There is a groundswell here on gather this week, ooh be very afraid, the Obama people want your guns, go down to the gun store and buy everything on the shelf before it's too late. But I don't buy it, this notion that gun control heads the Obama to-do list.
Obama is already counting votes for 2010 and 2012. He wants to get his agenda through Congress, an agenda that is heavy on health care and renewable energy. He doesn't want distractions, because distractions put the greater priorities very much at risk. Gun control is a distraction. He did not run on gun control, and he sees very little upside to pushing it. He would lose the support of southern and western dems, possibly returning Republicans to power quickly. And for what? He's not going to round up legal weapons, it's obviously impossible as a concept. Round up illegal weapons? That would not be a problem, Republicans favor that, as long as it does not involve house searches. Make it harder to buy an AK 47? I would favor that, but it would save relatively few lives if you compare it to the firestorm it would ignite with NRA loyalists, gotta have my AK. Rahm Emmanuel can count votes as well as anyone, and he knows full well that getting your agenda passed requires you to focus like a laser, not scatter like a shotgun.
It's a tempest in a teapot. Enjoying cranking up your blood pressure if you want people, but you are wasting your time. The jackbooted thugs are not going to show up at your door, saying hand us your guns and ammo, not in this space/time continuum anyway.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 54
I've watched Star Trek, I know that there's a President Obama that looks like Samuel L. Jackson in "Pulp Fiction" in one of them.
Now back to our regularly scheduled space/time continuum.
A special federal permit is needed to possess automatic weapons. Very very few people have them.
I however agree that Obama won't touch the gun issue. Gallop recently released the polling results that has America being against more gun control more than ever. He won't waste political capitol just to appease the anti-gun kooks.
I went and heard Obama speak when he was campaigning. The subject of gun control never came up. It's one of those issues the scared, little people pull out when they figure everyone is sick of hearing about choice.
We need to address the gun issue, but there are issues more in need of immediate attention right now. Sleep quietly, NRA and all you cold, dead hands people.
I don’t know how the NRA got my number, probably because I have a hunting license, but they were calling me constantly trying to scare me. Those idiots think if you own a gun they already own your brain.
Yesterday CNN had pro and anti gun pundits do a segment. The pro-gun guy started off with a fictitious quote form Eric Holder, moderator Rick Sanchez just happened to have the actual quote with him and exposed the gun nut as a LIAR and fear monger.
The problem with the right is that somebody tells a convenient LIE and they swallow it.
They have scared themselves silly.
Why can’t I take some of these psychos to Nevada where gambling is legal and bet them that as long as they don’t commit a felony, by the end of Obama’s terms, they will still own their legal guns.
I could make a fortune off their psychosis.
"Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."
"opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."
I don't expect that 10,000 Americans killed by guns annually to scoot down to zero, not in my lifetime. I would think it a remarkable success if we could get down to 9000.
Naturally, the NRA, and their right-wing compadres are going to scream bloody murder, and the arms merchants will make a fortune exploiting their paranoia.
The real question is this, has anyone managed to pry that rifle out of Charlton Heston's cold dead fingers yet?
Why not? They know how many cars you own...fish you catch...convictions you have. Why is that important? Well, if some guy owns 55 assault weapons, that's a sure sign of someone that we should be worried about. [Go ahead, explain why anyone needs 55 assault weapons] Oh, but there are legitimate gun collectors who may want to own 55 assault weapons - fine. No one will keep collectors from having collections. But it makes sense to know that the person is a serious gun collector and not some college kid planning another Columbine or a terrorist planning a Mumbai.
There are reasons why things (guns or otherwise) are registered and licensed. It's not just some paranoid-fed plot to impinge on your civil liberties. Most of the time it's to protect the populace as a whole from the nut cases out there.
First I'm an avid supporter of the Constitution and the rights it protects, second I've had this discussion many times, and the outcome is always the same those who advocate more gun control will still advocate more gun control when the discussion is over and the same will be those who support the second amendment and the rights it protects.
The gun control advocates always refer to the number of lives lost to make their point that more gun control is needed.
My response has always been enforce our current laws more effectively before we add more laws, to add more gun control laws will only affect law abiding citizens.
To add more gun control on top of already existing badly enforced gun control would be like lowering the speed limit on a road because too many people were exceeding the existing limit.
If you are not willing to support the idea of enforcement first then your motivation is simply to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
I posted this in Lloyd's thread
I really, really want to know about these existing laws that many now speak of. The ones that aren't being enforced. "
Are you serious Lloyd?
Do you honestly believe that our gun laws are being enforced effectively? Or are you feigning ignorance because your true desire is restrict the use of guns by law abiding citizens?
"Here's an interesting little blurb that makes my point.
"One of the most remarkable examples was a 1992-93 Kansas City experiment by the National Institute of Justice. There, police officers in a large section of the inner city agreed to work overtime to remove illegal guns from the streets. During these overtime shifts, they were given no other responsibilities but to search for and confiscate illegal weapons. This heightened enforcement (of existing gun laws) lasted 29 weeks. The study compared the crime rate during this period to the prior 29 weeks; it also compared the "target area" with a "comparison area" which experienced no changes in its normal police duties. The population of the target area was almost entirely nonwhite and had a crime rate 20 times the national average.
The results were dramatic. Seizures of illegal guns in the target area climbed 65 percent above normal, while they actually declined somewhat in the comparison area. Meanwhile, gun crimes declined 49 percent in the target area. Drive-by shootings fell from 7 to 1 in the time periods compared. The rates for other types of crime did not change, but -- most significantly -- there appeared to be no spillover of crime from the target area into surrounding areas. ""
Enforcement first.
Here's another twist in the gun rights issue which the gun control advocates will never respond to,
How many lives do guns save every year?
How many rapes avoided because a woman raised her weapon in defense? How many muggings and beatings and burglaries and murders have been avoided because of guns?
"His numbers are based on a 1981 poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. It asked 1,228 U.S. voters whether in the previous five years any member of their household had "used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property." Roughly 4% (about 50 people) said they had done so. Projecting that percentage onto the number of U.S. households in the five years covered by the poll (1976-81), Kleck came up with the estimate that handguns had been used protectively 3,224,880 times, or 645,000 a year. Comparing that with surveys that included rifles and shotguns, he estimated that all types of guns are used defensively about a million times a year."
Do Guns Save Lives?
Enforcement first.
I think that the gun advocates make an excellent point when they bring up cars, and I think that one of the answers to our gun violence problem would be to address guns in precisely the same manner.
Another thing would be to strictly restrict posession of specific types of ammunition. You want to own an AK? Fine. You can have one, with the proper license and insurance, but you can only lawfully transport it to and from the rifle range, which is the only place that you can buy, use, and posess ammunition for it. Period.
Finally, tack a mandatory sentence onto anyone committing a crime with a firearm, or caught in posession of a firearm without the proper license and insurance. Let's see how many people are toting machine guns around after five years of tossing violators in prison for 5-10 years at a pop.
We must never forget that we have a second amendment, ladies and gentlemen, and that second amendment very specifically calls for regulatory oversight of gun ownership. We just need everybody to get on board with the second amendment.
Right. That's really realistic, considering you'd be taking your little pop gun against a batallion of M1 tanks, the most sophisticated fighter and bomber jets the world has ever seen, and, conceiveably hundreds of thousands of highly trained, heavily equipped soldiers. Yeah, I bet they're just quaking in their boots over the thought.
Gun regulatory oversight. That's where the answer lies.
You misinterpert the words in the amendment superman, the word "regulated" as in "well regulated" when the right was established was to indicate orderly rather than subjected to regulations as we define the word today.
Says you. Unfortunately for you, however, the SCOTUS has seen it differently, I'm afraid. Sorry 'bout that.
No! says the founders and most anything you can find them writing about the right to bear arms.
Sorry, but you're flat out mistaken on this. The SCOTUS has ruled on this numerous times, and has sided squarely in opposition to your opinion. I guess they're just not quite as wise as you.
The SCOTUS most recently ruled that the second amendment is an individual right, putting previous rulings in a precarious position.
"Right. That's really realistic, considering you'd be taking your little pop gun against a batallion of M1 tanks, the most sophisticated fighter and bomber jets the world has ever seen, and, conceiveably hundreds of thousands of highly trained, heavily equipped soldiers. Yeah, I bet they're just quaking in their boots over the thought."
As one can very readily observe from what's gone on in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years a bunch of relatively lightly-armed guys can raise a lot of hell in opposition to even the most well-equipped, high-tech armed forces in the world.
Why is it that you rightwingnuts ALWAYS want to take away my second amendment rights?
For the third and FINAL time, the SCOTUS has ALWAYS ruled in favor of gun regulations. Sorry, bucko. You lose. The second amendment WINS!
Uh...the last time I checked, the guys with the biggest guns were pretty much dictating what was going on over there.
Yes, that's precisely the blindsightedness of the we-need-even-more-guns crowd. They focus ONLY on the "right to bear arms" part and completely forget about the "well-regulated" part. Luckily, the SCOTUS has never forgotten.
As for the first part "The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense". Well if ordinary citizens are restricted in the access of arms then where is the "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" going to acquire the ability to defend themselves going to come from.
And in the case of citizens carrying firearms there are classes and background checks, fees and paperwork that has to be done in order to legally carry a firearm in public. And last I checked it wasn't these people strolling along with machine guns under their coats. It's the gangs and criminals that are the ones that are the problem with machine guns being totted around.
Well said Paul. The British were expected to beat the crap out of the American Continental Army. Didn't work out too well for the British army.
Well Richard Poplawski had no criminal record until he blew away 3 policemen with his AK 47 this week. And the guy who killed 13 in Binghamton, no criminal record either. There are plenty of murderers and suiciders who are not gang members. Somebody decides he does not like his wife, bang. somebody decides the neighbor's dog has peed on his lawn for the last time, bang (neighbor gets it, not dog). Sure, lots of killings these days are drug dealers shooting other drug dealers, or robbers shooting victims. But lots of killings are also crimes of family passion, or simmering outbursts from people who have become losers at the game of life and have lost it as a result.
Those guns are still out there and keeping me from owning my SKS with a 30 round magazine isn't going to keep criminals and nutcases from getting their hands on a similar weapon. Heck, don't be surprised if the authorities don't sell them back out onto the streets.
Only to those who's ideological goals is to remove guns from society, to the rest of it it makes sense to enforce our laws.
To get as many ilegal guns off the streets and allow the law abiding citizens the means to protect their castles makes perfect sense to the rest of the rest of us.
However one did not need to be a rocket scientist to see that having vets pay for their own medical acre if service injured and owning private insurance was going to create a firestorm. No, this president will push whatever he feels until he meets resistance. IE, cap and trade energy taxation that will hit industrial and farm states the hardest and the card check bill...both of which have substantial bi-partisan resistance but he's pushing anyway.
It would a glorious victory of the Repubs if he did try to move on the 2d Amendment though, it buried a more consummate politician than him a few years back and unfortunately it's the single Bill of Rights issue people will go to war over. Now if we could just get them that angry over the other 9.....
Chris...Chris...Chris...quit confusing them with REALITY! They don't do well on REALITY! LOL