Obama’s gun-safety agenda a great place to start debate

The list of legislative proposals and executive actions outlined by President Obama is, as he promised, wide-ranging and ambitious.

Among other things, it includes a proposal to put as many as 1,000 federally funded, armed police officers in schools; boost the identification and treatment of the mentally ill; and fund research through the Centers for Disease Control into possible links between “media images, video games and violence.”

Each of the above steps endorsed by Obama has also been advocated by the National Rifle Association and other conservative groups. However, as the president noted, this is a problem too profound and complicated to be addressed successfully by such policies alone.

The most controversial and ambitious proposal is the banning of assault weapons. The gun lobby points out that under the president’s proposal, other weapons possessing similar firepower would not be banned, raising questions about the motivation and effectiveness of such a ban.

However, assault weapons have a well-documented emotional appeal to those most likely to engage in mass killings such as those at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It is clearly their weapon of choice, perhaps because features that the gun lobby dismisses as mere cosmetic in fact give such weapons a military authority and aura that feed into deadly fantasies. We are under no obligation to continue to pander to such fantasies.

Other proposed changes are straightforward reforms that would not be controversial in a more rational environment. Since 2006, for example, the Senate has refused to confirm any nominee — by Republican or Democratic president — as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. It has nothing to do with those nominated, and everything to do with the fact that the NRA hates the agency and wants to do anything possible to cripple it. That type of death grip on policy making has to end.

The president also proposes to make background checks mandatory for all gun sales, whether conducted by a licensed firearms dealer or by a private citizen. As an administration official told The Washington Post, “The best analogy that experts talked to us about in our meetings is that it wouldn’t make any sense at the airports to have two lanes — one where if you go to a licensed dealer you go through the metal detector and if you go to a private sale there’s no metal detector at all. This is an attempt to get everybody through the system.”

There’s no rational argument, other than convenience, to be offered against such a proposal, and on deadly matters such as this, convenience is not a valid objection. The proposal will reportedly include “limited, common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes.”

Even after passage of such a law, some people will of course continue to sell weapons on the black market, without background checks. But those people would then be criminals, and if it is later determined that they sold a gun to a known criminal who used it in a crime, they should share responsibility for that crime. There is no Second Amendment argument to be raised on such an issue.

The proposal also includes a ban on the sale of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Interestingly, whenever that approach is mentioned I hear two separate arguments against it:

– Banning magazines larger than 10 rounds would make gun owners less able to defend themselves against multiple attackers, because they would be forced to reload more often.

– Banning magazines larger than 10 rounds would do nothing to slow down those intent on mass murder, because it takes no time at all to exchange clips.

I don’t think it’s necessary to resolve the inherent conflict between those claims, because it is already clear that those who set off on mass murder sprees have already made their choice. As the White House notes, “the shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds.”

If the murderers believe such magazines are useful, then we ought to try to deny them that equipment.

The administration also proposes to get serious about gun trafficking, in which legal gun purchasers buy large numbers of weapons for later private sale to criminals. Amazingly, “there is no explicit law against straw purchasing, so straw purchasers and others who traffic guns can often only be prosecuted for paperwork violations,” the White House report states. The gun industry, and thus the gun lobby, will no doubt oppose that change because it would be bad for sales. Again, that is not an objection worthy of consideration under these circumstances.

In the weeks to come, the objection to such basic, common-sense reforms is likely to consist of heated, repeated cries of “Second Amendment!” and “tyrant!”, “Hitler” and variations thereof. That’s because, when addressed individually and on their merits, there are few rational arguments against such steps. Those who oppose the reforms must therefore attempt to shift the debate to the irrational, a battlefield on which they have the advantage by virture of more experience and firepower.

– Jay Bookman

668 comments Add your comment

Towncrier

January 16th, 2013
3:12 pm

Am I really first?

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
3:15 pm

A good recap and sensible

Thomas

January 16th, 2013
3:15 pm

http://compare.ebay.com/like/230837126310?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar

With Armstrong fading and the country turning more political than religious I want all of you to be able order my WWCD (”What Would Cheney DO) bracelet on a pre release- please tell your friends.

getalife

January 16th, 2013
3:17 pm

The majority wanted quick action and they got it.

It was not on his agenda until the majority wanted it on his agenda.

He did his job now it is congress’s turn to act.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
3:19 pm

WWCD? Shoot a friend and make him apologize?

Steve-USA (I don't have all the answer's, I don't even know all the questions)

January 16th, 2013
3:20 pm

Jay called Sheets right when I posted this on the last thread.

Watched Frontline’s “Inside Obama’a Presidency” last night. It was outstanding. OUTSTANDING.

Catch a replay if you can.

Paul

January 16th, 2013
3:22 pm

Personally, I think the one that has them most afraid is the one regarding identification and treatment of the mentally ill…..

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

January 16th, 2013
3:23 pm

Those who oppose the reforms must therefore attempt to shift the debate to the irrational, a battlefield on which they have the advantage by virture of more experience and firepower.

And that’s why Jay gets the big bucks.

Thomas

January 16th, 2013
3:23 pm

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

January 16th, 2013
3:24 pm

Well, I sure hope that magazine thingy don’t apply to machine guns. I could see it now:

Rat-tat. . . . .

Hold still out there while I reload!

Rat-tat . . . .

You’re moving’! I told you to hold still . . .

getalife

January 16th, 2013
3:25 pm

larry

January 16th, 2013
3:27 pm

Second Admendment!!! tyrant!! Hitler!!! and you forgot one, Stalin!!!!!

Just thought i would get those out of the way .

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
3:28 pm

Paul, I agree that certainly could have some horrendous implications for misdiagnosis. I am not worried about the pumped up fake fear that somehow doctors will be “liable” for failures or that we are making them responsible.

stands for decibels

January 16th, 2013
3:29 pm

I think the one that has them most afraid is the one regarding identification and treatment of the mentally ill…..

I dunno, I think some are probably terrified of the ATF having an actual director. You know, since the ATF gave all them guns to those Messicans, they really shouldn’t ever have a director.

Towncrier

January 16th, 2013
3:29 pm

“However, assault weapons have a well-documented emotional appeal to those most likely to engage in mass killings such as those at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It is clearly their weapon of choice, perhaps because features that the gun lobby dismisses as mere cosmetic in fact give such weapons a military authority and aura that feed into deadly fantasies. We are under no obligation to continue to pander to such fantasies…If the murderers believe such magazines are useful, then we ought to try to deny them that equipment.”

Not particularly strong arguments for these proposals. Using that kind of reasoning, then since pedophiles have a documented interest in pornography, we should ban pornography. Are you okay with that?

I am afraid you will need better reasons and evidence for banning assault weapons and clips over 10 rounds. Reasonable, well-considered gun control shouldn’t target a particular kind of gun violence. What is to be done about all of those who are NOT law abiding and committing murders and assaults with gun that GREATLY outnumber those perpetrated by evil mass killers? Obama is justly open to criticism on this point. It is almost as if he cares far more about passing gun laws than reducing the murder rates in cities like Chicago (where he is from). His “plan” is far from being comprehensive.

“Those who oppose the reforms must therefore attempt to shift the debate to the irrational, a battlefield on which they have the advantage by virture of more experience and firepower.”

Or be called a racist (because they oppose Obama’s “sensible” and “rational” policies)?

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

January 16th, 2013
3:30 pm

BTW — this thread refreshes a whole lot better than the last one. Must of been the embed video.

stands for decibels

January 16th, 2013
3:31 pm

Using that kind of reasoning, then since pedophiles have a documented interest in pornography, we should ban pornography. Are you okay with that?

We DO ban child pornography. Try a little harder with these analogies next time, won’t you?

RB from Gwinnett

January 16th, 2013
3:32 pm

I assume the 10 round magazine limit applies to Obama’s secret service team as well since they retain those weapons when they’re off duty?? Same for cops??? And if the Feds can’t keep records of gun owners, how are they going to enforce this private sale BS?

Paul

January 16th, 2013
3:32 pm

Keep

On a serious note, I do see that. But, I was being tongue in cheek. The irrational zealots being the ones most afraid of someone from the soshulist gubmint coming to see if they’re mentally competent…..

Steve-USA (I don't have all the answer's, I don't even know all the questions)

January 16th, 2013
3:32 pm

getalife -

Thank you for providing that link.

Midori

January 16th, 2013
3:33 pm

as a Army vet and someone who has personally trained on the M-16, I know first hand the damage that and other weapons like it can do.

It has absolutely NO PLACE in civilian society.

Those weapons are made for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill. To kill as many as possible in as little time as possible.

bmdpd

January 16th, 2013
3:33 pm

Fred ™

January 16th, 2013
3:34 pm

Those who oppose the reforms must therefore attempt to shift the debate to the irrational, a battlefield on which they have the advantage by virture of more experience and firepower.

Please stop belittling others.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

January 16th, 2013
3:34 pm

Hiya Midori!

:wink:

stands for decibels

January 16th, 2013
3:35 pm

Same for cops??? And if the Feds can’t keep records of gun owners, how are they going to enforce this private sale BS?

You know, RB’s a guy I want on my team.

He has that can’t-do spirit.

Midori

January 16th, 2013
3:35 pm

resno2

January 16th, 2013
3:36 pm

I’m from the government and I’m here to help….$500 million will turn in to $750 milliion and another government bureaucracy is born.

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

January 16th, 2013
3:36 pm

I will study all of the proposed regulations and legislation and will support anything that:

1) Will “actually” make a difference in safety.

2) Is Constitutional.

If I doesn’t meet those two criteria I will fight it to the best of my ability.

Paul

January 16th, 2013
3:37 pm

“we should ban pornography. Are you okay with that?”

I thought you called an end to the sex talk?

;-)

ATL Tiger

January 16th, 2013
3:37 pm

The President will get everything except for the ‘assault weapons’ ban and bannning magazines greater than 10 rounds.

Towncrier

January 16th, 2013
3:38 pm

“In the weeks to come, the objection to such basic, common-sense reforms is likely to consist of heated, repeated cries of “Second Amendment!” and “tyrant!”, “Hitler” and variations thereof. ”

Oops, Jay, look who used the “N” word first:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2013/01/16/bob-schieffer-likens-obama-taking-gun-lobby-hunt-bin-laden-defeating-

Sorry to undermine your anticipatory denigration of those who oppose the good president.

Recon 0311 2533

January 16th, 2013
3:38 pm

“The list of legislative proposals and executive actions outlined by President Obama is, as he promised, wide-ranging and ambitious.”

Jay goes on to say that many of these have been endorsed by the NRA and other conservative groups. In fact just about all of his executive actions have been proposed by the NRA and other conservative groups. The implementation of these executive actions appear weak but we shall see. The ban proposal of certain firearms and accessories, however, is old stuff that has been tried in the past and proven to accomplish nothing. This ceremony today with innocent children being used as back drops was more fluff than substance.

Granny Godzilla

January 16th, 2013
3:38 pm

Hi Midori!

ALways happy to see you post.

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

January 16th, 2013
3:39 pm

RB from Gwinnett:

“I assume the 10 round magazine limit applies to Obama’s secret service team as well since they retain those weapons when they’re off duty?? Same for cops???”

No because when you are “off duty” you still have an obligation as a law enforcement officer to intervene to save someone’s life. So you are really never fully “off-duty”.

You can argue that once they “retire” it should apply to them.

bmdpd

January 16th, 2013
3:39 pm

Sodomy is illegal in Georgia (I think). Is it the government’s business if you libs sodomize each other? Nor is it the government’s business that I own a gun.

Fred ™

January 16th, 2013
3:39 pm

Ok, so we have Obama’s “proposals” and his 23 “executive actions.”

I’ve seen the list of the 23 executive actions, but I can’t find the list of “proposals.” Everything I find is prefaced with some variation of: Some of the main legislative proposals backed by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are: blah blah.

Where can I see the whole list? I know it’s out there, I’m just too stupid to find it.

Oh, and PROPOSALS aren’t legislation, so don’t go saying he has banned assault weapons, he hasn’t. He has PROPOSED it. I seriously doubt it will fly. I’m thinking he tossed that in there for a throw away position. “OK we’ll let you keep the Assault weapons if you’ll vote to get rid of the high capacity magazines……..

Brosephus™

January 16th, 2013
3:39 pm

I assume the 10 round magazine limit applies to Obama’s secret service team as well since they retain those weapons when they’re off duty??

You assume wrong yet again. Law enforcement status doesn’t change whether you’re on duty or not. You’re still a first responder, and you are considered law enforcement even on your off days. Nice fail though. :lol:

rightwingextreme

January 16th, 2013
3:40 pm

Among other things, it includes a proposal to put as many as 1,000 federally funded, armed police officers in schools;

and the dimlibs laughed at the NRA over this idea. now, i don’t want this done at the federal level…i want it at the state level where it belongs.

Even after passage of such a law, some people will of course continue to sell weapons on the black market, without background checks. But those people would then be criminals, and if it is later determined that they sold a gun to a known criminal who used it in a crime, they should share responsibility for that crime. There is no Second Amendment argument to be raised on such an issue.

I believe this should be happening already. If you use a gun you illegally obtained make it a felony charge and throw your but in jail. but what will the reaction be from the left if a high percentage of violaters of this law have a certain pigmentation to their skin? will they claim the law discriminates and there should be a three strikes and your out provision? if we are serious about this, to jail you go…regardless of pigmentation.

I don’t think it’s necessary to resolve the inherent conflict between those claims, because it is already clear that those who set off on mass murder sprees have already made their choice. As the White House notes, “the shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds.”

If the murderers believe such magazines are useful, then we ought to try to deny them that equipment.

they also were all in gun free zones…..shall we deny them that kind of a kill zone?

Fred ™

January 16th, 2013
3:42 pm

Dang, I forgot my smiley on my 3:34. Let me put it here……. :lol:

Paul

January 16th, 2013
3:42 pm

HI MIdori!!!

0311

1) Will “actually” make a difference in safety.

So you want to somehow determine if something didn’t happen that would have happened otherwise?

Hmmmm…. aren’t you one of the guys who belittled the Administration for ‘jobs saved with the stimulus”?

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

January 16th, 2013
3:42 pm

Sodomy is…

There’s your sign.

Big.

Bright.

Flaming.

Pink.

Neon.

Sign

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

January 16th, 2013
3:44 pm

ATL Tiger:

“The President will get everything except for the ‘assault weapons’ ban and bannning magazines greater than 10 rounds.”

You are probably correct and remember we won WW II in large part with an M-1 that utilized an 8 round clip.

Just sayin’ !

Will the last Democrat in Georgia please turn off the lights?.....

January 16th, 2013
3:44 pm

Universal background checks: YES…So long as those background checks can be expedited so that legal purchases of guns and ammo can still be made at gun shows, where background checks should be required, but arranged in a such a way where they can be done without putting wildly-popular gun shows out of business.

Vastly improving our failing mental health system: YES

Cracking down on gun trafficking and straw purchases and sales: YES…So long as gun sales and transfers between family members and close friends are not unnecessarily restricted.

Prohibiting assault weapons: NO

Banning magazines larger than 10 rounds: NO

Get all of the illegally-possessed guns out of the hands of violent criminals using them to commit deadly crimes and then we can talk about proposed restrictions on legally and responsibly possessed by law-abiding citizens.

Until then it’s NO DEAL on banning assault weapons and magazines larger than 10 clips (but improving access to mental health services and expanding background checks to cover gun shows and impersonal private gun sales are a go).

Jay

January 16th, 2013
3:45 pm

rightwingextreme

January 16th, 2013
3:45 pm

Brosephus™

January 16th, 2013
3:39 pm
I assume the 10 round magazine limit applies to Obama’s secret service team as well since they retain those weapons when they’re off duty??

You assume wrong yet again. Law enforcement status doesn’t change whether you’re on duty or not. You’re still a first responder, and you are considered law enforcement even on your off days. Nice fail though

Laws for thee, but not for me! says the prez!

Towncrier

January 16th, 2013
3:46 pm

“We DO ban child pornography. Try a little harder with these analogies next time, won’t you?”

Not computer generated pornography (I trust you are aware of advance in CGI) and pedophiles are not limited to child pornography. And besides that, rapists and other sex offenders appear to collect “regular” pornography. Try thinking through the analogies a bit more next time, won’t you?

Van Jones

January 16th, 2013
3:46 pm

“If the murderers believe such magazines are useful, then we ought to try to deny them that equipment.”
Maybe, just maybe, it’s what they had and they didn’t really decide on one magazine vs the other. Maybe they put on their run-fast shoes too… because they were useful.

stands for decibels

January 16th, 2013
3:46 pm

and the dimlibs laughed at the NRA over this idea.

You and Scout keep claiming this. Of course, that’s not what the NRA was proposing, nor what those cray-cray “libs” were complaining about. At all.

Here is is, from the horse’s ass’ mouth himself.

http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

Fred ™

January 16th, 2013
3:48 pm

Hi Midori.
bye Midori, I have to go pick up my daughter. Nice to see you though. Come back when I can stay longer lol.

Oh and don’t make any posts about the fear mongering of the Republicans and their talk show hosts. I got scolded for laughing at one guys fear.

DannyX

January 16th, 2013
3:49 pm

“and fund research through the Centers for Disease Control into”

Can we have the CDC expand this into possible links between television images, and Republican stupidity?

I bet there is a link. I am pretty sure dumb television shows lead to dumb Republicans. Everyone knows liberals enjoy smart tv, like PBS and Arrested Development. Republicans have historically watched dumb tv, like Petticoat Junction, Joanie Loves Chachi, American Idol, Wrestling, NASCAR, and Honey Boo Boo, I think it makes Republicans dumb.

bmdpd

January 16th, 2013
3:50 pm

Fred ™

January 16th, 2013
3:50 pm

Thanks Jay, I’ll read it when I get back.

Paul

January 16th, 2013
3:51 pm

Sodomy.

Pornography.

Back to wanting all the weapons the feds have.

Jay, even you couldn’t have predicted all of this in response to the president’s proposals.

Those mental health checks can’t get done fast enough…

Boris Badnoff

January 16th, 2013
3:52 pm

We have or have had laws outlawing alcohol and drugs. Did they succeed? New York, DC, and Chicago have very strict gun control laws. How safe are they? 500M? Why does everything cost money? This is what I expect from a government that paid Lance Armstrong $ 30 M to do commercials for the Post Office.

getalife

January 16th, 2013
3:53 pm

Hi Midori :)

Good to see you.

Steve,

No problem.

Brosephus™

January 16th, 2013
3:53 pm

Laws for thee, but not for me! says the prez!

It’s been that way long before Obama filed the paperwork to seek his first term, but I seriously doubt your extreme ODS will allow your binary thinking brain to acknowledge that you are wrong.

rightwingextreme

January 16th, 2013
3:55 pm

stands for decibels

January 16th, 2013
3:46 pm
and the dimlibs laughed at the NRA over this idea.

You and Scout keep claiming this. Of course, that’s not what the NRA was proposing, nor what those cray-cray “libs” were complaining about. At all.

Here is is, from the horse’s ass’ mouth himself.

From the NRA’s press release you cited:

I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is
necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it
now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children
return to school in January.

getalife

January 16th, 2013
3:55 pm

crier is deflecterbaiting on this blog.

Ew.

Escaped from Email Purgatory

January 16th, 2013
3:55 pm

- Banning magazines larger than 10 rounds would make gun owners less able to defend themselves against multiple attackers, because they would be forced to reload more often.

– Banning magazines larger than 10 rounds would do nothing to slow down those intent on mass murder, because it takes no time at all to exchange clips.

Those are not conflicting statements Bookman and both accurate.

The former pertains to an individual protecting themself from an armed intruder or intruders. The later refers to ferret-faced miscreants like Lanza who are murdering unarmed innocents.

Paul

January 16th, 2013
3:56 pm

DannyX

The president calls for a //study// to see if there is a //possible link//.

You guys ridicule him for taking knee-jerk actions that won’t have any impact, yet when he calls for a //study// to determine if there’s a link, you ridicule him, too.

Obama Derangement Syndrome is in full bloom.

MeetInTheMiddle

January 16th, 2013
3:56 pm

Growing up around guns and owning several, I understand the unbelievable power and responsibility that they entail. Because of this, I have no problem making it harder for the average person to obtain a firearm (and don’t believe for two seconds that this is the first step to total confiscation – never happen) until they have proven themselves to be trained to use it. AR’s with 100 round drum mags have no place in the hands of someone who just on a whim wanted one.

However, none of these proposals are going to reduce gun violence or prevent these tragedies from occurring again. Gun ownership is at an all time high and – despite what many believe – violent gun crimes occur at half the rate they did 20 years ago and mass shootings have decreased steadily. I have no idea what the solution is to stop the maniacs from slaughtering innocents, but nothing here is gonna come close. All this whole episode has accomplished is putting guns in the hands of people who’ve never owned one, don’t know how to use one, and only bought it because their buddy told them the revolution is on the way. Do I think this will lead to an increase in gun related homicides? Probably not. Accidental deaths by idiots who don’t know what they are doing/kids who found daddy’s new pistol in the sock drawer and actually shoot someone? WITHOUT A DOUBT.

This whole debate is distracting us from finding a real solution to stopping these massacres, although I have absolutely no idea what that solution is. Hopefully someone smarter than I am does.

ATL Tiger

January 16th, 2013
3:56 pm

bmdpd,

So 68% of all murders in the US were committed with a firearm
49% of all murders were with a handgun
2.6% with a rifle

Nurse Ratched

January 16th, 2013
3:57 pm

“Those mental health checks can’t get done fast enough…”

Okay, Paul, we are ready to see you now.

Nurse Ratched

January 16th, 2013
3:58 pm

“Obama Derangement Syndrome is in full bloom.”

Okay, Paul, I said we are ready to see you now.

oldguy

January 16th, 2013
3:58 pm

Ah Jay,
On your way to building a consensus.(at least among the gunhaters).
Read the posts in your last diatribe against the NRA (and us members by association).
Is there hope for a give and take solution? Absolutely not!

Do you understand now why there are many (more than you will admit) of us who think it is time to divorce ourselves from Obamaland and form a “more perfect union”?
Great Britain is doing it by Freeing Scotland (after 268 years of occupation) to form its own parliament and government.

Obama is proposing Doctor’s violate the Doctor/patient confidentiality and report possible dangerous patients to the government? WOW isn’t that guilty before the fact? If you are depressed are you dangerous? How about bipolar? Is a Doctor libel if they miss a dangerous patient and he goes Postal? Talk about your thought police!!
What next? government monitors on every block to watch their neighbors to see who might be having “Dangerous” thoughts about the government? Oh yes, they have already tried that in East Germany and it worked fairly well at putting down descent. After all its to protect the children (didn’t you see them huddled behind the glorious leader for protection).
Consensus? oh yes, just hold your breath for me to bring in my firearms to the government.

bmdpd

January 16th, 2013
3:58 pm

Exactly ATL Tiger, but they are going after the rifles!!!!!

cloudodust

January 16th, 2013
3:59 pm

Here’s to hoping the 1st Amendment is next on the agenda. Then after that, we’ll live in The United State of Utopia.

DannyX

January 16th, 2013
4:00 pm

“Obama Derangement Syndrome is in full bloom.”

Maybe the CDC can study that also.

But I really think that comes from listening to Rush, no use wasting the money for a study.

stands for decibels

January 16th, 2013
4:00 pm

rwe @ 3.55: Do you really think that’s the same as–Jay’s language here–”as many as 1,000 federally funded, armed police officers in schools”?

And, you’re conveniently missing the bit where that loon went on to claim we could take up the fiscal slack by just deputizing a bunch of, well, basically anyone who’d ever had a gun as part of his/her paid gig.

All by January 2013.

Obamatron

January 16th, 2013
4:01 pm

“It’s been that way long before Obama filed the paperwork to seek his first term, but I seriously doubt your extreme ODS will allow your binary thinking brain to acknowledge that you are wrong.”

Let’s all hail the chief (even those of us who claim to be independents but defend him vigorously)!

Paul

January 16th, 2013
4:01 pm

Nurse Ratched

“Okay, Paul, we are ready to see you now.”

I hope you booked the full staff and a LOT of time…..

Jay

January 16th, 2013
4:04 pm

bmdpd, I’m very familiar with the UCS stats, but I’m not sure what your point is.

Maybe you believe that some 10,000 deaths a year through guns — only 200 of which are classified as justifiable homicide — is acceptable and does not need to be reduced further if possible. Personally, I would disagree.

getalife

January 16th, 2013
4:04 pm

“Those mental health checks can’t get done fast enough…”

conservatism is a mental defect so……………….

Beavis

January 16th, 2013
4:04 pm

“I bet there is a link. I am pretty sure dumb television shows lead to dumb Republicans. Everyone knows liberals enjoy smart tv, like PBS and Arrested Development. Republicans have historically watched dumb tv, like Petticoat Junction, Joanie Loves Chachi, American Idol, Wrestling, NASCAR, and Honey Boo Boo, I think it makes Republicans dumb.”

Uh huh…uh huh…he said “dumb tv”…uh huh…uh huh.

DannyX

January 16th, 2013
4:06 pm

“Then after that, we’ll live in The United State of Utopia.”

Where have you been? We’ve been living in the United States of Utopia since the Bush tax cuts were enacted.

getalife

January 16th, 2013
4:06 pm

Got this error Jay.

“Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, itgadmin@ajc.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.”

Paul

January 16th, 2013
4:06 pm

oldguy

“On your way to building a consensus.(at least among the gunhaters).
Read the posts in your last diatribe against the NRA (and us members by association).
Is there hope for a give and take solution? Absolutely not! ”

You may want to read Jay’s thread on “Most gun owners far more reasonable than the NRA”

It has facts like these:

“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.”

bmdpd

January 16th, 2013
4:07 pm

Jay, my point is. First….One murder is one too many. Second…Murders with firearms have been on steady decline since the ban was lifted. Third…Rifle killings are less than 3% of all gun murders (Assault Weapons with big magazines fall into this category).

indigo

January 16th, 2013
4:08 pm

If you value human life more than corporate profits, this should definitely be included in the “debate”.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Joe Hussein Mama

January 16th, 2013
4:09 pm

cloudodust — “Here’s to hoping the 1st Amendment is next on the agenda.”

If you would like to discuss the time, manner and place restrictions that the SCOTUS has *already* found permissible as applied to First Amendment freedoms, we can certainly get into that this afternoon.

rightwingextreme

January 16th, 2013
4:11 pm

This whole debate is distracting us from finding a real solution to stopping these massacres, although I have absolutely no idea what that solution is. Hopefully someone smarter than I am does.

We are a morally sick country and getting sicker.

Since the 1960s, and the introduction of modern liberal thinking, our country has become more violent…and more accepting of violence. For example..the movie industry used to be regulated by the Hays Code. As our country become “more modern” and Hollywood wanted more freedom in the production of movies our standards declined. Bad guys use to have to be brought to justice in movies in Hollywood’s Golden Era…..in today’s movies they are celebrated.

As moral relativism gained traction in the 60s the boundary between right and wrong became blurred…in many cases right became wrong and wrong became right. We began to move away from our country’s traditional Judeo Christian values into a “whatever feels good do it” value system.

In January 1973 we legalized a culture of death through Roe v Wade whereby the state legalized the murder of the unborn child. We have “legally” murdered 55 million children in this country since then.

If a country will turn its eye to this kind of a holocaust then all human life becomes cheap.

You can ban all of the guns you want. Evil will turn to pipe bombs as in Columbine. Or Molotov Cocktails. Evil will find a way to kill.

We have to deal with evil….heck, we have to first recognize evil exists in this world. That’s something many on the left refuse to acknowledge.

Until we deal with these kind of moral issues we are going to have more Sandy Hooks and more Columbines I’m afraid.

Peadawg

January 16th, 2013
4:11 pm

“Obama’s gun-safety agenda a great place to start debate”

Agree. You don’t need assault rifles w/ 100 round magazines to defend your home against robbers.

Towncrier

January 16th, 2013
4:12 pm

“bmdpd, I’m very familiar with the UCS stats, but I’m not sure what your point is.”

I will go out on a limb here and say that maybe his point was that about 80% of gun murders involve handguns (probably most of which are illegally brandished). Ever heard of the Pareto principle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

TM

January 16th, 2013
4:12 pm

“The administration also proposes to get serious about gun trafficking, in which legal gun purchasers buy large numbers of weapons for later private sale to criminals. Amazingly, “there is no explicit law against straw purchasing, so straw purchasers and others who traffic guns can often only be prosecuted for paperwork violations,” the White House report states”

Isn’t this what our government did letting our guns be bought for use by the Mexican Cartels??? It’s okay for them to engage in this type of action but ….

MeetInTheMiddle

January 16th, 2013
4:13 pm

@ Jay

Reducing that number would be a huge achievement. But, bmpd is right. None of these proposals are going to reduce it. Out of those 10,000 deaths, how many do you honestly believe would have been averted if the 11th time the trigger was pulled there was a click instead of a bang? I’m ok with the restrictions but I’ve still yet to see one case in which restricting firearms prevented mass killings, and none of these proposals are going to stop the majority of gun deaths.

I imagine almost all of those 10,000 deaths were single deaths, that is, only one person was killed in the incident. I can kill one person just as easily with my grandfather’s 100 year old revolver as I can with an AR.

Towncrier

January 16th, 2013
4:13 pm

“Until we deal with these kind of moral issues we are going to have more Sandy Hooks and more Columbines I’m afraid.”

What a novel thought!

ATL Tiger

January 16th, 2013
4:14 pm

bmdpd,

Interesting. It seems that if there were going to be any bans on firearms it would certainly be on handguns, which account for nearly 50% of all murders and not rifles which account for 2.6% of all murders.

Wouldn’t it be a logical fallicy to want a ban on ‘assault rifles’ but no ban on handguns?

getalife

January 16th, 2013
4:14 pm

I think the President’s quick reaction to the majority wanting change is outstanding.

He is the first African American President setting a great example for the next one.

The nra attack on his children backfired as predicted.

They were heard and now marginalized with ODS with the rest of the cons.

I don’t think the cons could pass a mental test due to extreme ODS.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

January 16th, 2013
4:15 pm

…murder of the unborn child.

“Murder” has a legal definition.

Abortion is a legal procedure so therefore – by definition – it cannot be “murder.”

I understand and respect your feelings about abortion, but you don’t get to make up definitions of words already in existence.

Jerome Horwitz

January 16th, 2013
4:15 pm

Kam – Blues up against S-Hampton 2-0
Man U 1-0 over WHU

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 16th, 2013
4:16 pm

Paul, you’re right. I thought you were serious. :D But perhaps I don’t consider most of the conned to be mentally ill, just intellect deprived (or is it depraved?). Anyway, the brain dead should never have permits. :D

TBS

January 16th, 2013
4:16 pm

rightwingextreme

Are you implying that violent crime per capita is up since the 60s?

Scooter

January 16th, 2013
4:16 pm

Legislating American society to the lowest common denominator.

MeetInTheMiddle

January 16th, 2013
4:16 pm

@rightwingextreme

Evil has been around since the dawn of time, wasn’t introduced in the 60’s. And this country has been getting progressively less and less violent, not the other way around.

Whatever

January 16th, 2013
4:16 pm

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

There are 100s of quotes like these…………

The 2nd Amendment was given so we could protect ourselves against tyranny of the government. It wasn’t given so I could hunt. It was given so I could protect myself and my community against a tyrannical government. That is why we do not want to give up “assault weapons”. It will not end there. One day the left will ultimately make the arguments to take away all of our guns. Chip away, chip away until they are all gone.

It’s not unreasonable at all to draw a line in the sand here. Today it’s one type of gun. Tomorrow it’s another type of gun until there are none left.

I do not stand with your line of thought because I care about my freedom.

Peadawg

January 16th, 2013
4:16 pm

“He is the first African American President ”

Who cares. Don’t bring race into this…it has no place.

JamVet

January 16th, 2013
4:17 pm

The nra attack on his children backfired as predicted.

What do you expect from the group that once called ATF agents “jackbooted thugs”?

Jay

January 16th, 2013
4:17 pm

“Since the 1960s, and the introduction of modern liberal thinking, our country has become more violent…and more accepting of violence.

You may think that’s true, extreme. It is not. The homicide rate in 2011 was lower than it has been since 1963, and roughly half what it was back in the ’30s, for example.

rightwingextreme

January 16th, 2013
4:17 pm

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

January 16th, 2013
4:15 pm
…murder of the unborn child.

“Murder” has a legal definition.

Abortion is a legal procedure so therefore – by definition – it cannot be “murder.”

I understand and respect your feelings about abortion, but you don’t get to make up definitions of words already in existence.

After WWII we tried the Nazis for the murder of the Jews…..at the time killing the Jews was “legal” in Germany. Didn’t make it right then and it isn’t right now.

The taking of innocent life is murder. I don’t care what the law says on this issue. It’s murder. Hide behind the “law” if you want to….it’s still murder.

rightwingextreme

January 16th, 2013
4:19 pm

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

January 16th, 2013
4:15 pm
…murder of the unborn child.

Actually, you make my point from earlier. We have redefined words to fit the decline in our morality. To justify our actions. Right has become wrong and wrong has become right.