Most gun owners far more reasonable than the NRA
Judging from the results of a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, a wide spectrum of Americans of both parties has reached consensus on the need for specific, common-sense actions to reduce the death toll taken by guns without intruding on Second Amendment rights granted under the Constitution.
The question is, how much power does an angry, paranoid and politically aggressive minority still wield over gun policy in this country? I suspect that we’re going to find that it’s an awful lot. The NRA’s grip on Washington is so strong that we can’t even get a director confirmed to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the agency tasked with enforcing federal gun laws. The ATF has gone leaderless since 2006, because under President Bush and now President Obama, Senate Republicans have refused to even allow a vote on the nomination.
You want another example? The ATF is forbidden by federal law to create a computer database allowing its agents to trace ownership of guns used in a crime. The search has to be done manually, in a time-eating process of phone call after phone call, and sifting through boxes of paper records. That’s because in its infinite paranoia, the NRA insists that a computerized system would violate the Second Amendment by making it easier for the government to go door to door, confiscating the 180 million weapons estimated to be in private hands.
Seriously, they think that’s going to happen.
According to the ABC/WaPo poll, most Americans don’t put much credence in that fantasy. It found that 71 percent of Americans support creation of a national gun database. That includes 61 percent of Republicans.
In addition, 65 percent of Americans — including 59 percent of Republicans — say they support a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Seventy-six percent would require a background check before a person is allowed to purchase ammunition, a figure that includes 69 percent of Republicans.
That strong bipartisan consensus breaks down only on the issue of a ban on assault weapons. Overall, 58 percent of Americans and 54 percent of independents would support such a ban, but only 45 percent of Republicans would do so.
But the most telling data in the poll involves the 44 percent of those surveyed who live in a home where guns are kept. Of that subset, 86 percent would support closing the “gun-show” loophole on background checks. Seventy-six percent of gun owners endorse a background check for ammo sales; 62 percent would back a national firearms database, and 55 percent support a ban on large-capacity magazines.
Such numbers confirm that gun owners, as a rule, are far more reasonable about common-sense approaches to gun safety than is the extremist organization that purports to represent their interests. But in the end, I’m not confident that will matter much.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,281 comments Add your comment
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:11 pm
TBS
Methinks Cheesy’s Mama was scared by a Gaugin when she was carrying him!
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:12 pm
250,000 times at least 25.00 and still growing. And that doesnt even include our contributions to the NRA in Bookmans honor. Every time he writes about the NRA we send them a check.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:12 pm
Dang,I think Chessy just insulted everyone born below the Mason-Dixon line. Whew!
Yankee go home!!!!
TBS
January 15th, 2013
6:13 pm
josef
Not sure where Cheesy works, lives or hangouts but he seems to be sheltered. Maybe that is by choice.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:14 pm
“Such paranoia. How do you go outside with all that fear?”
Why would you think I”m afraid? Being able to face and understand the realities of a possible situation does not equal fear of that situation. But it IS extremely interesting that you leaped to that conclusion on no evidence whatsoever.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:14 pm
“I saw obamabots in the 2008 election asked how they felt about Palin as his running mate. They LOVED her. ”
It seems that to many liberals, you cannot be really “black” or “female” if you are conservative.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:14 pm
Dang,I think Chessy just insulted everyone born below the Mason-Dixon line. Whew!
Yankee go home!!!!
Apparently they are down here too. They sure are hard on themselves.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:15 pm
Dang,I think Chessy just insulted everyone born below the Mason-Dixon line. Whew!
An insult is like poison or strong drink, it can only affect you if you accept it.
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
6:15 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:14 pm
TBG: Define “long distance”
As close as you would have to be, but still be well out of arm’s reach, to effectively hit a target with a handgun.
____________
Cross bow
Bow and arrow
blow gun
spear
throwing knife
throwing ax
boomerang
throwing star
stick of dynamite
jar of acid
IED
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:15 pm
SCOOTER
Home probably don’t want him either….
TBS
And maybe it’s by popular demand…
TM
January 15th, 2013
6:15 pm
How about before anyone can run for office they must pass a test that shows they understand the Constitution,
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:16 pm
“I agree with your sentiment but not necessarily the requirement. There can be no doubt that mass killers like Lanza and Holmes knew how to operate a gun and could pass a gun safety test”
I wouldn’t argue that. But I think being able to demonstrate you know how to safely operate a gun is a reasonable requirement. Just as it’s a reasonable requirement to show that you can safely operate a motor vehicle.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:16 pm
““A day before President Barack Obama is scheduled to release Vice President Joe Biden´s recommendations to curb gun violence in the United States, the National Rifle Association told U.S. News and World Report that they have seen membership grow by 250,000 in the month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.” –USN&WP
Bummer…
_____
Perhaps there is some fear among these new “members” that they might one day become like the tragically murdered children. Only this time, Lanza will be wearing a military uniform.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:17 pm
Doggone: Well then I just needed to clarify what I meant by efficient. Perhaps I should have just added “user friendly”
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:17 pm
keith: Gun control was NOT first implemented as a measure against the slaves.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:19 pm
“But I think being able to demonstrate you know how to safely operate a gun is a reasonable requirement.”
Perhaps, but it is low lying fruit in my opinion. I don’t think it will solve much. If you think differently, please tell me what sort of things you think such a bill targets (like accidental deaths?).
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
6:19 pm
“Ever been to Chicago.
Its a great town. More culture in its pinky than the entire South has.”
Well Cheesy, you fit right in here. Pretty much everyone of Jay’s commie choir here feels the same way. Jay, the leader of this august group, has elevated a bigot going by the name of RC to HOF status.
Like you, these people make fun of southerners, laugh at their accents, and accuse them of sub-standard IQ’s. And if one happens to be a middle aged white southerner, standby to be accused of neanderthalism.
Yankees like you and Jay hate us. We just aren’t cosmopolitan, urbane, and erudite enough for you. Yet lib ilks are supposed to be the most tolerant people on the face of the earth.
You are pathetic.
getalife
January 15th, 2013
6:20 pm
The debate changes tomorrow for the proposals submitted for congressional approval.
Soothsayer
January 15th, 2013
6:20 pm
On matters related to the Palestinians, the president seems to view the prime minister as a political coward, an essentially unchallenged leader who nevertheless is unwilling to lead or spend political capital to advance the cause of compromise.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Obama’s nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, is said to be eager to re-energize the Middle East peace process, but Obama — who already has a Nobel Peace Prize — is thought to be considerably more wary. He views the government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as weak, but he has become convinced that Netanyahu is so captive to the settler lobby, and so uninterested in making anything more than the slightest conciliatory gesture toward Palestinian moderates, that an investment of presidential interest in the peace process wouldn’t be a wise use of his time.
Obama, since his time in the Senate, has been consistent in his analysis of Israel’s underlying challenge: If it doesn’t disentangle itself from the lives of West Bank Palestinians, the world will one day decide it is behaving as an apartheid state.
[W]hat Obama wants is recognition by Netanyahu that Israel’s settlement policies are foreclosing on the possibility of a two-state solution, and he wants Netanyahu to acknowledge that a two-state solution represents the best chance of preserving the country as a Jewish-majority democracy. Obama wants, in other words, for Netanyahu to act in Israel’s best interests.
So far, though, there has been no sign that the Israeli government is gaining a better understanding of the world in which it lives.
– Jeffrey Goldberg
josef: if you want to stomp out of here in a huff because I express my opinions re: Israel, that’s your prerogative. And, if you feel the need to express your feelings towards me for doing so, believe me, if won’t hurt my feelings.
The stark reality is that there are many worldwide who share my opinions. Those who don’t live in the brain-dead United States.
This is a great article, by the way. Well worth reading.
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:20 pm
Really, though, Cheesy insulted the decent Yankees. Feeds right into the Southern stereotype of “you know what they’re like…”
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:20 pm
“keith: Gun control was NOT first implemented as a measure against the slaves.”
Just out of curiosity…what WAS the first “gun control” law, and when and where was it passed? In all this discussion, I don’t remember ever seeing it mentioned.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
6:20 pm
0311
” I believe history will show (and I pray it’s not in my lifetime) that Obama has awakened a sleeping giant on this and many other issues.”
You do realize he’s closer to the views of most Americans than the cons opposed to any regulation who’ve been posting here today, don’t you?
You didn’t know that? Why… gasp… are you a low information voter?!!?
“Leave it to the states (as New York has done) and let American citizens decide which state’s gun laws they most approve of by voting with their feet.”
Yet you want to regulate abortion and gay marriage at the federal level, don’t you?
Nothing like consistency, is there?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:21 pm
And don;t try to say that the exercise of those rights have resulted in deaths
You’re right. They haven’t. Words don’t kill people and neither does peaceful assembly. Neither does exercising your rights to keep and bear arms.
However, your potential use of some form of arms can hurt or kill another person. At that point, you have infringed on their right to life. IMO, even if you were defending yourself, unless you literally had no other choice. And by literally I mean you had no means by which to stop them other than to kill them.
Also, it is worth noting that neither the first nor the second amendment are unlimited. Kids don’t go into schools with rocket launchers. Why? Because they would have a really tough time getting them. I suppose they could always just go on the black market though. After all, that MUST be easy the way you guys talk about the black market.
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
6:21 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:23 pm
Doggone: They vary a LOT in their effective range. As for other weapons lethal from a distance: there are bows, cross-bows, slings, spears, blowguns, thrown knives. All of which are hand weapons.
How many are legal and how many are as efficient as a gun?
All of them to both questions.
Also, none of your gun control proposals would have stopped Sandy Hook.
His mother owned the guns and would have met all of your qualifications.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:21 pm
An insult is like poison or strong drink, it can only affect you if you accept it.
Kam,those are good words of wisdom that I will not forget. Thanks!!
And now I will go get that strong drink!!
TBS
January 15th, 2013
6:21 pm
Sink
Sounds like Cheesy and yourself would be great friends
Two peas in a pod
You could be the intolerant brothers
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:21 pm
“If you think differently, please tell me what sort of things you think such a bill targets (like accidental deaths?).”
Like accidental deaths
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:22 pm
SOOTH
What huff? What stomp?
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:22 pm
“As close as you would have to be, but still be well out of arm’s reach, to effectively hit a target with a handgun.”
You forgot “angry” eyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd9ihDYLiJk
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:23 pm
That Black Guy: Cross bow
Bow and arrow
blow gun
spear
throwing knife
throwing ax
boomerang
throwing star
stick of dynamite
jar of acid
IED
Now, narrow your list down to the ones that are just as efficient and user friendly (to me user friendly is part of efficiency, and by user friendly I mean easy for a first time user to use effectively) as guns and are also legal.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
6:23 pm
getalife
I’ve seen a few exasperated conservatives on national shows wondering just how much political capital Republicans are going to expend being on the wrong side from most Americans on so many issues, many of them marginal.
It just seems to be in their nature.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:24 pm
Yankees like you and Jay hate us.
I’m not overly fond of you, and I was born on Peachtree St.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:24 pm
That Black Guy: His mother owned the guns and would have met all of your qualifications.
The son would have been treated and would have been less likely to be motivated to steal the guns in the first place under my mental health suggestions. His mother would also likely still be alive.
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:25 pm
DOGGONE
@ 6:20
Good question…
SCOOTTER
Name your poison!
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:25 pm
Theres no reason for you liberals to live your lives in constant fear. There are millions of gunowners out there that have never committed a crime. So as long as you stay away from those gunfree zones you will be safe. What did VA Tech, Aurora CO, Columbine CO and Sandy Hook have in common? Gun free zones. The tucson shooting was the only recent shooting not in a gunfree zone and that perp was a well known mental case that the liberal mindeset allowed to roam the streets. And the firefighters in NY were killed by an ex convict with gun he was not lawfully in possession of. If the liberal courts had kept him incarcerated after murdering his grandmother with a hammer then Cuomo would not be using their deaths for political momentum.
Soothsayer
January 15th, 2013
6:25 pm
josef: NO COMMENT. STILL NO COMMENT.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:27 pm
Theres no reason for you liberals to live your lives in constant fear.
The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
6:27 pm
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
4:35 pm
WHICH handgun?
Is this a test! Are we being timed! A.. a … a .22 Beretta.
______________
My nephew was shot in the chest with a .22, the bullet came out his armpit and lodged in his arm. He ran the guy down and beat him senseless.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:27 pm
“You do realize he’s closer to the views of most Americans than the cons opposed to any regulation who’ve been posting here today, don’t you?”
Seeing that Chicago banned handguns outright until overruled by the SC, and judging from past statements or votes, no I do not. I will agree he wishes to appear moderate on this issue, but I think he just being deceptive (as are most politicians).
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:27 pm
keith: The tucson shooting was the only recent shooting not in a gunfree zone.
Clackmas Mall, San Antonio movie theater, the list goes on. Shooters don’t care if it’s a gun free zone or not. They don’t read signs.
Soothsayer
January 15th, 2013
6:28 pm
josef: BTW even though I can’t post @ Kyle’s that doesn’t stop me from reading the comments over there. So, stop with the blushing ingenue routine, OK?
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:28 pm
“There are millions of gunowners out there that have never committed a crime”
Funny! that’s EXACTLY what I’ve been saying for weeks now.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:29 pm
There are millions of gunowners out there that have never committed a crime
Download any torrents lately?
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
6:30 pm
Jay I. Will give the reasoning a shot, no pun intended.
You state that the NRA is basically paranoid of a gun ownership data base because they think the government would go door to door taking them. You indicate that this is a far fetched concern that is totally beyond reason.
The problem with your lack of concern is this. If indeed the constitution gives individuals the right to possess guns then it does so with the predetermined purpose of preventing exactly what you argue is ridiculous . When the kings men sought to enforce the kings will British troops did indeed occupy and confiscate guns. This fact is not only the basis of the 2nd amendment but also the 4th amendment which prevents search and seizures without cause approved by a judge. The fact that the ruler of what was the British Colonies, would abuse his powers by kicking open the doors of his subjects means that we, as citizens have been, are and would be the target of an abusive or unauthorized government. Ownership of guns is exactly what was intended to prevent that government abuse.
If we can be honest for a few, abusive governments are the rule in this world not the exception. Western industrialized nations are the same ones that have the rule of law and therefore constitutional rights. The 3rd world nations, Russia and China still thrive by the complete control of its populace and under the will of governmental power.
Assuming you assumption were true, that the government needs a data base, it would only make that seizure, which you dismiss, easier for the government. Our nation has faced several incidents in which free law abiding citizens of this country, without cause, lost their rights under the rule of government self protection. As mentioned before our British leaders sought to impose its will on us. Lincoln suspended Habeus during the civil war. The argument could have been made that he directed it toward an illegal rebellion however it was often used to hold people thought to be southern sympathizers, regardless of proof and to intern government opposition in the north. Finally Roosevelt interned thousands of Japaneeze Americans during WW2. People who had no fewer historic reasons to oppose its government with guns than our founders.
So the fact is that governments have and will abuse the powers it holds and historically governments have had to be opposed by force, by its citizens. Therefore you cannot simply suppose that it’s stupid to fear that unlikely possibility. The fact that it did happen is why we have a constitution isn’t it ?
More toward the issue. a data base is useless in preventing crime. Police never trace gun ownership until after a serious crime has taken place, it does on very rare occasions help to find the offender but it never stops the crime before it happens. A data base serves no real need. Of all the crimes committed with guns, excluding domestic incidents, the criminal uses a gun that is stolen or one that is not registered to him/her. Once a gun is legally bought the ability to trace it stops as they are gifted, lost and stolen which prevents a true tracking ability.
The rest of your thoughts I believe are legitimate tools toward a valid goal. The answer is in finding the ability to prevent the gun from getting into the hands of a mental person. To that end the constitution could never be interpreted to allow wacko’s to possess guns. We should require a mental health certification for ownership of guns. You should be required to list all parties who occupy your residence or the place that the gun will be stored and mental health certifications should be required on those people. In other words if I wish to have a gun I not only should I be sane but so should my wife and any person over 14 years old, who may have access to it.
But in general the real issue is the fact that guns are specifically mentioned in the constitution. As any other constitutionally mandated right, any action which imposes limits or conditions on that right will surely be found unconstitutional.
So back to you, do you think that it’s possible to find a real compromise that will stand legal challenges if it even hints at limitations on a constitutional right ?
I think we have a better chance of enforcing the immigration laws than we do gun laws and immigration is black and white, you enter legally or you don’t . Violence has become a modern day blight, gun or otherwise. It’s a mindset which conflicts with our bill of rights as does its solutions. After all your not a violent criminal until you commit a violent crime. Until The Minority Report is reality, under the law and. constitution you have to be convicted before you lose your rights.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:30 pm
when obama was in the IL Senate he voted against the right to self defense even when it was within your own home. That is hardly a mainstream view.
getalife
January 15th, 2013
6:30 pm
Paul,
It should be an entertaining debate in congress.
The AR ban will probably fail but the background checks and magazine ban might pass.
I am still waiting on them to try to fix the gop.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:32 pm
There are millions of gunowners out there that have never committed a crime
Download any torrents lately?
Nope. Get mine the legal way thru Amazon Prime and ITunes. What about you?
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:33 pm
SOOTH
I thought I made it clear that I was there at invitation from some of his regulars and that I needed to take a break for a few days from here…not a huff, not a stomp.
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
6:34 pm
“I’m not overly fond of you, and I was born on Peachtree St.”
So what?
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
6:34 pm
A damn yankee won’t leave.
For the umpteenth time, we are just here to claim what is rightfully ours!
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:34 pm
keith: Nope. Get mine the legal way thru Amazon Prime and ITunes. What about you?
Downloaded any torrents EVER or MP3s EVER?
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:35 pm
SCOOTTER
Name your poison!
Boilermakers tonite Josef!!! They make my rebel yell come out better.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:35 pm
keith: Ever fired off fireworks in an area where it was illegal? Are you aware of every single law that has ever applied to you your whole life?
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:37 pm
SCOOTTER
G&T here..
Tundra Dude
January 15th, 2013
6:37 pm
what WAS the first “gun control” law, and when and where was it passed?
In the US, the first State law was in Ky. Jawja was next.
A Layman’s short History of Gun Control in America
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/516676/posts
Paul
January 15th, 2013
6:39 pm
Towncrier
” I will agree he wishes to appear moderate on this issue, but I think he just being deceptive”
Well then, how about this?
How about we see what his recommendations are and how they stack up against the survey questions Jay cited in his lead? Then we can bump those up against what the no/low control advocates have been posting here and see who’s closer to mainstream America.
Mama says
” If indeed the constitution gives individuals the right to possess guns then it does so with the predetermined purpose of preventing exactly what you argue is ridiculous . When the kings men sought to enforce the kings will British troops did indeed occupy and confiscate guns. This fact is not only the basis of the 2nd amendment”
Are you saying the basis was to prevent confiscation of firearms, which was the action of the army? Or was the basis protection against a standing army?
getalife
I think you’re reading the outcome correctly. Let the GOP/NRA lead the fight against assault weapons. When another tragedy occurs, they’ll own it.
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
6:39 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:19 pm
The government cannot protect this nation from those who are truly insane and who want to inflict severe damage on our people
Easy access to guns sure makes it easier
Tough DUI laws cut DUI deaths in half
_________
Safer cars had nothing to do with it.
Air bags, ABS, Collapsible steering columns, crumple zones, increased rollover protection, seatbelt laws, improved accident avoidance tech does not help ONE BIT.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:39 pm
Liberals cannot seem to have a rational discussion on the issues with going way overboard in their utter stupidity. Have you EVER broken any laws in your life? LMAO Get a life.
Soothsayer
January 15th, 2013
6:39 pm
“My New Year’s resolution was to keep my personal opinions of others to myself. I’m having to take a break from Big Daddy’s [i.e., Jay's blog] verandah to do that and I was invited to spend more time here.”
– josef (from Kyle’s)
Your personal opinion of me is always welcome. Anyone on this blog will tell you that I have a thick skin. You need not keep it to yourself and you don’t have to go to Kyle’s blog to avoid having to do so.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:41 pm
Liberals cannot seem to have a rational discussion on the issues with going way overboard in their utter stupidity.
Anti abortionists say, “What?”
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:43 pm
Liberals cannot seem to have a rational discussion on the issues with going way overboard in their utter stupidity.
Birthers say, “What?”
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:43 pm
Liberals cannot seem to have a rational discussion on the issues with going way overboard in their utter stupidity.
Skewers say, “What?”
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:43 pm
ZamVet
Ach, ja Wohl! Drang nach Süden!
K’CHAK
And, no, Godwin’s law doesn’t apply here…
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:47 pm
“Liberals cannot seem to have a rational discussion on the issues with going way overboard in their utter stupidity.”
“going overboard” = presenting retional arguments that break down “my” over-emotional opinions
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:48 pm
SOOTH
What huff and stomp there? Someone asked why I was there, and I answered. I’ve long since given my personal opinion of you, and there’s no need to repeat it here. Unlike some, I’m not out to make enemies.
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
6:48 pm
“White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced this afternoon that President Obama will unveil a “concrete package” of gun control proposals including assault weapons bans, high capacity ammunition magazine bans, and closing loopholes on background checks. Carney said that the president will be joined by Vice President Joe Biden as well as children who wrote to the president after the Newtown shootings. “They will be joined by children around the country expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents,” Carney confirmed.”
Using children as props?
Shame.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:49 pm
“Well then, how about this? How about we see what his recommendations are and how they stack up against the survey questions Jay cited in his lead? Then we can bump those up against what the no/low control advocates have been posting here and see who’s closer to mainstream America.”
In my opinion, Obama will only attempt what he thinks he can get realistically away with. I think he would ban guns completely if he thought he had any real chance of doing so. I do not think his image on the national stage matches that on the local stage. They are incongruous. Besides, in the final analysis, this issue is not a popularity contest. I don’t know if Jay is really prepared to tackle the Constitutional questions of gun ownership in an intellectually honest or informed way. I haven’t seen much evidence of that.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:50 pm
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
6:30 pm
Dang Mama,that’s the best post I have ever seen on this issue.Thanks for sharing it.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:53 pm
You asinine comments about have you EVER broken any laws in your life showed how weak your argument is. Next you may ask if I have ever gotten a speeding ticket. LMAO.
It is ignorant to blame the millions of lawabiding gunowners in this country for the deeds of a few misguided people. It is equally ignorant to want to punish the lawabiding for the crimes of those individuals. Do you also want to ban alcohol because people get drunk? Ban cars because people get in wrecks? Ban airplanes because they crash? Ban knives because they cut? Ban the sun because it burns? That really is how stupid your arguments are.
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
6:56 pm
what WAS the first “gun control” law, and when and where was it passed?
In addition, most of the Western cow towns had ordinances against carrying firearms inside the city limits. The Earp brothers got into a little dust-up near the OK Corral trying to enforce one such statute against a group of local cowboys.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:56 pm
For the umpteenth time, we are just here to claim what is rightfully ours!
You can have anything you want JamVet except our women.When we figured out you only wanted the slaves we just quit fighting!
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:58 pm
“Using children as props? Shame.”
The real shame is that this supposedly “black” (but actually mulatto) president will not have any inner cities kids, say, from Chicago with their “parent(s)” (or gang leader) there as a prop. No, because mass killing of white people are the only gun problem in America and gun laws in Chicago have NOT prevented high rates of gun violence by CRIMINALS. Yet, he and others want to pass another spurious “solution” to a poorly defined “problem”.
That’s “gubmint” for you, folks.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
6:58 pm
“Using children as props?”
No, Sink, just showing a segment of citizens who want to be protected from other citizens.
Then again, you’d probably label the vets who were shown with cancer (or pics of those who’d died) after Agent Orange exposure as shameful props, right?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:58 pm
Using children as props?
Bush reading The Pet Goat says, “What?”
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:00 pm
Towncrier
Isn’t the art of politics about getting accomplished what you think you can, not necessarily everything you’d personally like?
I know, I know, that concept is lost on modern conservative Republicans, isn’t it?
indigo
January 15th, 2013
7:00 pm
Either this whole sentence is false or guns should not be privately owned.
This sentence is either true or false. If it is false then, by it’s own statement, guns should not be privately owned. If it is true, then either the first statement ‘this whole sentence if false’ or the second statement ‘guns should not be privately owned’ must be true. Assuming the whole sentence to be true, the first possibility is excluded and hence the second must be true.
Therefore, guns should not be privately owned.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:02 pm
Towncrier
Sorry, hit ’submit comment’ too soon.
So isn’t what’s germane to the conversation what he does?
And we know what’s being proposed. So for this thread, isn’t the issue who do those proposals line up with? The majority of Americans? Or the NRA?
That is, according to the lead Jay wrote for this thread.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
7:02 pm
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:39 pm
The libs are very easy to talk to here. Just don’t generalize and start a post with “you morons” or “you loons” and such. Jus sayin…………
keith
January 15th, 2013
7:02 pm
If these ludicrous leftwing solutions to problems worked Chicago would be the safest city in the nation. The great liberal society in Chicago is an abject failure.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:04 pm
“Isn’t the art of politics about getting accomplished what you think you can, not necessarily everything you’d personally like? I know, I know, that concept is lost on modern conservative Republicans, isn’t it?”
Isn’t it the sworn duty of a president to uphold the Constitution (and not subvert it)? I know, that concept is lost on modern liberal Democrats, isn’t it?
josef
January 15th, 2013
7:05 pm
SCOOTTER
@ 702
Yeah, but you’re a Southern Gentleman of Culture and Breeding… you’ve got good manners. AND you use them…. -)
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:05 pm
indigo
To what post does your 7:00 refer? Is it just an exercise in logic? ’cause real-world in the US, it really doesn’t matter, does it?
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:07 pm
Towncrier
“Isn’t it the sworn duty of a president to uphold the Constitution (and not subvert it)?”
Of course.
Are you implying Pres Obama doesn’t?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:12 pm
If these ludicrous leftwing solutions to problems worked Chicago would be the safest city in the nation.
And according to the numbers, Texas ranks in the top ten of states with per capita gun ownership so by your logic should there would be very little crime in Texas?
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
7:13 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:23 pm
That Black Guy: Cross bow
Bow and arrow
blow gun
spear
throwing knife
throwing ax
boomerang
throwing star
stick of dynamite
jar of acid
IED
Now, narrow your list down to the ones that are just as efficient and user friendly (to me user friendly is part of efficiency, and by user friendly I mean easy for a first time user to use effectively) as guns and are also legal.
_________
OK:
Cross bow
Bow and arrow
blow gun
spear
throwing knife
throwing ax
boomerang
throwing star
stick of dynamite
jar of acid
IED
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:14 pm
It would also be of great assistance if we stopped using incorrect descriptions.
A semi auto gun is a gun that requires that a person pull the trigger each time a bullet is fired. The “assault rifle” is a fully automatic gun. Pull and hold the trigger and it shoots continuously.
Semi autos include handguns. Banning assault rifles is a lark. Assault rifles are by public identification, the ones sold in gun shows and gun dealers, are semi auto. Fully auto rifles are already illegal. So a ban on semi auto assault rifles opens a huge door to semi auto weapons period. Another point of political posturing is the magazine capacity. A limit on clip size accomplishes nothing when considering these mass killings.
In the Conn. incident the pistols brought more killing ability to the scene than the semi auto rifle yet you never hear people talking about banning handguns. A basic semi auto handgun typically has 9 to 15 round magazines. Most folks carrying two magazines some three. That’s 30 to 45 bullets delivered just like a rifle, one trigger pull at a time.
Do you ban handguns also ?
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:14 pm
“And we know what’s being proposed. So for this thread, isn’t the issue who do those proposals line up with? The majority of Americans? Or the NRA?”
According to the AJC Manual of Blogging Style? At some point, probably most NEW regulations are going to receive a Constitutional challenge. It matters NOT what Jay, you, I or anyone else FEELS about one or more regulations. Why is Obama suddenly RUSHING to pass gun legislation? Because of an “back breaking” event (”Don’t waste a good crisis”). There has been LITTLE effort to really define the problem we might like to solve, only a rush to pass gun laws. That, in my opinion is STUPID (speaking as an engineer, whose purpose is to solve problems). It’s just like so MUCH legislation passed into law – ill considered, hurried, mind numbingly complex and partially or mostly ineffectual.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:15 pm
Fully auto rifles are already illegal.
Nope.
All it takes is the proper license.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
7:17 pm
Southern Gentleman of Culture and Breeding
Why thank you Suh. And the same to you.
Brosephus™
January 15th, 2013
7:18 pm
The real shame is that this supposedly “black” (but actually mulatto) president will not have any inner cities kids, say, from Chicago with their “parent(s)” (or gang leader) there as a prop. No, because mass killing of white people are the only gun problem in America and gun laws in Chicago have NOT prevented high rates of gun violence by CRIMINALS. Yet, he and others want to pass another spurious “solution” to a poorly defined “problem”.
For some reason, it doesn’t seem like conservatives or gun lovers give a damn about those kids in Chicago either. I don’t see any one of y’all up there helping that community out, but you whip that sh*t out like a 12 inch gold plated dildo every chance you get to try to deflect conversation away from something you don’t want to talk about.
Maybe it’s the flu, maybe it’s the meds… but I’m sick and damned tired of hearing about Chicago kids from a bunch of people who don’t give a rat’s ass about Chicago kids. If you’re personally doing something, Towncrier, then don’t take this to be directed personally at you. If you fall into that same category as the others then maybe y’all will get offended enough to either do something about Chicago or quit using that as a talking point. Kids and young people are dying everywhere and y’all treat them like the period at the end of a sentence or something.
I pray God has mercy on all y’all…
//drive-by//
josef
January 15th, 2013
7:19 pm
REAL SCOOTTER
You’re too kind.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:20 pm
“Of course. Are you implying Pres Obama doesn’t?”
People have. I haven’t seen egregious enough examples to care much. My point was that though he might personally want to ban most (if not all) guns (as they did in Chicago) he would not dare to because he knows (or strongly suspects) he would be impeached. He is “moderate” on gun control because that is all he can be – not because his “thinking” is in “line” with most Americans.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:20 pm
…but you whip that sh*t out like a 12 inch gold plated dildo every chance you get…
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
7:21 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:24 pm
That Black Guy: His mother owned the guns and would have met all of your qualifications.
The son would have been treated – HOW? if his mother owns the weapons, how would HE have been identified as unstable? Also, are you saying you support *forcing* treatment on law abiding citizens (remember, he didn’t break the law until AFTER he killed his mother).
and would have been less likely to be motivated to steal the guns in the first place under my mental health suggestions. – You don’t know that. You are assuming. Are you saying ALL mental health issues are observable. No one *snaps*.
Under your proposals, Sandy Hook would have still happened.
Also remember, existing laws PREVENTED him from buying his own weapon. That’s why he took his mom’s
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
7:23 pm
Do you ban handguns also ?
That’s the next thing on there agenda Mama! And you can count on it.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
7:24 pm
their not there Whew
Boris Badnoff
January 15th, 2013
7:25 pm
Indeed we need to ban guns to stop all violence. Followed by banning forks to stop obesity. If snakes had been banned in Egypt Cleopatra would still be with us. And if we banned icebergs the Titanic would haven’t sunk. Those laws banning alcohol and drugs have worked wonderfully and now we have no alcoholism or drug abuse problems. And finally a ban on any woman over 40 years or 150 pounds from wearing a miniskirt or tanktop.
josef
January 15th, 2013
7:25 pm
K’CHAK
That one qualifies, at least, for line of the day, eh?
BROSEPHUS
Hope things are getting better ’round there…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:26 pm
That’s the next thing on there agenda Mama! And you can count on it.
Not according to the last O of O meeting.
The next two things are:
1) Make everyone get gay married.
2) Force ‘em all to get abortions.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
7:28 pm
Wow the Bookman Buffoons really went batty after I left this afternoon….