The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Redskins Diehard]

You should keep on the lookout for people drawing conclusions...and cheerleaders, too. I was just responding to Dog of War. His comment didn't seem unreasonable to me.

his comment said there were no details.....zoom zoom

[TradeTheBeal!]

his comment said there were no details.....zoom zoom

Correct. His contained no details. Mine contained no conclusions.

One would think that referring to the President as "dear leader" might ring the bell as more of a conclusion or cheerleading.

Edited January 1, 2016 by TryTheBeal!

[Redskins Diehard]

Correct. His contained no details. Mine contained no conclusions.

Except that it didn't seem unreasonable. Without knowing what "it" is

[TradeTheBeal!]

Except that it didn't seem unreasonable. Without knowing what "it" is

"It" was the comment quoted, Comrade. Don't be obtuse.

[Redskins Diehard]

One would think that referring to the President as "dear leader" might ring the bell as more of a conclusion or cheerleading.

Oh, you still take that dude seriously...explains some things

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-gun-restrictions-congress-217278#ixzz3w0oUMpSm

Obama blasts Congress, vows to move ahead on guns

 

Blasting Congress for its inaction, President Barack Obama announced Friday morning that he will meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday to discuss new options to help combat the destructive use of guns across the country.

 

Obama, in a taped address published on New Year’s Day, highlighted the administration's accomplishments of the past year, while emphasizing the work that needs to be done to protect the country domestically in relation to guns moving forward.

 

“My New Year’s resolution is to move forward on our unfinished business as much as I can,” he said. “That’s especially true for one piece of unfinished business: Our epidemic of gun violence,” he said.

 

The White House is in the process of finalizing an array of measures aimed at helping minimize deaths by guns, which include stricter restrictions for reporting guns are lost or stolen in transport, as well as increasing the amount of smaller gun sellers that are required to be licensed prior to selling weapons.

 

In the address, Obama went on to urge citizens to stand up against the groups like the National Rifle Association, with which he has had a contentious relationship since entering office.

 

“The gun lobby is loud and well organized in its defense of effortlessly available guns for anyone,” he said. “The rest of us are going to have to be just as passionate and well organized in defense of our kids."

 

Obama went on to note the anniversaries of recent shooting incidents. “Last month we remembered the 3rd anniversary of Newtown,” he said. “I’ll be thinking about my friend Gabby Giffords, five years into recovery from the shooting in Tucson.”

Edited January 2, 2016 by visionary

[visionary]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/us/politics/obama-says-he-will-act-on-gun-control-in-coming-days.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

Obama to Expand Gun Background Checks and Tighten Enforcement

 

President Obama will announce executive actions on Tuesday intended to expand background checks for some firearm purchases and step up federal enforcement of the nation’s gun laws, White House officials said Monday, once again trying to sidestep a gridlocked Congress on a politically divisive issue.

 

But faced with clear legal limitations on his authority, Mr. Obama will take modest steps that stop well short of the kind of large-scale changes to the gun trade that he unsuccessfully sought from Congress three years ago. That legislation would have closed loopholes that allow millions of guns to be sold without background checks at gun shows or in online firearm exchanges.

 

Instead, Mr. Obama will clarify that existing laws require anyone making a living by selling guns to register as a licensed gun dealer and conduct background checks. White House officials said the president would note that criminal penalties already exist for violating those laws.

 

“We have to be very clear that this is not going to solve every violent crime in this country,” Mr. Obama said on Monday, ahead of a formal announcement on Tuesday. “It’s not going to prevent every mass shooting; it’s not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal.”

A spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association said on Monday that the organization’s lawyers would look at the president’s proposals more closely to determine if there was anything they might go to court to challenge. But she said at first glance the plan seemed surprisingly thin.

 

“This is it, really?” asked Jennifer Baker, an official with the N.R.A.’s Washington lobbying arm. “This is what they’ve been hyping for how long now? This is the proposal they’ve spent seven years putting together? They’re not really doing anything.”

 

Representative Mike Thompson, Democrat of California and the chairman of the gun control caucus in the House, praised the president for taking action but said it would not be enough to solve the problem of mass shootings and gun violence.

 

“I think he’s done all that he can do under his authority,” Mr. Thompson said. “What really needs to be done is the laws need to be changed. There needs to be a law that says you buy a gun, you get a background check.”

Edited January 5, 2016 by visionary

[tshile]

I'll enjoy watching the republicans, who usually cry "enforce the laws already on the books", cry about an executive order that "step up federal enforcement of the nation’s gun laws"

 

edit: I bet M®s Baker finds herself job hunting in the coming weeks.

Edited January 5, 2016 by tshile

[sacase]

I'll enjoy watching the republicans, who usually cry "enforce the laws already on the books", cry about an executive order that "step up federal enforcement of the nation’s gun laws"

I saw an article that said one or two guns, if that is the case, then it is going to court. Also saw something that bars certain social security recipients from purchasing firearms, not sure how that will work depending on what those "certain" people are. 

[tshile]

I saw an article that said one or two guns, if that is the case, then it is going to court. Also saw something that bars certain social security recipients from purchasing firearms, not sure how that will work depending on what those "certain" people are. 

 

Yeah?

 

We get those articles every few months when Obama says anything about guns. As usual, they're full of complete garbage. People continually fall for them though. The gun dealers made a lot of money at the Dulles gun show over the weekend. My understanding was the line was around the building just to get in.

 

It's a joke.

[sacase]

Yeah?

 

We get those articles every few months when Obama says anything about guns. As usual, they're full of complete garbage. People continually fall for them though. The gun dealers made a lot of money at the Dulles gun show over the weekend. My understanding was the line was around the building just to get in.

 

It's a joke.

Like I said, I am going to reserve judgement until it is actually revealed what he intends to do. What you have read and what I have read are speculation, I am not going to get worried until I actually see something for real. 

 

have you actually been to the Dulles gun show? I have, I bought my .45 there. I got mine from an actual dealer and I had to do a background check. Filled out the paperwork, went and had lunch, came back an hour later and it was approved, no big deal. There are a lot of dealers there and they still have to have people do background checks even at the gun show. 

[twa]

See ya in court is inevitable with this dufus...he loses a lot for a Harvard man 

[JMS]

See ya in court is inevitable with this dufus...he loses a lot for a Harvard man 

I don't know if President Obama's executive decision will be brought to court or not and whether he will loose or not.. But what I do think is the Dems are incapable of passing meaningful gun control without the help of the NRA and also likely the GOP. I don't think they fundamentally understand the complexities of what they are trying to do. Thus they give us a never ending stream of meaningless reform which doesn't really help the problems..

• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988)
• Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (1990) (ruled unconstitutional as originally written; upheld after minor edits were made by Congress)
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994) (expired 2004)

The bills which outlaws the sale of the semi automatic M-16 but inconceivable permits the nearly identical weapon to be sold under alternative names...  Can't buy an Automatic weapon,  but you can buy a kit to turn a legal semi automatic to a fully automatic and get 10 years in prison if you install it.   Can't buy a 14 round clip,  but you can buy an 11 round clip?   The penalties are huge and the laws are stupid and net effect is negligible for overall public safety.

I think the Dems need to sit down with the NRA and say look.. we want to try to pass legislation so children can't take their parents guns and go to school and shoot the place up. That's in nobody's interest. We also want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people. How do you think we should do it?

Edited January 5, 2016 by JMS

[twa]

Don't see the D making the move w/the NRA, selling the ineffective(but politically beneficial)  seems more their style

 

Gun control and immigration reform are more political games than substance.....and yes he will lose on the fundamentals in court.

 

I'm more curious if the immigration crackdown will placate SCOTUS 

 

 

but the show must go on.

[Busch1724]

 

I think the Dems need to sit down with the NRA and say look.. we want to try to pass legislation so children can't take their parents guns and go to school and shoot the place up. That's in nobody's interest. We also want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people. How do you think we should do it?

 

Both sides of the aisle don't have the ability to have a rationale, nuanced conversation about anything like this. Ideally, a conversation based on your question would be great. However, I don't have hope it could actually happen, not in this political climate.

[TheGoodBits]

I think the Dems need to sit down with the NRA and say look.. we want to try to pass legislation so children can't take their parents guns and go to school and shoot the place up. That's in nobody's interest. We also want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people. How do you think we should do it?

That's a cute fantasy world you're living in. The conversation could start like that, but here's what would happen:

NRA- "we agree this is a problem. Our solution is to put firearms in every classroom."

Dems- "oh for ****s sake"

And that would be in end of that conversation.

The NRA is not interested in keeping people safe, and they aren't interested in solutions or compromises. They are only interested in "they're coming to take yer guns" fear tactics. Know why? Because that is what SELLS guns.

Edited January 5, 2016 by skinsfan_1215

[Burgold]

Maybe the answer is to treat this like we do cigarettes. Use sin taxes. Levy so many tariffs that dealers have to charge a 1,000 bucks per bullet. Let everyone have the guns they want, but make it insanely expensive. Just have to make them national taxes so that every state faces the same burden.

[tshile]

have you actually been to the Dulles gun show? I have, I bought my .45 there. I got mine from an actual dealer and I had to do a background check. Filled out the paperwork, went and had lunch, came back an hour later and it was approved, no big deal. There are a lot of dealers there and they still have to have people do background checks even at the gun show. 

 

Yes. And yes, I'm aware of how the process works.

 

I was referencing how every time the "gun rights" people get a chance to beat the 'They're going to take our guns!' drum they do. Because every time they do a certain portion of our population races to the nearest gun dealer (or gun show) and buys everything they can, because they live in an actual fear that government is going to take their guns away.

 

It doesn't matter how many times it's happened and proven to be a completely irrational fear over the last 8 years, it doesn't matter how many times Obama's Executive Orders turn out to be nothing close to what the "gun rights" people say they will be, it works every time. It was on display again this past weekend.

 

I'm actually starting to wonder if the Obama administration is in it with the gun manufacturers. Big gun show this weekend? Have Obama announce he'll release some new EO's the week before. Watch the money flow to the dealers and manufacturers.

 

And I didn't mean to speculate on what these EO's will be, I'm simply commenting on what others have speculated. I'm really pointing out the past EO's and comparing what they actually were to what they were claimed to be by the "gun rights" people. They weren't even close.

 

But sure, maybe this time Obama will actually take guns away. I have my doubts, but I'm willing to wait until they're released.

Edited January 5, 2016 by tshile

[tshile]

Maybe the answer is to treat this like we do cigarettes. Use sin taxes. Levy so many tariffs that dealers have to charge a 1,000 bucks per bullet. Let everyone have the guns they want, but make it insanely expensive. Just have to make them national taxes so that every state faces the same burden.

 

So you're OK with limiting the rights of people so long as they're on the poor side?

 

The rich can have the rights, but the rest of us will have to do without.

 

I don't think that's going to hold up in court.

[Larry]

Maybe the answer is to treat this like we do cigarettes. Use sin taxes. Levy so many tariffs that dealers have to charge a 1,000 bucks per bullet. Let everyone have the guns they want, but make it insanely expensive. Just have to make them national taxes so that every state faces the same burden.

 

I actually have a problem with that.  (Certainly with taking it to that extreme.) 

 

I want people to have the right to own, and to recreationaly use, firearms.  (And there's that pesky constitution thinggie.) 

 

And that includes relatively poor people, too. 

 

I'm not saying that firearms cannot be subject to any taxation.  But yeah, a prohibition masquerading as a tax, (or a "prohibition to everybody but the rich folks"), I've got a problem with. 

[Burgold]

Who's limiting rights? Everyone still would have the right to bear arms just as everyone has the right to smoke a cigarette. This idea will never pass, but if no legislation can ever be passed to address the real issues of gun violence and we will even forbid research into the area of gun violence... then a sideways approach may be the only feasible option.

 

Access is a problem. Access combined with anger, stupidity, evil, mental health, irresponsibility, and a whole litany of problems is a problem. It's a problem we don't address. We barely even shake a fist at it in mock exasperation.

I actually have a problem with that.  (Certainly with taking it to that extreme.) 

 

You're right. I picked too low a number. A thousand is too cheap.

[Hersh]

It really is amazing, but not really surprising, to see the right go crazy without actually knowing what the executive orders will be. It's a perfect example of how it really has nothing to do with the actual policies of Obama but that it really is all about opposing anything Obama does regardless of the positive effects it may have on the country.  

[tshile]

Who's limiting rights? Everyone still would have the right to bear arms just as everyone has the right to smoke a cigarette.

 

You are. I know you think it's clever, but it's not. I highly doubt the courts will be fooled by this.

[Burgold]

You are. I know you think it's clever, but it's not. I highly doubt the courts will be fooled by this.

Actually, I'm just being a wise arse with this. It has no chance of being passed. If it passed the courts would have a tough time overturning it. States and the Fed do have the right to tax items, but there's no way in hell it would pass with a Republican House and Senate. It even has no chance if the Dems took over.

[Forehead]

Maybe the answer is to treat this like we do cigarettes. Use sin taxes. Levy so many tariffs that dealers have to charge a 1,000 bucks per bullet. Let everyone have the guns they want, but make it insanely expensive. Just have to make them national taxes so that every state faces the same burden.

 

I don't know, I like my idea, that every nutjob who incorrectly uses the 2nd amendment in an argument should be forced to trade in their guns for whatever was considered top of the line when the Bill of rights was ratified, the front loading musket or whatever it was.  You want to live 1791, you can have 1791 firearms technology, and nothing better.