Skip to main content

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden meet with senior advisors in the Oval Office to discuss the shootings in Aurora, Colorado, July 20, 2012. Pictured, from left, are: Kathryn Ruemmler, Counsel to the President, and FBI Director Robert Mue
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden meet with senior advisors in the Oval Office to discuss the shootings in Aurora, Colorado last July. Pictured, from left, are: Kathryn Ruemmler, Counsel to the President, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
The national task force established in the wake of the slaughter of kindergarteners first-graders in Connecticut by a heavily armed, mentally disturbed gunman last month is set to release its recommendations Tuesday, well within the end-of-January deadline set by President Obama in December.

The proposals are likely to cover a broad range of issues, including possible new restrictions on the kinds of firearms that can be purchased, background checks of buyers, mental health and social service interventions, and other measures. Some mandates, such as ensuring that every buyer of a gun undergoes a background check, probably have a better than even chance of passing the Senate and House. Others, for example, the reinstatement of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004, are in for tough sailing.

There is no expectation that banning Internet sales of ammunition, registering firearms or licensing gun owners will be included in the task force's recommendations.

The Center for American Progress has just released its recommendations. Included in the list is an assault weapons sales and manufacturing ban that goes further than the 1994 ban, but would not confiscate or buy back such weapons from Americans who already own them.

No surprise that the key obstacle to any new restrictions on gun sales is the National Rifle Association. It has its hooks deeply embedded in the Republican Party that holds the majority in the House of Representatives. Although that majority is fractious on some matters, it can be expected to be unified on gun restrictions and at least a few Democrats can be expected to join it. The NRA has made itself clear:

David Keene, president of the National Rifle Association, told CNN's State of the Union on Sunday that new restrictions on guns are unconstitutional and ineffective.

"They interfere with people's rights (to gun ownership) without doing anything to solve the problem," Keene said.

The organization has worked diligently since 2008 to persuade Americans that Obama wants to take away their guns despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Biden, who the president chose to preside over the task force, has, like many other Americans, called for a comprehensive approach in dealing with gun violence. To that end he and other Cabinet members have met with a broad range of representatives from gun ownership and gun-control organizations (including the NRA), hunters, community leaders, law enforcement officials, educators, health professionals and representatives of the video game industry.

Please continue reading below the fold

Although a recent Public Policy Polling survey showed a drop of 10 points in favorability for the NRA, it still wields clout well beyond its proclaimed membership of four million and the fact that only 35 percent of Americans live in a household where someone owns a gun. Many of those Americans have been inflamed by hate-radio operatives claiming, just as the NRA does, that the Obama administration is preparing to confiscate their guns. The most extreme have boasted that they will shoot it out with anyone who comes for their guns and the politicians who support such a move.

But while the vast majority of gun owners view that as crazy talk, purchases of AR-15 rifles, high-capacity magazines, as well as other firearms and the ammunition for them have soared in the wake of the Connecticut massacre and high-level discussion of new restrictions. Certain firearms and ammunition are now back-ordered for months. The price of high-capacity magazines is running double, triple or more of what it was a month ago. Some Democratic gun-owners I know personally told me for publication, on condition I would not tell their names, that they don't expect the government to confiscate any already-sold firearms, but that they are themselves considering buying or have already bought items they think may be banned for future sale. That mostly means rapid-fire semi-automatic rifles, the AR-15 and others, as well as magazines capable of holding 30 or more rounds.

President Obama has indicated that he will support reinstatement of the 1994 ban on such weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. But the old ban did not require people who already owned such weapons to give them up. And high-capacity magazines that had already been manufactured before the ban were allowed to be sold. There were millions of these. Dealers continued to sell them for 10 years until the ban expired.

On Friday, according to the Associated Press, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy wrote a letter to Biden calling for reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, outlawing of high-capacity magazines and implementation of universal background checks for all buyers. The latter would close the so-called gun-show loophole that allows private sellers without federal firearms licenses to transfer guns without running a background check on buyers:

Malloy told Biden, a fellow Democrat, that Connecticut has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country, and a new state commission will be making recommendations regarding school safety, mental health services and gun violence prevention. [...]

"Gun control must be addressed nationally," Malloy wrote. "As long as weapons continue to travel up and down I-95, what is legally available for sale in Florida or Virginia can have devastating consequences here in Connecticut."

One area that hasn't gotten much public attention in the debate over gun restrictions is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,  Firearms and Explosives. While the NRA and other gun lobbying groups say that existing laws should be enforced better instead of enacting new ones, the ATF has been hamstrung in doing just that. The bureau hasn't had a permanent chief since 2006, and the "acting interim director" is only a part-timer.

Obama has nominated a replacement, but that appointment has been successfully blocked by the NRA. As NPR has reported, the ATF's budget is inadequate and centralization and use of its databases restricted. The bureau has not even been given funding or technological resources to cross-reference data in the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network system that traces guns used in crimes. The NRA's obstructionism in the matter demonstrates the true nature of the leadership of that organization.

Senate leaders have offered assurances that gun-safety legislation will be among the first bills introduced, a Senate Democratic aide said. But Majority Leader Harry Reid already is expressing doubts about enacting an assault-weapons ban, which President Barack Obama has urged Congress to pass. [...]

Mr. Reid has long cast himself as a protector of the Second Amendment and recently expressed doubts about the prospects of banning assault weapons. On "Nevada Week in Review," a public television program in Las Vegas, he said a ban may pass the Senate, but likely wouldn't win sufficient support in the House. He added that "the American people want us to be very cautious what we do."

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a conservative Democrat, has said that a stand-alone assault weapons ban won't clear the Senate.

House Democrats have set up a task force whose recommendations are being shaped to gain bipartisan support, according to Rep. Mike Thompson (D., Calif.), who leads the group.

So, it's clear that we won't be short of recommendations. The question is whether we'll have the political will—and clout—to implement the ones that can actually do something to curb gun violence.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The NRA will say no (11+ / 0-)

    if we tried to ban hand grenades from pre-schools. it's how they retain, and gain, membership. It's no different than Dobson yelling about how women are going to be forced to get abortions unless you join his mailing list for only $50 bucks a month.

    I think the most plausible change to pass congress (both house and senate) is closing the gun-show loophole and forcing every gun transaction to go through a licensed dealer that uses the nationalized database.

    Add that to including mental health disorders to that database and I think it's a change that not only would make a difference, but one that also has a chance to pass.

    I don't think a 1994 type assault weapons ban would do much good. If I remember correctly all the gun-makers had to do it change the handle or the muzzle or the way the magazine is loaded to make what is in all practicality the same gun legal again. I think fighting over grips and bayonets would be a fools errand.

    •  Add high capacity magazines in and I'm all in! (6+ / 0-)

      I agree that the old assault weapons ban (while effective, by the way) is too good a target (pun intended) and is too easily circumvented.

      •  I see magazines (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MPociask

        as similar to the AWB. People trained in weapons can change a magazine in mere seconds. While I do understand that seconds can mean a lot in a shooting situation, I would gladly trade a high capacity magazine ban for a highly enforced background check system.

        I know I'm trying to predict negotiations here and what could pass, but it's just my predictions.

        •  One problem with the background checks is, (5+ / 0-)

          not including those with criminal records, a clean check is no assurance a person is "safe" to own firearms. A person can seem perfectly fine upon investigation and become mentally ill soon after. Mental illness is not always an illness with a slow progression that could be caught by an investigation. Biochemistry can be weird like that.

          Give me both the highly enforced background check AND the large clip ban.

          The NRA will continue to be difficult to bargain with. They've conditioned their followers/members that any attempt to restrict or regulate ANY aspect of gun ownership is tantamount to an all-out ban on firearms. You can read it on social media and hear it on broadcast discussions. "An all-out ban" is what many are saying Obama and liberals are calling for. Maybe some are, but not Obama, me or most of my liberal acquaintances.

          Hyperbole is dished by the NRA on a daily basis. Many of their adherents don't see it as exagerration.

          I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

          by Gentle Giant on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:22:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you will likely see that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GoGoGoEverton
            Give me both the highly enforced background check AND the large clip ban.



            Denial is a drug.

            by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:28:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think the high-capacity magazine control will be (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pluto

              the real trophy on the map in this battle. Gaining anything meaningful on that subject will be a real victory and will probably be a confidence-builder for both sensible gun control advocates and liberals in general.

              I see what you did there.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:44:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's a toss-up, ostensibly. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tailspinterry

                But the purple drama surrounding this "victory" in gun control is probably calibrated to soothe the newly aware activists, and send them on their way.

                Meanwhile, high capacity magazines are the investment of the year, since they require no restrictions on sales for those currently owned.



                Denial is a drug.

                by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:08:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  the NRA storyline is very predictable. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gentle Giant

            mass shooting happens.

            NRA stays silent for short amount of time (1-7 days)

            NRA then says now is not the time to talk about guns, but add that any gun laws are an affront to the constitution.

            NRA blames video games, music, parenting for violence.

            NRA issues some sort of statement that includes the argument that guns could have prevented the shooting, or guns are the solution to preventing the strategy.

            When gun laws are eventually talked about - claims any gun law is the slippy slope to confiscation, and tie that into stalin and hitler and mao. Nevermind that confiscation is never considered to be an option.

            this is where people come out of woodwork claiming they'll never hand over their guns peacefully.

            NRA then uses money from that group to bribe and scare lawmakers into not passing any meaningful legislation. Any legislation that is passed will be spun as an affront to the constitution, that it won't prevent shootings, and that it's the first step to confiscation, and again, attach it to mao/hiter/etc.

            enter mass shooting #2.

            repeat.

            If you want, the next time a shooting happens, see if you can follow these steps along with me.

            •  I've followed that cycle ad nauseum, but (0+ / 0-)

              I'll watch it with you next time and we'll have a beer every time another political philosophy other than democracy is mentioned, and eat a special brownie every time the lethal nature of cars is expressed. We'll be wasted inside of 20 minutes.

              I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

              by Gentle Giant on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:13:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  I would prefer using taxes to bans… (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah, MPociask

      Say a 15% tax on all firearms and ammunition, 100% tax on high capacity clips, and assault weapons (defined by "any one of" characteristics) with the money funding the ATF. I would also ban internet gun sales, all purchasers should see a local dealer face-to-face, and I would require background checks on private sales and sales of ammo to people lacking carry permits.

      While I would love to fund mental health programs with this tax, the firearms industry as a whole is only $11.7bn (and of that only 60% are non-government sales), whereas our national mental health budget is $113bn (down by $2bn since the recession began), meaning you couldn't even make a dent in mental health budgets by taxing gun sales.

      Teh stoopidTM, it hurts. Buy smart, union-printed, USA-made, signs, stickers, swag for everyone: DemSign.com. Get your We are the 99% Yard Sign.

      by DemSign on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:28:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What do you think (5+ / 0-)

    of CAP's idea of subsuming BATFE under FBI?

    "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

    by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:07:26 AM PST

    •  Makes more sense than current arrangement... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, Shockwave, Phil S 33

      ...but I'd have to know more.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:14:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Depends on whether you think that having the ATF (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus

      director report directly to the Attorney General is more valuable than having it as a function within FBI.

      An FBI director allocates resources depending on his or her perception of the need and risk.  If you bury ATF within the FBI, you could get less visability into the resource decisions made within than you would if it were a separate bureau.

      Thing is, however, you don't want law enforcement competing with each other, which is what happened when FBI and Border Patrol were in Justice and ATF was at Treasury.   Changing ATF into a purely investigatory, regulatory and research bureau would take care of a lot of overlap.  

  •  The answer is clear: No (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib, MPociask
    So, it's clear that we won't be short of recommendations. The question is whether we'll have the political will—and clout—to implement the ones that can actually do something to curb gun violence.
    The main problem is not the Republicans, the NRA, the Tea Party, and other assorted crazies.

    The main problem is the lack of integrity, principles, leadership, from the Democratic party establishment.

    The political cowardice, finger-pointing, and embrace of victimization, exhibited by the Democratic party establishment is truly nauseating.

    Sometimes I don't know what is worst: Watching fanatic lunatic thugs of the Right getting their agenda forward regardless of public opinion, or watching weakness, cowardice, and opportunism of the pantywaist Democratic political establishment.

  •  The most feared part of the Biden proposal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus

    is what the president can do via Executive Orders.  It is not easy to rescind and Congress due to its republican membership being held hostage at legislative primary gunpoint can't undo it.  The ACA repeal possibilities being a fantasy that they are powerless to do anything about.  

    President Obama also knows how to use his bully pulpit as evidenced at this morning's press conference on who won't be getting paid.  Not paying the troops is something that will make the US a laughing stock.  Any serious 2016 candidate will get the Romney foreign tour treatment if they hold hands with the crazy sect of republicans.  

    The republican civil war commences with the Inauguration of the 44th president for his second term.

    The NRA is used to dictating to Congress and presidents and they have no leverage over President Obama.

    Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up...East Wing Rules

    by Pithy Cherub on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:14:25 AM PST

    •  Have no fear (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      inclusiveheart, annecros

      Executive orders are extremely limited. They cannot "create" anything; they direct the executive branch policies based on existing legislation and how they "interpret" it.

      "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

      by kestrel9000 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:35:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, it what the President can do by (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros, Laconic Lib, stevej, MPociask

      Executive Order isn't the most feared really - it is the best way to fear monger on the issue amongst the ignorant and radical in the NRA base of supporters.  

      I'm not even going call these people "2nd Amendment supporters" because they don't give a shit about or even understand the Constitution.

      I do not expect that anything that could be accomplished by Executive Order would be particularly onerous for law abiding citizens and businesses.  

      People planning to overthrow the government are going to get upset about any laws or executive orders that might curtail or obstruct their plans, but is that really a bad thing?  I don't think so.

      •  The tea party/nra folks (0+ / 0-)

        consider themselves law abiding...but, they also are woefully ignorant of how the federal government works.  Executive Orders that are symbolic, but have a direct effect on a few is well worth it.

        One comes to mind in particular, the Emancipation Proclamation.  Legally not a whole lot of teeth - symbolically, Watch Night is still celebrated on January 1. Obama understands symbols and now would be a great time to use one coming straight from the desk of the president.

        Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up...East Wing Rules

        by Pithy Cherub on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:12:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why are MB's friends buying more guns? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib

      I really don't get this, especially in these difficult economic times and with gun and ammo prices going up why people like this are stockpiling weapons.  Are they anticipating collapse?  Civil war?  Fighting the gov't? Buying for resale at a greater profit?  I just don't get it.

      The gov't needs to track purchases and buyers, crack down on straw purchases and have a much better data base and do a better job on background checks.  That said, I think we are too far down the road of craziness and gun ownership to do much.  Gun owners are  likelier to die by gun violence than people in households without guns, however, which should give some people pause.  

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:04:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Time to say "No" to the NRA. (17+ / 0-)

    Just because you have a bunch of money doesn't mean that you are right. The NRA does not represent the majority of the people and is not an elected branch of the government of the United States of America.

    This better be good. Because it is not going away.

    by DerAmi on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:17:57 AM PST

  •  We need organizations to balance (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DerAmi, cany, Shockwave, suzq

    the power of the NRA. Americans for Responsible Solutions is one worthy of serious consideration.

  •  Allegedly, 100K more Americans have recently (8+ / 0-)

    joined the NRA. I write "allegedly" because like everything else NRA, one should be very skeptical about the honesty and integrity of everything NRA.

    In gun forums across the net, many are recommending joinging if, for no other reason, one wants to support the "do absolutely nothing" NRA approach, in fact actually an effort to not only DO nothing, but rescind (through courts or legislation) what already has been done.

    So, for many, DO NOTHING but rescind existing regs is, indeed, a position. Sadly.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:25:30 AM PST

    •  I have seen reports that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cany, Shockwave, Iberian

      gun manufactures are sending in a free membership for everybody who buys one of their guns. I have not yet been able to find clear documentation of that.

      •  Wouldn't surprise me. Keep looking. That would (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shockwave

        be good to know.

        They can pick any number they want as new members because there's no way to tell.

        I just don't believe anything they say.

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

        by cany on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:41:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  keep in mind the NRA is an organization (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Richard Lyon, skod, cany, Laconic Lib, MPociask

      that regularly uses bogus statistics - and lobbies against scientific study of gun violence.

      In other words, though I imagine they've gotten an uptick in membership from this, take anything they claim with a giant grain of salt. Numbers are not their strong suit.

      •  Oh I do take them with a grain of salt. Probably (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, Laconic Lib, redding888

        the whole shaker.

        Additionally, any group that would have Ted Nugent as a board member isn't even deserving of serious attention. It just makes them even more (is that possible?) absurd.

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

        by cany on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:04:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  My 11 y.o. daughter hid in a bathroom during code (18+ / 0-)

    red drills last Friday.  The school system has instituted these drills as a result of the Sandy Hook tragedy.  I'm glad that the school system is being pro-active, however, just the fact that she has to do this is crazy.  Why does she have to give up her right to attend school free from worry about the possibility of being brutally murdered, but a gun owner's rights can't be infringed upon at all?  

    Why do non-gun owners have less rights than gun owners?  

    Where's my freedom to not worry every time my children are at school and I hear a siren sound?

    You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do. ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Foundmyvoice on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:34:40 AM PST

    •  Most schools starting doing these drills (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DuzT, Shippo1776

      after Columbine.  My school system has been doing them that long and I suspect the students at Sandy Hook had done them.  It sounded like they had a lock down system in place.

      “It is the job of the artist to think outside the boundaries of permissible thought and dare say things that no one else will say."—Howard Zinn

      by musiclady on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:55:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We've had lockdown drills and the schools were (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lisa, WakeUpNeo

        locked down on Dec. 14th (we live in CT), but the kids never really knew they were in lockdown.  This is something new.

        You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do. ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

        by Foundmyvoice on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:03:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Foundmyvoice, glorificus

      You bring up an interesting point, and one that has crossed my mind.  Namely, do we have a "constitutional" (whatever that means anymore) freedom from fear?  The gun nuts would say, "No.  That's why you need a gun."

      My wife and I are currently scouting pre-schools for our toddler.  I see by our first choice by car every day.  Since Sandy Hook, another thought has been on my mind.  What's to stop someone in a car driving by the pre-school and spraying it with bullets, then speeding off?  It has a large picture window in the front.

      These are disturbing thoughts that I would not have had were it not for what took place at Sandy Hook.  Granted, the odds of it happening at a specific place are low.  But it can happen anywhere.

      Do I have an inherent freedom from that fear?

      •  fear (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lisa, Foundmyvoice, Smoh

        i'm not less scared when i'm holding a gun. i'm just more ready, in my fearful state, to do something terrible.

        If only Michael Phelps hadn't smoked that pot...imagine what he could have accomplished with motivation and good lung capacity.

        by papa monzano on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:06:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Randi (4+ / 0-)

        Rhodes spoke about this on her show last Friday.  She verbalized the thoughts that I hadn't yet been able to express yet myself.

        She was talking to a gun owner who had some sort of rapid fire weapon.  He used it to shoot into sand in his backyard.  Randi asked him, if I were your neighbor, what right would I have to garden in my backyard without worry of getting shot?  Of course, he didn't have an intelligent answer.

        Unfortunately, we now live in a society where we live in terror that we've mostly inflicted on ourselves.

        You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do. ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

        by Foundmyvoice on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:09:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In most urban areas, that would be illegal. (0+ / 0-)
          He used it to shoot into sand in his backyard.
          If it is illegal, the neighbor should call 911 and the criminal should be spending some time in jail or prison. If it is legal, perhaps the local residents should elect politicians that make it illegal (assuming it's actually dangerous to others - a proper range need not be dangerous to neighbors, but that isn't what this sounds like).

          None of this debate has to do with routinely live firing rapid fire weapons in your back yard without proper precautions - no one that I've heard has proposed that the Second Amendment protects such a right.

          Eliminating or restricting gun ownership isn't an appropriate way to prevent such (seemingly idiotic) behavior -- any more than banning cars that go over 10 miles per hour is the appropriate solution to reduce drunk driving deaths.

      •  You can't let yourself be consumed by that fear. (0+ / 0-)

        You're more likely to be in a car accident with your child.  My oldest son--this year--was already in two school bus accidents.  They were minor, thank goodness.

        My son was not a year old on 9/11.  I ripped up the day care paperwork for the center near the White House (near where I was working at the time.)  I chose to keep him in the "safe suburbs" of Washington, DC.  I was eating my words the day the DC sniper started shooting.  The second victim was less than a mile away from my sitter's house!  She took the kids to a nearby park every day.  When I saw the news reports, I took off down the hall running to get to a phone so that I could warn her not to take the children out.

        You're right to worry, somewhat, but the choices you make may expose other potential dangers.

  •  While the NRA has some power, look no further (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, Laconic Lib, bhut jolokia

    than other Kossacks for more intransigence. More than one member of RKBA has said they do not belong to the NRA, yet their views are the same.

    Abolishing the NRA will not win the battle, imo.

    **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

    by glorificus on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:36:02 AM PST

    •  This helps. nt (0+ / 0-)

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:43:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nobody is calling for abolishing the NRA... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, gchaucer2, Bailey2001, Pluto

      ...we're calling for fighting their political agenda. When you say that members of RKBA have the "same" views as the NRA, you should be specific about which views.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:46:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  One major view in common (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        that I've seen expressed is the non-reality-based, mind-bendingly obtuse notion that more guns does NOT equal more violence, "no-no-no-no, I have my fingers in my ears, I am not listening to you".  I've seen this idea defended with the same weird, glib, defensive, triumphalist double-speak that we hear all the time from climate change denialists, creationists, abstinence-only believers and pray-the-gay-away-ers.

        Also a total lack of engagement on the question of why anyone needs some of these weapons.

        "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

        by dackmont on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:15:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  More guns demonstrably don't lead to more (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bailey2001, WillR

          violence. The statistics show a consistent decrease as a % of the overall population rates. The real question is whether more guns leads to more gun deaths.

          I see what you did there.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:22:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  While I'm a reasonable person who understands (0+ / 0-)

            59% of something is more than 41% of something else, iow, 59 > 41, the sheer horror of those 20 kids and 6 of their teachers being murdered provides more weight than sterile numbers.

            To me, the "real question" is why that aspect is not more significant to RKBAers, some of whom I would think have kids.

            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

            by glorificus on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:43:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You seem pretty obsessed (0+ / 0-)

              about the RKBAers, which is weird since we're meaningless and not monolithic anyway, particularly in the face of the NRA, republicans, etc.

              I see what you did there.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:08:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The "sterile numbers" also back up gun control... (0+ / 0-)

              no need to apologize for those.  Gun control (again, per 2nd, not banning all of them) is reality-based.

              "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

              by dackmont on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:24:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, that Australian ban and buyback of (0+ / 0-)

            semiautomatic weapons totally didn't happen.

            Same with the gun murder statistics, and total murder statistics, in the US compared to other industrialized countries.  Pay no attention.

            "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

            by dackmont on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:23:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  but but but, look over here! nt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bailey2001

              I see what you did there.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:19:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, do look. At facts, not pseudoscience (0+ / 0-)

                Australia banned semiautomatic weapons and instituted a buyback of those already sold, along with other gun control measures.

                What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
                Fewer guns = less violence -- especially homicides, the worst kind.  And that's just Australia.  Other industrialized countries with fewer guns also have less gun violence and fewer homicides than the US.  

                In this normally reality-based community, there isn't any serious question over this stuff.  But just as with climate change and evolution, there is plenty of pseudoscience out there from true believers seeking to muddy the waters, so I'm sure anyone can find something saying up is down.

                "Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so." - Robert Ingersoll

                by dackmont on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 06:19:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  We also need to lift the restrictions on studying (16+ / 0-)

    gun violence.  The NRA is successful partially because they claim that there's no evidence on measures working.  They are responsible for their being no evidence because their toadies have put into law that money can't be spent studying these issues.

    In order to know what works, we need to have people out there studying it.

    •  I heard that on NPR (7+ / 0-)

      something even restricting doctors from asking patients with gunshot wounds whether the gun was from their own household & reporting it the CDC or something. It was very twisted that this became an issue & how it was prohibited - why would anyone want to stop understanding that statistic?! I'll have to find and listen again because I wasn't paying that much attention, but I remember thinking "fucking ostriches" - if we don't keep track of this # we can ignore the reality.

      I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

      by hulibow on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:01:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe Harry Reid added this language (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tailspinterry, ColoTim

      ...to the ACA:

      (c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

      ‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

      ‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

      ‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘

      (2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to—

      ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

      ‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

      ‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

      ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

      Further, the CDC and the NIH are not permitted to investigate the causes of gun violence.



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:49:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just so frustrating. Then again, I believe in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto

        the sciences, including social sciences, in that I see them being capable of being used for good.  If Reid was the one who put this in, well he should now be capable of pulling it out (though he'll have to pass that in some bill that gets through both houses ...  good luck with that one).

    •  "Silencing the science on gun research" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim
      Silencing the science on gun research

      Abstract    

      ....Decades of research have been devoted to understanding the factors that lead some people to commit violence against themselves or others. Substantially less has been done to understand how easy access to firearms mitigates or amplifies both the likelihood and consequences of these acts.

      ...

      The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research.

      To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control...”

      ---

      Citation    
      Kellermann AL, Rivara FP. J. Am. Med. Assoc. JAMA 2012; ePub(ePub): ePub.

      Copyright    
       (Copyright © 2012, American Medical Association)

      DOI    
      10.1001/jama.2012.208207

      PMID   
       23262635

      (emphasis added)

      Read more here:

      Silencing the science on gun research

      Easily search for articles on this and other safety-related topics here:

      SafetyLit

      Suggested query: "gun safety"

  •  What is the format of the "Presentation"? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus

    Press Conference?

    As the Elites Come Together to Rise Above to Find a Third Way to do Rude things to the 99%

    by JML9999 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:36:49 AM PST

  •  nra tries to shoot down progress , (4+ / 0-)

    many left dead and wounded ,
    same as always , no film at 11 .

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:39:10 AM PST

  •  Reason # 32,971 to get money out of politics. nt (0+ / 0-)

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:43:41 AM PST

  •  Biden's "Gun Violence Commission" SNAFU (0+ / 0-)

    Son of key member of VP Biden’s “gun violence commission” convicted for plotting a Columbine-style murder

    Sipsey Street has learned that a key member of the President’s committee to find “the solution” to school shootings, has a son who was convicted of plotting a Columbine-style school massacre — possibly with a service pistol obtained from his father. Nee is the former head of the Boston Police Patrolman’s Association and is currently the head of the National Association of Police Organizations. In short, says one source familiar with the notoriously anti-firearm Nee, “he is a political hack/thug/activist who happens to carry a badge.”
    more

    .

    Resistance Is Fertile - Occupy

    by Sean X on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:43:45 AM PST

    •  Some people would see that experience as a plus (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Richard Lyon, Smoh, Pluto, glorificus

      Having first hand experience with a similar situation. But NO! The right sees it as proof of the inherent nefariousness of Obama.

    •  holy fucking shit nice web site there (6+ / 0-)

      No hidden agenda there.

      So let me get this straight, because the son of a cop was convicted of wanting to have a Columbine style massacre, we should automatically exclude him from any discussions on gun control and gun violence?  If anything being that it hit so close to his home, he should be one of the FIRST people we ask about what to do.  

      I guess next you'll be telling us we shouldn't be talking to the people in Sandy Hook who were affected directly by the shooting what they think.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:55:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kindly explain (0+ / 0-)

        what form of gun control law would prevent the kid from using his dad's very legal weapons to murder people.

        Resistance Is Fertile - Occupy

        by Sean X on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:12:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  kindly explain (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          schnecke21

          why he should be excluded.

          BTW the easiest way to prevent a kid from using his dad's very legal weapons to murder people would be for those weapons to NOT be legal.  

          Aside from that, there is technology that would prevent that kid from using those weapons and there is a question of storage of those weapons and whether they should be stored in one's domicile as is the case in many countries around the world.  There are plenty of alternatives to outright banning.  The fact that none or very few of them are being discussed by people like the ones who obviously frequent that web site is very telling.  

          So please explain why someone who has had to deal with the consequences of the prevalence of guns and the issue of gun violence in our society should be excluded from the discussion.  Maybe because the ones pushing that opinion have no interest in addressing the issue but would much rather just engage in demagoguery and fear mongering.  

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:21:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nowhere in that article (0+ / 0-)

            does it say or suggest that "someone (e.g. Nee) who has had to deal with the consequences of the prevalence of guns and the issue of gun violence in our society should be excluded from the discussion."

            But thank you for the strawman argument.

            Lots and lots of cops (who have had to deal with the consequences of the prevalence of guns and the issue of gun violence in our society) are much more realistic about the limits of gun laws in solving or reducing this problem than Nee is. Are they represented on the Commission?

            What the article DID say was, "As usual, the 'solution' will be the attempted theft of freedoms from the innocent while the root causes of these evil shootings, especially dysfunctional parents will be ignored."

            Resistance Is Fertile - Occupy

            by Sean X on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:49:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  They would prefer a washed-up rock musician (0+ / 0-)

        who advocated for the killing of the President...then had to reel back his rhetoric after a pleasant visit from the Secret Service.

  •  I think it's so cute that the NRA thinks (0+ / 0-)

    they have an equal say on this. They're lucky they're even being involved in the conversation, because we ALL know Obama & Biden can do whatever they want on the issue without the NRA having any say, just throwing a temper tantrum afterwords.

    Follow me on Twitter! @guileofthegods

    by Guile Of The Gods on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:47:48 AM PST

  •  What do you want to bet ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... that they'll try for RIFD chipping of guns?

    Like Chertof and the TSA Scanners - $ $ $

    Maybe GE can manufacture the chips.

    Resistance Is Fertile - Occupy

    by Sean X on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:52:13 AM PST

    •  That's a serious form of registration... (4+ / 0-)

      ...which would be a very tricky proposal to get through Congress even though it makes perfectly good sense.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:01:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe it goes like this: (0+ / 0-)

        When you buy a firearm from a dealer, the rfid chip is activated in your name, (and when you buy a box of ammo, the box has a bar code on it that the seller scans to activate the rfid chipped bullets? Now those bullets will only work in a gun registered to you.)

        rfid scanners are placed in schools, hospitals and anywhere deemed to be as gun free zones. You carry your gun into one of these gun free zones, the scanner disables your gun (and your bullets?) You will then have to get law enforcement to turn the chip back on.

        This allows gun owners to keep their guns, go hunting and have their AR-15′s in the wild but it keeps them from being used in gun free zones. Second Amendment rights are not infringed as long as you stay away from gun free zones. Law Enforcement would not be subject to the chips so their weapons will not be disabled responding to something like a school incident.

        What a great solution! :)

        So basically tptb can find, follow or deactivate your gun if they need to and you can’t stop them. The market for unchipped guns will flourish. Some gun owners will disable the chips. Some gun owners will remove the chips from the weapons, maybe sticking them onto magnets and placing them on trucks or trains. Criminals might hack the deactivate signal and use it on any house they want to break into, turning off any guns in the house. Child-killers enter schools at unscanned places...

        Resistance Is Fertile - Occupy

        by Sean X on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:19:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  310 million weapons in America today that don't (0+ / 0-)

          have chips.  It will take them a long, long time for them to rust away and I don't see massive amounts of law abiding gun owners being willing to stand in line to have their guns "chipped".  You might as well ask them to have their hand "chipped".....as it would go over just about as smoothly.  Criminals will never abide by this, as they will just buy on of the 310 million still on the streets, and so we are at point A again.

    •  Don't need RFID chips (0+ / 0-)

      how about guns like in the movie Skyfall that only work with thumbprint recognition.  

      Simple and easy way to avoid guns falling into the 'wrong' hands and wouldn't infringe on anyone's right to own a gun.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:06:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mr Keene must be a very dumb man. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skod

    "David Keene, president of the National Rifle Association, told CNN's State of the Union on Sunday that new restrictions on guns are unconstitutional and ineffective."

    Many western countries have very strict gun laws and have much, much lower rates of gun violence.  The proof is out there so saying that making new restrictions won't work is just plain stupid.

    •  no need to go outside the US (0+ / 0-)

      just look up the states with more restrictive gun laws.  They're the same ones with lowest cases of gun violence and deaths.

      Conversely Arizona is the state with the highest rates.  It's also the state with the dumbest and least restrictive gun laws.  Tombstone is alive and well.  The Earp boys may have passed but gunfights at the OK Corral are happening pretty regularly in Arizona it seems.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:03:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's not dumb. (0+ / 0-)

      He's a lobbyist.  And a very successful one.

    •  Supreme Court (yes, the Roberts Court!) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DrPlacebo, PsychoSavannah

      said that restricting certain types of weapons does not impinge on a person's Second Amendment rights.  So Keene is wrong on the Unconstitutional part.

    •  Other countries had very strict gun policies prior (0+ / 0-)

      to any bans and also never have a Constitution that demanded the right to bear arms for its citizens, like we do.  Again we have 310 million fire arms out there and a populace would values gun ownership, due to it being a right since our country was founded.  Other countries never had the amount of guns we have nor the amount of citizens armed as we do.  For example, we have 120 times more guns here that Australia had when it initiated its gun ban.

      •  I have had friends from Europe and Asian stay (0+ / 0-)

        with us for a visit that have never in their entire lives seen a real gun up close, much less touch one or have ever even known  a private citizen in their own country who owned one and kept in in their home.

        That is the difference between there and here.  I hardly know anyone who doesn't own at least one.

  •  headline (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    suzq, PsychoSavannah

    "armed fringe group holds nation hostage, demands free access to implements of war"

    If only Michael Phelps hadn't smoked that pot...imagine what he could have accomplished with motivation and good lung capacity.

    by papa monzano on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:04:01 AM PST

  •  Obama is just waiting for his next term (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gritsngumbo, suzq, Meteor Blades

    to take away everyone's guns.

    When someone tells you they are lying, you should believe them.

    by shoeless on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:04:48 AM PST

  •  we are not going to be able to restrict (0+ / 0-)

    types of firearms, which the NRA and the gun industry are adamant about, but what about more stringent conditions for gun ownership?  To get a firearms license:  
    1.  Must be a registered voter and have voted in the most recent elections wherever
    2.  Must be a property owner at least of own residence
    3.  Must be gainfully employed and paying either federal income tax or SS/Medicare taxes...
    4.  Must sign serious affidavits confirming that firearms will be secured at all times not made available to anyone without a license.
    What responsible, law-abiding NRA member could object to any of those conditions?  It would have stopped Adam Lanza if his mother had secured the weapons (even if he killed her he didn't necessarily have the codes to unlock the safe where the guns should have been stored).  It would certainly have stopped Jared Loughner, the Columbine shooters, the Aurora shooter, and the firemen-killer in Webster NY.  It would not have stopped George Zimmerman or Mr. Dunn...but it's a start.

    •  2a....it's a right to everyone and unless we (0+ / 0-)

      change it at the Constitutional level....it is a right as much as voting.  Could you imagine have those restrictions to voting?

      •  No one can you sell you your right to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        richardvjohnson, glorificus

        vote out of the trunk of their car if you are a felon.  But it's legal to do that with a gun.

        David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

        by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:56:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is??? A felon is not legally able to buy a gun (0+ / 0-)

          out of the truck of a car.  The only way a felon can legally possess a gun is if a judge later reinstates his or her privileges.

          •  It happens all the time. A number of (0+ / 0-)

            investigative news pieces have it on tape.  

            David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

            by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:11:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure...illegally. Not legally though...that's the (0+ / 0-)

              difference.  It is a crime for a felon to own or possess a gun, or buy it from anyone.  It is a crime and illegal.

              Just as in voting when a felon is denied the right to vote, in most states. Sometimes felons vote too but it is illegal...in states that do not allow past felon to have that right.

              •  It really doesn't matter to me if the felon who (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PsychoSavannah

                shot me obtained the gun legally or illegally.

                Car trunks: The Great Equalizer.

                **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                by glorificus on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:53:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  k...but that's not what we were talking about. (0+ / 0-)

                  She thought felons could legally buy a gun from the back of a truck.  That was incorrect.

                  But I agree with you and as I have said many times....pass all the laws you wants and make all the restrictions you can think up a reality BUT only law abiding citizens will abide by them, and that's even IF they decide to do it.

                  Criminals....the ones who would actually shoot you....will still get their guns illegally as they do now.  They will still not follow the rules, just as they do now.  Guns will still be present and still be on the streets.

                  If we really want to go after the people shooting other people, we need to quit trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens and focus on prosecuting criminals who use them in crimes.  Mandatory stiff sentences for gun use in a crime, mandatory prison sentences that are hard core for felons who possess a gun etc.  These are the kind of laws law abiding gun owners would support whole heartily.

                  Stop trying to take my legally rightfully owned guns all in the name of "stopping mass murders" and yet ignore the true issue...the criminal element who would use a gun to hurt someone.  Go after them.

                  •  Nancy Lanza legally owned her guns. And (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    richardvjohnson

                    they were used to murder little kids.

                    Damn right I want to restrict the types of guns you own since I do not trust you to keep them safe from criminals or your mentally ill chidren.

                    **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                    by glorificus on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:13:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  She legally owned her guns. She didn't commit (0+ / 0-)

                      murder.....they were stolen from her.

                      Do you really think that if you restrict one type of gun from law abiding gun owners, that it will stop mass murders?

                      Again, no words on going after the criminals.

                      •  Your last sentence is nonsense. Police go after (0+ / 0-)

                        criminals.

                        No, I don't want to restrict ONE type of gun, there are more than one type I'd restrict. And law abiding gun owners are law abiding until they aren't. Holmes and Loughner had no outstanding charges last I heard.

                        Mass murders will never be entirely eliminated, but I'd like to reduce them as much as possible, and decreasing the number of guns available would help.

                        **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                        by glorificus on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:55:41 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  but if her guns (and by the way she sounds (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        glorificus

                        like an anti-government fanatic) were properly restricted, her mentally unstable son could not have obtained them even by killing her...

                        •  What restrictions could have been used that would (0+ / 0-)

                          be Constitutional and is also even a consideration of the talks going on right now....that would have prevented him from gaining possess of her legally obtained guns?  

                          •  safes with combinations...not exactly (0+ / 0-)

                            a new technology...anyone who has guns should have them...otherwise what prevents a home invasion by thugs using your own weapons against you?

                          •  Ok...great idea and I have one myself...cost a (0+ / 0-)

                            fortune, because I got a very good one.

                            However, how do you enforce that....what law could be created that would make sure guns are in a safe?  

                            Home Inspections? No.  Can't do that...no warrant.

                            So the law wouldn't work.  If you mandate safes and someone couldn't afford one or just didn't want to use one....and there was no way to enforce it and thus, lack of compliance....then it would prevent nor solve anything.

                          •  sadly, you're right - even if home inspections (0+ / 0-)

                            were part of the price of owning weapons, some people would still leave the guns out some of the time.  I was mostly thinking of Nancy Lanza, leaving guns available to someone clearly unstable.

              •  There is no onus on the person selling (0+ / 0-)

                the gun to do any kind of background check.  In fact, it is perfectly legal to straw purchase used guns, as long as you don't know ahead of time that the person you are buying it for intends to commit crime wink, wink, nudge, nudge

                David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

                by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:56:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No that is incorrect. Straw purchases are never (0+ / 0-)

                  legal ever.  It is always a federal crime to purchase a gun as a straw purchase and it is simply not legal at all.  

                   

                  In fact, it is perfectly legal to straw purchase used guns, as long as you don't know ahead of time that the person you are buying it for intends to commit crime wink, wink, nudge, nudge
                  This statement is totally incorrect.  

                  You are confusing people who engage in crime as those who operate legally.

                  •  ..... (0+ / 0-)

                    "Straw purchases of used guns are not illegal, unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser" (PDF warning below)

                    http://www.atf.gov/...

                    David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

                    by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:18:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What page, please? It is 240 pages long. (0+ / 0-)
                    •  This is page 165 of the topic "straw purchases" (0+ / 0-)

                      in the ATF booklet you cited. Nowhere that I can see is that sentence.  If I need to look somewhere else or on another page, please provide it.  

                      Questions have arisen concerning the
                      lawfulness of firearms purchases from
                      licensees by persons who use a "straw
                      purchaser" (another person) to acquire
                      the firearms.  Specifically, the actual
                      buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show
                      that the straw purchaser is the actual
                      purchaser of the firearm.  In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited
                      from acquiring the firearm.  That is to
                      say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is
                      within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully
                      acquire firearms or is a resident of a
                      State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located.  
                      Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not
                      prohibited from purchasing a firearm
                      from the licensee.  In other instances,
                      neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.  
                          In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making
                      false statements on Form 4473
                      to the
                      licensee with respect to the identity of
                      the actual purchaser of the firearm, as
                      well as the actual purchaser's residence
                      address and date of birth.  The actual
                      purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the
                      making of the false statements.  The
                      licensee selling the firearm under these
                      circumstances also violates Federal law
                      if the licensee is aware of the false
                      statements on the form.  It is immaterial
                      that the actual purchaser and the straw
                      purchaser are residents of the State in
                      which the licensee's business premises
                      is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and
                      could have lawfully purchased firearms
                      from the licensee.
                          An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows:  Mr. Smith asks Mr.
                      Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr.
                      Smith.  Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the
                      money for the firearm.  If Mr. Jones fills
                      out Form 4473, he violates the law by
                      falsely stating that he is the actual buyer
                      of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates
                      the law because he has unlawfully aided
                      and abetted or caused the making of
                      false statements on the form.
                          Where a person purchases a firearm
                      with the intent of making a gift of the
                      firearm to another person, the person
                      making the purchase is indeed the true
                      purchaser.  There is no straw purchaser
                      in these instances.  In the above example, if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm
                      with his own money to give to Mr. Smith
                      as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could
                      lawfully have completed Form 4473.  
                      The use of gift certificates would also
                      not fall within the category of straw purchases.  The person redeeming the gift
                      certificate would be the actual purchaser
                      of the firearm and would be properly
                      reflected as such in the dealer's records
          •  actually I think at gun shows they can (0+ / 0-)

            the fireman-killer in Webster NY was a convicted felon for sure (bludgeoning your grandma to death?)  and I seriously doubt any judge had 'reinstated his privileges...'
            oh, and by the way in the states that try to restrict voting by those means, is there even such a thing as 'reinstating the privilege?'

            •  background checks are completed at every gun show (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              richardvjohnson

              by every dealer...it is federal law.  

              Private sales only do not have to have a background check.  

              However, that is not what a straw purchase is.  A straw purchase is one in which someone else buys a gun without intending to own it but to purchase it for someone else. They take the money from someone and buy the gun for them.   This is a federal crime.  

              Yes, a judge can reinstate your privileges.  It doesn't happen often but it can be done.

              •  It's reassuring to know that, I tend to believe (0+ / 0-)

                some of what the media says (gun show loopholes, etc.).  I hope you understand my recent rants about guns were not self-interest...I'm at very little risk of being attacked in my home by anyone without a helicopter (UN?  Boston Police?).  I've perhaps overreacted to the unjustified killings of young black men and 6-year-olds.    

      •  And, one deranged person voting (0+ / 0-)

        never killed anyone.  To even equate voting with gun "rights" is ridiculous.

        David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

        by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:54:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  then lobby to change the Constitution and get 2/3 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GoGoGoEverton

          of Congress behind you and 2/3 of the states....until then, yes, it is indeed, just as important.

          •  that is, if one believes the 2nd amendment (0+ / 0-)

            allows ordinary citizens outside law enforcement to own lethal weapons...for most of American history that was not the case.

            •  What??? At the time the Bill of Rights was (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              richardvjohnson

              written almost every single free male owned a gun.  It was necessary for survival.  It was used for hunting, food, protections and was often the most important tool on a farm, a ranch or on the frontier.  Even wealthy men owned and used firearms....as sport and for hunting purposes.  

              As America moved west guns were used to claim land, in warfare and even used against Indians.  Before you were allowed to sign up to travel on the Oregon trail, each adult member of your party had to have at least one gun and enough ammo and/or materials to make ammo for 6 months.  

              There has never, ever been a time in American's entire history until the past several years in which most America families did not have a least one firearm per household, especially in the south and west.  

              Now this is, of course, in  regard to white people and their early American history....

              My own family has openly owned guns from the time of my grandparents....but before that I am certain they each had one or two but they were always hidden.  Our rights to own guns were not so crystal clear way back then.  We hid ours under mattresses and in hay lofts.

              •  thank you, very interesting history, but (0+ / 0-)

                I was only speaking of the original meaning of the 2nd amendment.  The Supreme Court only decided it meant unlimited gun rights in the last 30 years.  But of course everyone had guns back then, I'm sure all my ancestors in NC and NY and VT did too, black, white, and Native American...
                I'm resigned to living in a bloodthirsty, intellectually declining
                Empire, but I'm also not blaming anyone in particular for that. Failure as well as success has many fathers.  It's when I compare us with other countries I get disturbed...and this isn't the most disturbing comparison anyway.  Prison populations, executions, income inequality...there are far more serious things than too many guns.

        •  Does a murderer standing trial for murder, get his (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          richardvjohnson

          of her rights under the Constitution?  A speedy trial, a jury of peers....even if they themselves in cold bloodly killed someone??

          Yep, they do in this country. It's in the Bill of Rights, just like the 2A.

          •  Sure, and there are all kinds of (0+ / 0-)

            rules and regulations on what evidence comes in at trial, how the police can treat people, etc., so why is it so damn hard to regulate guns?

            David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

            by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:44:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  because fair trial is also a Constitutional right (0+ / 0-)

              as is speedy trial is, and a jury of your peers.  Those rules are to protect the rights of the accused not to deny them rights under the Bill of rights.  The 2A is a Constitutional right....if you don't think is it fair then you need to change the Constitution.

              IMO regulate criminals who use guns in crimes.  Throw the book at them, mandatory sentences....whatever.  Leave the law abiding citizens alone with their rights secure....just as in voting, as in religion, as in protesting.  

              •  George Zimmerman was apparently (0+ / 0-)

                a law-abiding citizen who would probably have passed all my criteria...too bad for Trayvon Martin, just minding his own business.  But most mass murderers couldn't pass any of those tests, could they?

                •  Indeed. There have also been deaths during (0+ / 0-)

                  protests. Sometimes protests bring out the violence in those who would break the law.  Bombs have been used in the name of protest.  Fires started in the name of protests.  Entire cities have felt this effect.

                  Perhaps we should outlaw protests and law abiding protesters.....in the name of safety and crime prevention....of course.

                  •  lots of people have guns, few could be bothered (0+ / 0-)

                    to learn how to make bombs...it's not really about crime prevention.  It's about cowardice.  If I can't defend myself with my own intelligence and hands and feet, I do not care to resort to firearms which are the height of anti-evolutionary nonsense.  Before 1400, if you killed someone in battle it meant you were smarter or stronger.  With firearms, not so, the weak and stupid and cowardly can kill the strong and smart and brave.  Is that good for human evolution or the future of planet Earth?

                    •  Ummmm (0+ / 0-)
                      it's not really about crime prevention
                      Well, it had better be about crime prevention as that's why they are in committees discussing it, aren't they? They is what has been said anyway.

                      Doesn't matter if you think someone with a gun is a coward, nor does it matter if you think it is good for society or planet Earth.  It is the 2A of the Bill of Rights and thus a right that can not be taken away without 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the states agreeing.   If you don't agree with it, don't own a gun....don't live with someone who owns a gun...matter of fact, you can even not have a single friend who has a gun.  I, however, have the right to have one and it's my choice to use my right under the 2A.

          •  absolutely, the 6th amendment, about which (0+ / 0-)

            there's little or no dispute, says you can't be charged with a serious crime without the OK of a grand jury.  Which protects us all from malicious law enforcement in collusion with malicious public prosecutors.  As a grand jury foreman in 1993 I signed 1185 indictments (not 1185 defendants, multiple charges in some cases).  And not once in our 3-month tour of duty did any of us individually or collectively feel that the police officers and prosecutors who made their cases were corrupt or wrong.  In fact, their self-sacrifice was evident at every turn.  And there was only one case out of all that when we as a group couldn't unanimously agree - which ironically had to do with an accidental shooting of a child by a child.  That was my best view of democracy in action.  All races, all ethnic groups working together in the pursuit of justice.  Of course, a grand jury only needs a majority to indict (in the case of Massachusetts, 12 of out of 23) but a trial jury is much more strict.  I only did that once, and we unanimously decided on acquittal.  Maybe my experience is atypical and too idealistic, but I don't think so.    

      •  the Bill of Rights is about properly constituted (0+ / 0-)

        militias, AKA the National Guard, which we have.  The weapons are to be kept in Armories under proper legal public supervision.  Only in the past Looney-Tunes 30 years has anyone suggested that means that anyone, anywhere should have access to lethal firepower...

    •  #2 and #3 are class-based proposals... (3+ / 0-)

      ...that would discriminate against low-income Americans.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:58:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, I feel like I'm seeing an 1850's voting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bailey2001

      requirements proposition from the Alabama state house.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:58:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That was my thought exactly....imagine the uproar (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GoGoGoEverton

        if we were to propose restrictions like that for free speech rights or voting rights.

      •  so what we do, allow anyone to have a gun (0+ / 0-)

        and we all pay for the consequences?  It's easier to have a gun than it is to have a car, which is also way too easy...I just don't think restricting the types of weapons available is going to make any difference, not with so many out there already.  
        I personally don't think think anyone outside law enforcement or the military should be allowed to have guns, and no one anywhere should be allowed to have cars, considering their impact on the future of the planet.  This was what I thought to be a moderate suggestion - and it would have stopped almost every mass murder in the past few years.  

  •  NRA spending in 2012 was way down (0+ / 0-)

    They spent $719,596 in 2012.  That is the lowest amount since at least 1990 when it was $749,493 (but $1,269,975.40 in 2011 dollars).

    So it might be the least they've EVER spent on an election.  I don't know what that means.

  •  The Slippery Slope Argument Is Good Business (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phil S 33

    NRA will never give it up.

  •  simple solution to the NRA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DrPlacebo, defluxion10

    and yes, this is snark
    Encourage African Americans, Muslims, Native Americans, etc, to join the NRA.  I bed we'd see them backpedal almost immediately once they knew these minorities wanted to be armed.

  •  Shun the gun. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    Guns require money.  Lots and lots of money.  Money for maintenance; money for ammunition; money for gas-costs to and from firing ranges, and/or gun-gatherings.

    Guns don't get the money they need from their owners (they're actually gun-pets, you know); they get it from shallow-thinking suckers like you who do business with their owners.  Only the hardest of the hardcore gun-pets (humans actually think they can "own" a gun; it's actually the other way around, and you can see this through the behavior of people who have guns.  It's pretty much a Pavlovian kind of thing.  They actually DROOL for their guns) would choose their guns over things like paychecks and food.

    You want to stop the gun?  Then SHUN THE GUN!

    Remember:  The dollar you deny the gun-pet today might be the dollar he cannot give to the NRA tomorrow....

    Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

    by Liberal Panzer on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:15:16 AM PST

  •  Sadly, the body count................ (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus

    is going to have to get much higher before we see much meaningful change in the gun laws. Think multiple Newtowns.

    It will help for Dems to regain contol of congress but as the diarist says the NRA has their hooks in a lot of Dem congress critters also.

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

    by cazcee on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 11:24:31 AM PST

    •  Much higher than WHAT? (0+ / 0-)

      ???

      If 20 dead children isn't enough, nothing is.  Dems were in control of congress for 2009/2010 and nothing happened.

      •  The Dems had 60 votes in the Senate for about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cazcee

        6 weeks, and that was problematical with Teddy dying, Zombie Byrd a well, zombie, Joe LIEberman, and a host of DINOs.

        And there was no massacre that year of kids that I recall.

        **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

        by glorificus on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:58:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think we need to be smart. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus

    Banning guns is clearly not the answer.  Gun manufacturers have too much at stake.  However, controls on where and how quickly guns can be sold, controls (and taxes) on ammunition, limits to the size of magazines, etc...could go a long way.

    Also, too...allowing gun ownership and concealed carry information be made available to doctors, INSURANCE COMPANIES, and landlords is important.

    Why should the right to a gun be a secret thing?  We have a right to a jury trial when we are accused of a crime.  That is not a secret process.   Whether or not we vote is not secret information.  

    We need to demand full transparency of the process.  That is the way that public opinion starts to switch.

    •  So the media can print that info like in New York? (0+ / 0-)

      No thanks.

       Just this weekend a home was targeted by criminals and the homeowner was a 70 year old law abiding gun owner, who has every right under the Constitution to own a gun. Thankfully, the robber was caught and the man was not at home at the time.

       

  •  Progress (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah
    "They interfere with people's rights (to gun ownership) without doing anything to solve the problem," Keene said.
    Well at least they finally acknowledge there is a problem. Probably an oversight.
  •  Your proof that gun control can pass the US House? (0+ / 0-)

    This column says:  "Some mandates, such as ensuring that every buyer of a gun undergoes a background check, probably have a better than even chance of passing the Senate and House."  Can anybody here provide any evidence whatsoever that the House Republicans will even allow a vote?  And that a bunch of House Republicans will support it?  And that Senate Republicans won't filibuster?

  •  FUCK THE NRA. They should be publicly excluded.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    ....from the meetings --  turned away at the door by Secret Service.

    •  Politcally, it is important that all voices are (0+ / 0-)

      heard.  40% of gun owners are Democrats.  It would not be a politically sound move to do this behind closed doors, when so many people value their rights under the 2A.

      If voting rights conferences were being conducted right now to decide upon new restrictions of that Bill of Rights issue....we would demand and expect any number of group and activists' representation to be at that table.

  •  Why are your friends stockpiling rapid-fire semi- (0+ / 0-)

    automatic rifles and magazines capable of holding 30 or more rounds? If they never needed these things before, why would they buy them just in case they become illegal later?

    Just curious, but I have yet to hear a cogent reason why a law-abiding citizen needs such things. I understand that in rural and wilderness settings, someone might need to kill a charging bear that weighs several hundred pounds. But I've been told by hunters and other gun owners that non-rapid-fire rifles and shotguns would be more than adequate in that setting.

    I'm a Democrat - I believe that government has a positive role to play in the lives of ordinary people.

    by 1BQ on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:10:56 PM PST

  •  I'm hoping that the sells of Guns an Ammo (0+ / 0-)

    keeps going at a mad mad mad mad pace cause he-he it dawned on me a bit ago that most of these buyers are not well-off and they can only have so many Guns and have so many Cans&Boxes of Ammo because of space and lack of money and when all those people have as many Guns&Ammo as they can stuff where they live then the sells of NEW Guns&Ammo will crash like The Tulips of old and all those Manufactures of Guns&Ammo will tank and when all those people try to sell their now "used" guns and boxes of Ammo to pay bills they'll find no buyers cause everyone who might buy already has all the guns&ammo they need so they don't need to buy an then all those government buy-backs will be the only place they can get some cash to pay the credit card Bills they maxed out when buying all those Guns&Ammo.

  •  If they would just stick (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bailey2001

    to the back ground checks, limiting magazine size to under 20 and better mental health checks for firearm purchases you could unify most of the country behind you.

    Going after our guns, even AR's, just piss' a ton of people off including me for me good reason.  AR's account for a tiny fraction of gun violence.  It smells of a costly political stunt and nothing more.

    It is a gross over reach which will cost this party votes.

  •  I am sick and tired (0+ / 0-)

    of the NRA and their bought and paid for lobbyists and politicians demanding their version of 'gun safety'. I wish every American who believes that semi-automatic assault rifles and similar guns would scream a collective NO NRA NO!!!  We need to tell our elected officials.. you know the ones that WORK FOR US, that if you have an A rating from the NRA, that you get an F rating for us.  We need to expose the NRA for what they are, armed bullies with the cash to push us around.  They do not represent most of the gun owners but the MANUFACTURERS. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE NRA and their paid minions.

    CLOSE the damn loopholes, end purchasing of ammunition on the internet. Make everyone who buys bullets go thru the same process I have to go thru to buy Sudefed, JFC. Sorry for the language but I really am damn tired of these idiots and the idiots that they pay for, the politicians.  It is time we CLEAN HOUSE of the GOP and DEM's that are bought and paid for by these armed bullies.  
    /rant over

    Why do Republicans Hate Americans?

    by Caniac41 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:16:36 PM PST

  •  Advice to Pres.: Concern-troll them (0+ / 0-)

    Boner and McConnell are always talking about how they want to "save" Social Security and Medicare...so Obama is really trying to preserve the 2nd Amendment by making gun ownership more responsible etc.

    The difference is, there would actually be some truth in Obama saying that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site