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
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:20 pm
It’s not a misrepresentation, if somebody doesn’t know squat about weapons/calibers they might not understand why a .223 is that much different than a common .22 that a friend uses for plinking.
Go back to the link that Keep posted. It says:
“The ammunition on the right is a .233 (sic) bullet, the same used to destroy the young bodies of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary School. This ammunition isn’t meant for hunting, it’s meant for warfare.”
Now what impression do you think they are trying to make?
mae brown
January 15th, 2013
12:20 pm
Exactly my opinion….Most intelligent folks see the need for balanced,nuanced descussion and approach to the problem.The paranoia of the NRA will stall and gut and delay and lie while refusing to educate themselves to the solutions offered w/out input on their part.No is all they seem to know…Such a shame misguided people will delay this necessary action.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
12:20 pm
Godless, you forgot to point out that both are bullets, have metal content and all sorts of other similarities that do not matter.
Wow dazzling. 
RB from Gwinnett
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
If I’m not mistaken, it’s currently illegal for the Feds to maintain a database of citizens who own guns and is deemed to be unconstitutional. So, how is this “background checks for private sales” going to work? How will uncle Sam know if I sell my shotgun to my hunting buddy?
And which of the recent mass killings would this silliness have prevented? NONE!!!
Toss the fat kids another cookie to shut them up….
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
Godless, you forgot to point out that both are bullets, have metal content and all sorts of other similarities that do not matter.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
12:06 pm
First of all, the fact that you read my posts with that type of judgement is interesting…i’m flattered to be certain.
Secondly, I have seen no real solid responses to how exactly these tactics make our kids safer….perhaps in all of your brilliance, you can answer with a sentence or two???
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:14 pm
Fred…classic!
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
“Jay, why do you think another restriction on those of us who believe in the rule of law will matter one ioda to the criminal element?”
Nobody else will say it…but *I* will. Such laws are meant to reassure those disgusted and frightened by events like Newtown. To calm such people down, you have to make them think something is being done to control the problem. Most of them will never notice that such laws CAN’T control the problem…until another horror happens.
getalife
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
When are you cons going to fix your failed party?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:22 pm
RB: it’s currently illegal for the Feds to maintain a database of citizens who own guns and is deemed to be unconstitutional.
I am genuinely curious: Which Supreme Court case set that precedent?
straitroad
January 15th, 2013
12:23 pm
indigo
January 15th, 2013
12:19 pm
I believe the majority on the left would eliminate 2nd amendment rights.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:23 pm
Doggone: Except that laws CAN reduce the incidences and body counts if done right. Not eliminate, but reduce.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:24 pm
straitroad: I believe the majority on the left would eliminate 2nd amendment rights.
Considering just how many people you and others (Fred) think are on “the left” your statement cannot possibly be true.
weetamoe
January 15th, 2013
12:24 pm
I know very few gun owners who admit to having guns in the home. Were you ever truthful when your pediatrician asked?
The 2nd amendment had and has nothing to do with hunting. The gun lobby is the NSSA.
Paranoia? Rounding up people and forcing them to leave their homes (native Americans); sending them to concentration camps( Japanese Americans); illegal medical experiments Black syphilitics promised medical treatment but given dummy meds under guise of *free government medical care*;
arbitrary search and confiscation of guns post Katrina; Waco; Mr Nakoula still languishing in solitary.
And the treatment of Dave Gregory whose dramatic brandishing of a large capacity magazine clearly violated the law vs that of Aaron Swartz who dared share MIT’s stash of scholarly articles with those who could not afford to read them (some of which are in the public domain). Just a few possible reasons for that silly paranoia cause *it can’t happen here,* yeah?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
12:24 pm
Here you go Godless… go nuts!
As mentioned above, rimfire is an older technology than centerfire. The .22LR cartridge was introduced in 1887, while the .223 cartridge was designed in 1964, specifically for use in the M-16 rifle.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/05/03/guest-post-22-lr-vs-223-rem
Moderate Line
January 15th, 2013
12:25 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
11:28 am
Moderate Line: I have to ask what are they doing that we are not doing because simply making it harder to buy a gun is not going to eliminate the number of guns plus every time one of these tragedies hit gun sales go through the roof.
Well, for one thing, their guns are strictly controlled and/or periodic training is required for ownership and use. Some even have implemented mental health checks as part of it.
What are they doing? They are treating guns differently than we do in our culture.
++++
I assume they are doing something that we are not. My question relates what specifically they are doing. I would agree with the education and mental health part but when you say they are strictly controlled that is a very general statement. We already have laws that the mental ill can not obtain a gun. I am more interested in what they do specifically not general statements that they control it more.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
12:25 pm
When you spot allegedly ‘ill-informed’ coming from me, you let me know, son. I’ll be glad to take you on.
JHM,I hope he takes you up on that! I’m going to make some popcorn cause I know this is going to good.
straitroad
January 15th, 2013
12:25 pm
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
Reassurance is not a valid reason to restrict law abiding citizens.
weetamoe
January 15th, 2013
12:26 pm
Also under paranoia–execution of American citizen without due process. That would be al Awlaki.
bookman parrot
January 15th, 2013
12:26 pm
when is gov’t and libs going to push for limits on the number of times you can use the toilet (albeit in an effort to save the earth – not to wield power and control LOL).
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
12:27 pm
Well a .223 caliber Bushmaster is the same caliber as a .22 rimfire, Einstein. The cartridge and the bullet weight are different, but they are the same caliber.
Oh good lord, please don’t wander into one of those stupid “the US isn’t a democracy it’s a REPUBLIC” kinda hair-splitting arguments.
The point is the .223 and weapons made for that cartridge aren’t anything like a .22 dad used for varmints. If you’re fighting that simple point you should stop and think how that makes gun owners look—-like you’re trying to obscure fact with a bunch of side tangents.
There’s honest attempts at education and then there’s Neal Boortz type yammering, if you want to engage in the latter you’re not doing anyone a favor.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:27 pm
We already have laws that the mental ill can not obtain a gun.
No, we have laws that the ADJUDICATED mentally ill cannot get a gun. If the violently mentally ill never see a courtroom, they can still get a gun.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:27 pm
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
Wow, I guess we are in the minority with our ignorant thoughts eh? Passing a gun control law and expecting it to have one iota of impact on more shootings is like expecting a knee replacement to treat a heart attack..
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:27 pm
“Except that laws CAN reduce the incidences and body counts if done right. Not eliminate, but reduce”
Not proven. Maybe not provable. The problem I have with them is the false sense of security they will generate.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:28 pm
straitroad: Reassurance is not a valid reason to restrict law abiding citizens.
Law abiding citizens can still have handguns and hunting rifles, and hunting and self defense are still legal. So is ownership of weapons that you can defend yourself with and hunt with.
So you really haven’t been restricted at all, if you’re truly a law abiding citizen.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:29 pm
Doggone: Not proven. Maybe not provable.
We won’t know for sure until the ban on study is lifted.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:29 pm
“Reassurance is not a valid reason to restrict law abiding citizens”
Why address this to me? I never said, or implied, that it was.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:29 pm
I got invited to the inauguration again……….
bookman parrot
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
BHO, Bookman, and the easily influenced still ignore the fact that criminals and crazy people are not going to adhere to the rules.
So in effect their/your efforts will not stop unfortunate carnage in the future one little bit, which is truly sad to say… it will just erode individual freedoms and help bring in more gov’t control… slowly but surely …
getalife
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
If you have a family member with mental issues, use a little common sense and get your guns out of your house.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:27 pm
Can you imagine the bonanza the ACLU would have if the mentally ill were required to undergo tests to prove they are in fact mentally ill? It would take 20 years for all the experts to agree on a definition…
Those unfit to stand trial to generally get a pass on lethal injections..
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
Stevie Ray: Passing a gun control law and expecting it to have one iota of impact on more shootings is backed up by the fact many other countries have done this and seen exactly that result.
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
Keep is dodging and obfuscating, again, so I made my point.
BTW, JHM, sorry I misquoted you, wasn’t watching the punctuation closely.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:31 pm
FRED
How much you gotta donate?
straitroad
January 15th, 2013
12:31 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:28 pm
Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:32 pm
Stevie Ray: Can you imagine the bonanza the ACLU would have if the mentally ill were required to undergo tests to prove they are in fact mentally ill? It would take 20 years for all the experts to agree on a definition…
It needs to be clear that the mentally ill person actually presents a danger to others by having weapons. And as I mentioned, other countries have a better system for this because they also don’t immediately stigmatize every single mental illness as being the same as paranoid schizophrenia.
DownInAlbany
January 15th, 2013
12:32 pm
Good commentary, Jay. I agree. The NRA is one example of the radical forces (read, lobbyists) that control DC and shape our legislation…or lack thereof. I’m not a member, will not become one. The really unfortunate part is because of their radical agenda, constructive progress is inhibited and we get knee jerk reactions (from both sides) about banning this and banning that. I agree with background checks for firearm and ammo purchase. On the other hand, as previously explained, closing the gun show loophole accomplishing little, if anything…and, potentially infringes on the rights of responsible, law abiding citizens. And, we still don’t have an answer on how to limit gun ownership to “sane” people (at the risk of whipping a dead horse).
Jefferson
January 15th, 2013
12:32 pm
Banning guns is part of social evolution, it will happen.
Moderate Line
January 15th, 2013
12:33 pm
weetamoe
January 15th, 2013
12:24 pm
I know very few gun owners who admit to having guns in the home. Were you ever truthful when your pediatrician asked?
The 2nd amendment had and has nothing to do with hunting. The gun lobby is the NSSA.
Paranoia? Rounding up people and forcing them to leave their homes (native Americans); sending them to concentration camps( Japanese Americans); illegal medical experiments Black syphilitics promised medical treatment but given dummy meds under guise of *free government medical care*;
++++++++++
Give an example where the second amendment actually help prevent something and not where it failed and I might see your point. In all these cases the government was violating other rights that these people had. I have a hard time believing if government is willing to break other rights that having the right to own a gun is going to stop the government from violating other rights.
straitroad
January 15th, 2013
12:33 pm
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:29 pm
You are correct, sorry about that.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
12:34 pm
Nobody wants to take shotguns and deer rifles from hunters.
Those aren’t the problem anyway.
The cheap Saturday Night Special and these assault weapons are the problem.
BHO, Bookman, and the easily influenced still ignore the fact that criminals and crazy people are not going to adhere to the rules.
Criminals adhere to the rules sometimes. We force them to and put them in prison.
Strict laws were put into place in the early 80’s to help stop Drunk Driving.
Since then DUI fatalities have been cut in half.
Will tough laws stop every shooting. No
But if they cut the Newton and Columbines in half im all for it.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:34 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
Where and how exactly? You are suggesting that making it a wee bit more difficult to get a gun will prevent a recurrence? I’m not buying. Even in countries that don’t have our violent culture, you get killings…
I don’t see any of this making any kid safer or improving the odds of another shooting….anyone can get a gun one way or another. That won’t change….
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
12:35 pm
Now what impression do you think they are trying to make?
That the .223 is used by our (and many other) military forces when they want to kill somebody. Which is absolutely correct. If a .22 did the same thing our infantry would be carrying them, it would sure be a hell of a lot cheaper.
The .223 is standard military use BECAUSE of what it does to the human body, plain and simple.
Paulo977
January 15th, 2013
12:36 pm
Fred..” Have you birthers now given up that Obama was born in Kenya and your newest lie is that he was born in CHICAGO? And now he is somehow responsible for everything that has happened there since it’s founding in 1834? REALLY?”
__________________________________________________________
Do you think they’ll get it? Don’t forget these are those who support the idiots in congress!!!
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:37 pm
The point is the .223 and weapons made for that cartridge aren’t anything like a .22 dad used for varmints. If you’re fighting that simple point you should stop and think how that makes gun owners look—-like you’re trying to obscure fact with a bunch of side tangents.
The point which you are trying so hard to avoid, is that ignorance about firearms serves no good purpose, no matter which side of the debate you are on. Moveon is clearly pursuing a political agenda based on a misrepresentation. That misrepresentation being that a little old .22 rimfire is a hunting round and that the .223 centerfire cartridge is for killing children. They say so in the print of the ad.
I don’t think being informed about firearms and trying to help others be informed, rather than mis-informed sheds a bad light on gunowners.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
12:37 pm
having the right to own a gun is going to stop the government from violating other rights
The constitution doesn’t say you have the right to own a gun.
It says arms. Big difference.
At the time it was written at best you could get off three shots a minute and those guns were wildly inaccurate. Plus they were worried the British might be back any moment.
Not in any way relevant to today’s world.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:38 pm
straitroad: Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.
Neither does “defending yourself from the U.S. government created by the founding fathers.”
Face it. If you rise up against the U.S. government, that is treason and you are ignoring all laws and documents created by it. You are a criminal for doing so, and therefore the second amendment doesn’t apply to you anyway.
Secondly, hunting is legal and so is self defense, as I have said. Murder is not. And in order to defend yourself, you can do so effectively even without any guns at all in most cases. It is highly unlikely that so many people will break into your home and shoot you unless you’re bringing that kind of attention to yourself due to illegal activities in the first place, which makes you a CRIMINAL already.
So go ahead and keep breaking those laws, “law abiding citizen.”
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:38 pm
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:31 pm
FRED
How much you gotta donate?
++++++++++++++++++++++
i dunno. It’s not the criteria and I don’t know what is. I THINK i gave 100 bucks. A friend of ours was the committee chair person for the Southeast (or something like that) for his first election and her husband is now Ambassador to Singapore and they didn’t get one last time. I asked her about it thinking it was just something they sent out to anyone who gave them cash and she said nope.
LOL the only other time I contacted the election committee was when I was ragging them out about NOT sending me a bumper sticker. Who knows, maybe in 100 years it may be worth something to have an original…………..
I thought about going but I really hate crowds and there is no way I could get close enough to see or hear anything. It would be nice to do once though, kind of like going to a World Series or a Superbowl…….. (been to the Olympics).
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:39 pm
Stevie Ray: Where and how exactly? You are suggesting that making it a wee bit more difficult to get a gun will prevent a recurrence?
No, it will reduce occurrences. As shown by any nation that has any sort of gun ban, however limited in scope. Take your pick.
Paulo977
January 15th, 2013
12:40 pm
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:29 pm
I got invited to the inauguration again…
_________________________________________
So did I ….BUT they did not send a tcket!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha Ha
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:40 pm
godless: I don’t think being informed about firearms and trying to help others be informed, rather than mis-informed sheds a bad light on gunowners.
Gun safety and self defense education, in school. Let’s do it.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
12:40 pm
bookman parrot: “BHO, Bookman, and the easily influenced still ignore the fact that criminals and crazy people are not going to adhere to the rules”
It’s not a question of voluntary “adherence” to rules you tool, it’s a question of a person who is deranged being subject to a system of checks and controls. That’s a large part of what law is. It’s involuntary.
“So in effect their/your efforts will not stop unfortunate carnage in the future one little bit”
A system, properly designed, could most definitely drastically reduce gun carnage of the Newtown-Columbine type.
Just ask yourself, why don’t deranged kids blow up their schools with rocket launchers too?
Could it be because they are harder for them to get? Of course it is. That is the only reason, since it is clear that the likes of Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Seung-Wi Cho would have been all too happy to use them, or any other weapon that was more powerful than the guns they used, for their massacres, to even greater effect, had they only been available to them. The only reason they’re using guns at all and not say bombs and major explosives is that the former are by comparison vastly easier to obtain and to implement.
So despite the fact that any effort will be imperfect, and probably a long time in seeing results, that does not change the fact that a successful effort can still be made to extend that same difficulty of procurement that makes massive explosions at schools to assault weapons.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:41 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
12:34 pm
Cutting such events in half…so say we put in NY new law across the country. It won’t stop a determined individual from getting what he needs to do the job. Also, I guess if a definition of mental illness is agreed upon (likely a suit will move up the ladder), the mentally ill don’t understand laws but for a price, would have no problem getting a gun…BTW, are we sure that this definition of mental illness would apply to the columbine kids or the Newtown culprit?
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:41 pm
I’m not worried about them taking MY guns. If they ask me if I have any, I’ll lie.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
Even in countries that don’t have our violent culture, you get killings…
This is laughable. Guess what. All over the world there is violence. They all watch violent Hollywood movies.
Japan which has an extremely violent culture and history had exactly 11 gun related homicides last year. In the US it was 9,146
Its the guns stupid.
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
The .223 is standard military use BECAUSE of what it does to the human body, plain and simple.
And before the .223, the standard military round was the 30-06, probably the most popular deer-hunting round in use today. Slower in velocity than the .223 but makes a bigger hole.
When loaded with a FMJ bullet, the .223 is actually considered to be a more humane round to shoot someone with than a deer bullet.
saywhat?
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
RB from Gwinnett
January 15th, 2013
11:55 am
While we’re at it, let’s start pulling back some of the 1st amendment rights too. Perhaps we can start with Jay’s propensity to only tell the part of a story that fits his agenda. Gone. Then we can prosecute any bloggers who post untruths such as “Bush planned 9/11, blew up the levies, etc.” Jail.
What do you think, libs?
——————————————
Based on your postings here, I think you might be the first one of us thrown in jail. As for curtailing 1st amendment rights, I will be in support of that the day some crazy guy walks into an elementary school and shouts at the kids until 26 of them are dead.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
Stevie Ray: BTW, are we sure that this definition of mental illness would apply to the columbine kids or the Newtown culprit?
Without study on their motivations, outward signs, and so on, we won’t be able to, no. If we are forbidden from making such a study, then we can’t ever hope to find the info we need for prediction.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
Paulo977
January 15th, 2013
12:40 pm
So did I ….BUT they did not send a tcket!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha Ha
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Did you get the invitation along with the thing asking you to volunteer to do something that said “This is not a ticket?”
I got that TOO, but I also got an official one as well (with the ticket). I’m going to frame it with the one from 2008.
Paladin
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
That linked blog above is incorrect. M16s and similar military weapons are chambered for 5.56 NATO round. It is similar to .223, but different enough that putting 5.56 in a .223 rifle just might get you killed.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:45 pm
As for curtailing 1st amendment rights, I will be in support of that the day some crazy guy walks into an elementary school and shouts at the kids until 26 of them are dead.
THIS
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:46 pm
Welcome to the Occupation @12:40 pm: Good points.
Adam @ 12:40 (musta been a good minute lol): Good idea. Shame they discontinued drivers education but we could add it as well.
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
12:46 pm
We can certainly believe an ABC/ WaPo poll on the public’s attitude concerning gun control.
RB from Gwinnett
January 15th, 2013
12:46 pm
“Nobody else will say it…but *I* will. Such laws are meant to reassure those disgusted and frightened by events like Newtown. To calm such people down, you have to make them think something is being done to control the problem. Most of them will never notice that such laws CAN’T control the problem…until another horror happens.”
So, we’re basically just tossing the whiny fat kid another cookie to shut him up.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
12:46 pm
“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 ”
Another example: NRA pushed and got a provision in the Defense Authorization Act forbidding military commanders who think a soldier might be at risk of suicide from asking if he has a gun. Can’t do it. Service chiefs have asked for that provision to be removed. NRA objects. Evidently, even though military deaths by suicide are rising even though combat operations are drawing down
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/14/4545869/2012-military-suicides-hit-record.html#storylink=misearch
the NRA thinks a few hundred or thousand soldiers committing suicide with a gun is just a cost of doing business, no big deal, if it gets its political aims accomplished.
They are reprehensible.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:47 pm
Fred: Shame they discontinued drivers education but we could add it as well.
Yeah drivers ed needs to be back if they got rid of it. Seriously. GOOD driver’s ed. Defensive driving required, logging hours, even.
King of Planet Kolob
January 15th, 2013
12:48 pm
I am befuddled why those who oppose magazine capacity limits abide by it when they go to hunt. When I go hunting I am restricted to 3 rounds in the gun, so we can give some of the games a chance to escape to be hunted another day. We should limit magazine capacity the same way to give some people a chance to escape mass shooting. The only reason to oppose background check is to allow people with shady backgrounds to buy guns. By Wayne LaPeirre’s logic, Keith Ratcliff was the bad guy with a gun, or else he would have stopped them with his arsenal.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:48 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:39 pm
I think you would agree that those countries with existing weapon bans are not a valid comparison to the violent culture where we reside. I’d love to get rid of all guns…”they are made for killing..aint no good for nothing else…” Just not practical of course. I’m not against the any legislation that has any chance of making it more difficult to access weapons..
The issue is how we protect our kids at school and those in high occupancy places like malls. We can make it more difficult to get the guns but if the intent is strong enough, bad things will happen.
The only way to really make our kids safer is technology that eliminates the ability of such folks to even breach the perimeter of any school. The technology is out there…it is clearly a more responsible approach than this political attempt to change our violent and paranoid culture..
The other half of your brain.
January 15th, 2013
12:48 pm
What industries spend the most on lobbying?
According to OpenSecrets.org, the following data was recorded by the Senate Office of Public Records. The top 10 industries for 2009 were:
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products – $199,323,702
Insurance – $122,065,251
Oil & Gas – $120,669,855
Electric Utilities – $108,163,536
Business Associations – $92,696,817
Computers/Internet – $88,847,937
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing – $84,363,782
TV/Movies/Music – $77,861,927
Hospitals/Nursing Homes – $77,465,842
Education – $73,913,389
There are well over 10,000 lobbyists in Washington, the NRA being one of them. It’s damn near impossible to stop the money.
Folks, money is what it is all about. People on here keep bashing the right about guns, guess what! the left sure get their share also.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:49 pm
Fred ™
How dumb are you?
Obviously the stupidity lies with you. I asked a simple question. How will Oblama’s plan to ban assault rifles have an effect in urban area’s…. Its a simple question… Just waiting it out for a lib to answer instead of attack the questioner…..
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:50 pm
RB from Gwinnett
January 15th, 2013
12:46 pm
So let’s move forward with any means to minimize access to guns…when next tragedy strikes, whats the next plan? Do you try to convince parents it will be prevented next time as we now have all guns accounted for?
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:50 pm
There is no low that right wing weirdo’s won’t stoop to:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-conspiracy-155033813.html
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:50 pm
I think you would agree that those countries with existing weapon bans are not a valid comparison to the violent culture where we reside. I’d love to get rid of all guns…”they are made for killing..aint no good for nothing else…” Just not practical of course. I’m not against the any legislation that has any chance of making it more difficult to access weapons..
Australia has a good example. There is no wholesale ban on guns, but there is a limit to amount you can buy in a single purchase, amount you can buy over time, total amount you can buy, etc. There are also measures in place to help ensure that when you apply you’re not a crazy person. You have to have reputable references to your character. So guns are hard to get there, but not impossible, and their gun crime rate plummeted.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
12:51 pm
The point which you are trying so hard to avoid, is that ignorance about firearms serves no good purpose, no matter which side of the debate you are on.
And the point that you are trying to avoid is that you didn’t call out those who made the direct comparison with the .22 and the .223.
It has happened on every thread that Jay has done on this subject. Someone will come on and say the .223 round is just a .22.
Sure, the diameter is the same, but the diameter is not the only thing about a round of ammunition.
It’s these kinds of lies by omission that make it harder for liberal gun owners to push back against further restrictions.
I don’t want to have to go through a background check just to buy ammunition for my legally owned hand guns.
As long as I am a law abiding citizen, I don’t have to justify my purchase to anyone, just like golfers don’t have to justify their need for a new box of Titleist ProV1x.
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:52 pm
Its the guns stupid.
The next time a gun pops out of the closet and shoots someone, I will join the crusade to ban every last one of them.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:53 pm
Stevie Ray: So let’s move forward with any means to minimize access to guns…when next tragedy strikes, whats the next plan?
There will be other occurrences but there will be less of them over time if we follow common sense prescriptions and do education and information campaigns over time. Like how we dealt with drunk driving on an all encompassing scale.
Trolls Bane
January 15th, 2013
12:54 pm
An inconvienent stat : In 2009 there were only 3.7 gun related homicides per 100,000 people and there were twice as many (6.1 per 100,000) suicides … see this link Firearm death rate by country.
Al Galore
January 15th, 2013
12:54 pm
500 gun murders in Chicago and these Democratic goons want to give advice to the honest people in America!
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
12:54 pm
“You’re not allowed to have certain things. I don’t see too many people upset that they can’t go to Boeing and buy a loaded F15, even if they had the money. It’s a military grade weapon. So are AK’s. Yet try to say you shouldn’t have THAT in your house and people lose their minds. Wanting something because it’s cool in your mind to have does not make it OK to have.”
I think it all depends upon what the 2nd Amendment is construed to mean. It should be patently obvious to anyone with better-than-elementary-school reading skills that it does NOT pertain to hunting. So anyone – including a president with a JD in constitutional law – who, in discussing it mentions hunting either 1) doesn’t know how to read or 2) is being intellectually dishonest. It does, however, pertain to defense against a threat to freedom and liberty posed by 1) the federal government or 2) a foreign government. Self defense, if it was intended to be also comprehended by this amendment is at best only implied.
Now, any intelligent and educated person who seeks to interpret the Constitution apart from the ample – indeed, the super-abundance of (relative to other historical documents) – supplemental documentary evidence (such as transcript of ratification debates, letters, published writings and so on), it simply being intellectually dishonest. The Constitution means, first and foremost, what it was intended and understood to mean by its authors and ratifiers. One can always wish to make it “plastic” and bend its meaning to one’s desires – but that is no more than “twisting” it to say what you want to say (just as the Bible has been twisted to justify all sorts of things).
If, as I believe, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms and form militias against, for one thing, a tyrannical federal government, then ownership of weapons like an AR-15 should be legal on PRINCIPLE alone. Keeping such weapons out of the hands of irresponsible and evil people thus becomes the focus of gun laws, not the banning of certain weapons.
What is curious in all of this, of course, is that many people seem frantic to address the “gun problem” now after another tragic mass killing. But hardly anyone seems to care about all of the inner city (many of whom are black) youth being killed by guns illegally possessed – including the president. If banning AR-15s is the “solution” to mass killings (and, of course, it is not), then what is the “solution” to, say, Chicago’s appalling murder rate (where law abiding citizens have been subject to some of the country’s toughest gun laws – some of which were overturned in 2010 by Heller)?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:54 pm
godless: The next time a gun pops out of the closet and shoots someone, I will join the crusade to ban every last one of them.
Well cars don’t kill people, people operating cars kill people. So let’s get rid of all speed limit signs and car safety measures since cars don’t kill people.
Same. Exact. Logic. Fail.
RB from Gwinnett
January 15th, 2013
12:55 pm
Here you go, Adam. From Wikipedia…
“In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.[1]”
“The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (a) being:
No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.”
indigo
January 15th, 2013
12:55 pm
None of you cons seems willing to say what you truly seem to fear.
If I understand you correctly, you fear:
1. The Government will nullify the 2nd ammendment and then take away all your guns.
2. Then, jack-booted troops will come into every city and town and impose a harsh Obama Socialism.
Correct?
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
12:55 pm
“No one needs semi automatic weapons” – uh – there is one exception to this premise. Recent debate “Why would anyone need a gun that fires more than six shots?” Reply ” For seven home invaders of course “. Selah. By the way when you get all the illegal assault weapons out of the hands of the drug dealers and street gangs give me a call. Criminals are going to get theirs illegally – don’t want no stinking back ground check do they?
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:55 pm
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:49 pm
Fred ™
How dumb are you?
Obviously the stupidity lies with you. I asked a simple question. How will Oblama’s plan to ban assault rifles have an effect in urban area’s…. Its a simple question… Just waiting it out for a lib to answer instead of attack the questioner…..
++++++++++++++++++++++
I was you would quit perverting my religion with your lies. You have done it again. You didn’t ask a “simple question: How will Oblama’s plan to ban assault rifles have an effect in urban area’s” you CLEARLY STATED:
How much will Oblama’s plan help to curb gun violence in his hometown of Chicago?
Which is a bald faced lie. Jesus would also be SO proud of the way you talk about our President. I remember reading all in the bible the cute little names he called the Romans and Pontius Pilot and others. Your perversion of MY religion sets a fine example for folks. It’s no wonder they think all Christians are liars and nutcases, look at what you give them.
Please, tell ANOTHER lie. Change your words again and say you didn’t say them. It must be sad to go through life having to lie because your ideas are so poorly thought out……..
Mick
January 15th, 2013
12:56 pm
rb
Your cookies are getting a bit stale, got anything else in the pantry???
Uh Huh....We Are Gunning for Change
January 15th, 2013
12:56 pm
We need a CHANGE.
IF not NOW…WHEN? WHEN?
When it is YOUR CHILD?
LET US NOT FORGET: The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims:
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
Uncle Mittie
January 15th, 2013
12:56 pm
Guns are people too, my friend.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:57 pm
Towncrier: It should be patently obvious to anyone with better-than-elementary-school reading skills that it does NOT pertain to hunting. So anyone – including a president with a JD in constitutional law – who, in discussing it mentions hunting either 1) doesn’t know how to read or 2) is being intellectually dishonest
Or they could be making the point that hunting is legal and murder is not, and therefore guns designed for hunting and not for killing people more efficiently should not be on the table as being restricted or confiscated.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
the NRA thinks a few hundred or thousand soldiers committing suicide with a gun is just a cost of doing business
Got a link for that?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
Why are new gun laws necessary? Don’t we already have hundreds of them on the books already? I’d like an answer from any lib on here please….
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
JAY – gun owners far more reasonable than the NRA – and I can say the same thing for the Dems and Obama. Close off the borders to criminals bringing in assault weapons illegally. Now – that would be reasonable.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
Toss the fat kids another cookie to shut them up….
I don’t know which is funnier. Hearing Fatboy Rush use this line or having you repeat it ad nauseum while claiming you don’t listen to Rush……..
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:59 pm
RB: Since you have shown that due to the second amendment, people who own firearms cannot be recorded as having firearms, then surely this means that due to the first amendment, recording anyone’s words should also not be allowed, correct?
Or not. Looks like the first amendment is more restricted than the second amendment. Thanks for pointing that out.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:59 pm
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:50 pm
First, do you really need to drop cash to go to inauguration? I think he’s already more than tipped his hand..he is gonna use that pulpit to lay blame for all ills on the GOP…nothing new. His only real objective of tax thingy was to the the GOP to “swallow their humiliation pure..” He already threatened this so I expect a well thought out blizzard of partisan words.
Also, I’m jealous that the Christian hasn’t called me stupid…be proud…very proud.
Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!
January 15th, 2013
1:00 pm
500 gun murders in Chicago and these Democratic goons want to give advice to the honest people in America!
EPIC FACE PALM!!
Conservatives,
If it’s “in the best interest of the country” to have ID/background checks to prevent voter fraud, why is it not “in the best interest of the country” to have ID/background checks in order to be able to buy ammunition?
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:00 pm
“IF not NOW…WHEN? WHEN?”
Thank you for proving my point that the laws being proposed are to reassure the frightened. I did notice that you don’t actually give any ideas as to WHAT you want changed. It appears you just want to not feel afraid. But beware a false sense of security.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:00 pm
What I think everyone on this blog needs to consider:
1) Right now those evil black “assault weapons” are in the crosshairs along with “high capacity” magazines. Let’s say we do what bammy wants and every AR15/AK47 is rounded up and melted down along with all of the mags that go with these. You are now reduced to shotguns, some which hold 9 rounds, and handguns.
2)Manufacturers will adopt and make mags to hold 7 rounds.
3)New laws in place…no “assault weapons or high capacity mags” and all of liberaldom is thrilled.
4)Another mass shooting occurs….this time the shooter uses only those weapons that were legal under bammy’s restrictions. 45 people are shot and killed.
5) How long before there is a call to confiscate these “legal weapons”?
Do you see the slippery slope bammy and the dimlbis want us to be on?
If you don’t like the Second Amendment, there is a process by which the Constitution can be changed. Muster the politicial will, if you can, and change the Constitution that way….the only legal way.
If you can’t do that, then leave all of those legal gun owners alone.
Chriis Matthews
January 15th, 2013
1:00 pm
Our Nation’s founders new that one day we might have people in charge who would take away our freedoms ( Obama) and give government more power…we were giving gun rights to protect ourselves from that government!
Granny Godzilla
January 15th, 2013
1:01 pm
NRA Won’t Back Down From Supporting Law That Increases Military Suicides
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/11/07/362689/nra-military-suicides/
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
1:01 pm
As long as I am a law abiding citizen, I don’t have to justify my purchase to anyone, just like golfers don’t have to justify their need for a new box of Titleist ProV1x.
Well stated,.
In the first couple of days after the CT shooting someone was on here saying noone “needed” a bullet larger than a .22. I pointed out that the Bushmaster used in CT was a .22 caliber rifle.
Picking nits? Yes but it’s not like we don’t do that here.
I have not seen anyone try to make the argument that the .223 Remington or 5.56×45mm NATO round is equal in lethality to a .22 rimfire.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:01 pm
Also RB it should be noted that that is a Congressional action, not a Supreme Court case. I asked if the Supreme Court had found it to be unconstitutional to keep a record. You have no provided such a case. You provided, instead, a law that forbids it. That doesn’t mean that prior to that law or since that it is unconstitutional to have such a record.