the American citizenry to bear arms. 9/11 should have taught us some valuable lessons; the least of which is that we felt much safer than we really are. The founding fathers knew this and they lived on the side of caution in this area. We all were shocked and appalled by 9/11, but if we forget that we only bury our heads in the sand and refuse to see the dangers of this world. When young men/women sign on for military duty, the military, (which does an awsome job), only has a few weeks to train new troops. If these youngsters have been sheltered too much from gun usage this becomes an almost overwhelming task. How do we save lives? A good dose of realism would be a good start. How do we defend freedom at home? Arm our citizens! Do not forget one of the first tactics of any warfare is to disarm your enemy, if possible. In communist states, Nazi Germany etc., the totalitariats did that very early in order to limit the freedoms of the citizens. Do we really want to be unprotected? Worse, if our nation needs protection during a time of sudden and unexpected attack, (pearl harbor comes to mind), do we really want the citizens who could defend as much as possible to be unarmed? You are leaving yourself open and undefended when you limit gun-rights. If criminals having guns is scarry, increase jail space. Don't leave our families and thus the future of our free nation vulnerable.
advertisement
