We need a public talk about private gun sale loophole

There are radicalized militants among us, like Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, the two gunmen from Phoenix who were killed earlier this month by police while trying to attack a provocative cartoon contest in Texas.

Other militants will want to acquire weapons the same kinds of weapons these guys had. Given that, can we have a conversation, again, about background checks?

In 2003 U.S. Sen. John McCain spoke eloquently on the need to close the so-called gun show loophole.

He told fellow senators: "I take a backseat to no one in my support of Second Amendment rights. But this right, which Americans have fought and died for, does not extend to terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens. That is why I am pleased to announce today a landmark agreement on gun show legislation… The bill accomplishes two critical goals: It protects gun shows as a viable business and ongoing enterprise, and it slams the door on criminals, terrorists and illegal aliens who have successfully exploited a loophole in our gun safety laws to acquire firearms at gun shows for nefarious purposes."

McCain was talking about mandated background checks for all commercial gun sales.

Congress didn't go for it.

A few years back, Sens. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Pat Toomey , a Republican, proposed an amendment to a bill that would have required background checks on all commercial sales of guns. This, too, failed. McCain was one of a handful of Republicans to support it.

He said at the time, "Eighty percent of the American people want to see a better background check procedure."

I'd guess that number hasn't changed.

It may even go up as we learn more about how the Islamic State, known as ISIS, uses social media accounts to spread its propaganda to would-be supporters in the West. It's a sophisticated operation and impossible to completely shut down.

In the aftermath of the thwarted attack at the Texas event FBI Director James Comey told reporters, "There are other Elton Simpsons out there."

Meantime, the gun-show loophole has become the Internet loophole. A brick-and-mortar gun store must conduct background checks. But that isn't the case for people purchasing weapons from a private seller or online.

Advocates for background checks call that the "private sale loophole."

A few years back an al Qaeda spokesman in a YouTube video encouraged sympathizers in the U.S. to use the loophole to purchase weapons and then use those weapons against Americans.

Still, the National Rifle Association said closing the loophole would not stop "committed terrorists." The NRA said bad guys could get "straw buyers" to purchase the weapons for them or get the guns they want on the black market.

That's like saying we should abolish all criminal laws because some people will commit crimes anyway. Besides, why make it easy on the bad guys?

Gun safety advocates want private sellers at gun shows and everywhere else to follow the same regulations as licensed dealers: Buyers should be subjected to federal criminal background checks.

If we had a national referendum, a law like that would pass easily. But it can't get through the U.S. House and Senate. So, does Congress represent you or the NRA?

(Yeah, it's a rhetorical question.)