White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings
Source: Washington Post
The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.
The Biden group, formed last month after the massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that killed 20 children and six adults, plans to submit a package of recommendations to President Obama this month. Once Obama’s proposals are set, he plans to lead a public-relations offensive to generate popular support.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
goclark
(30,404 posts)Dr_Scholl
(212 posts)N/T
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Get real now is the time for change......
NickB79
(19,253 posts)It's not like he tries, fails, and there are no repercussions.
Make no mistake: gun control WILL be brought up by the GOP in the 2014 and 2016 elections to hammer at the Democrats now that Obama has put it out there.
Be prepared to see a much harder battle for votes in the Midwest, South and Southwest now, even if no new gun control measures get passed.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)scaredy cat nonsense political risk .... BLAH.... that's why I voted for him he is re-elected there isn't another election it is time for action, if you can't see this than maybe your not down with the correct cause my friend.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)I'm going by historical precedent. I'm old enough to remember the beat-down the Democrats received in 1994, and the idea of that happening again should be in the minds anyone serious about politics. Just because we have a Democrat in office today, doesn't mean we should lose sight of the next election a few years down the road.
The winners in politics are usually the ones that take a long view of things, thinking 5 moves ahead of their opponent. If you can't see that, I'm afraid you're going to be very angry come the next election cycle.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)If we organize and show up to vote in an off year election, we can hand the gun whores their heads.
Response to MightyMopar (Reply #77)
Post removed
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)PRO- elephant stopping weapons, PRO-kill 20 kids a minute weaps, and PRO all that armor piercing bullets et all will hurt any politic an in the 2014 elections.
This work will even elevate VP Bidens' status as another powerful, moral, great Democrat to run for President.
dexter sinister
(34 posts)of 'safety'. But only when it comes to guns...on every OTHER issue, they agree with Mr. Franklin. That is probably why they can't maintain whatever it is they want for very long. Sigh.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)It was wrong for politicans to kiss NRA lobby ass and pretend they were for "the right to own arms" when all they wanted were gun sales to every nutcase in America.
dexter sinister
(34 posts)it sounds exactly like "some of my best friends are..."
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)dexter sinister
(34 posts)Some of the wannabe 'banner' types remind me of the guy who told his mechanic "Hey Joe, my brakes don't work...fix the horn."
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)no more gun sales without background checks, no more gun resellers, everyone knows where the guns sold go, registered ranges, huge ammo tax, insurance with required trigger/gun safe.
May not make a difference today or next year but it will make a difference when some future 20ish nutcase decides he wants to suicide and won't be able to take along 25 kids in one minute with him.
I'd also like to see the NRA gone, they are just a lobbyist for gun sales and useless to society.
I do not believe that the Whitehouse is wasting anything by pursuing gun control. Twenty babies were slaughtered along with six adults.
You think we should not pursue this because the NRA and the gun nuts might have their feelings hurt?
Are you serious?
Please enlighten me...I am in the dark here.
In Iraq our troops kill women and children daily, and nothing happens.
Why do you think 20 children in Conecticut can make any difference?
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)for revenge and on a credit card! The deaths that come of war are heartbreaking . Worse, this was a war that was needless.The fricking chicken hawks at Bushco Inc. were after oil! They smelled $$$$$ and oh how they raked it in!
Do not! Do not ,equate the deaths from a war that was waged by a disfunctanal administration, to the slaughter of Newtown.
Newtown (and it is spelled Connecticut) was not a war! That was a slaughter of babies! No reason, no war.
So again enlighten me.
John.Mekki
(10 posts)Obama stepped up the drone war in Afghanistan and Pakistan
JFK stepped up Vietnam` s war which led to 2 million deaths
I would not put all the blame on Republicans, really
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)"There have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time." -- National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 25, 2002
Isn't that cute? Not a single one of those statements was true. And not a single one of those people is being accused of treason or malfeasance or of being a soulless anti-American warmongering drone, despite how their words were dripping with lies when they exited their mouths.
Look. Bush told Americans we were going to enter into this savage and bloody war no one really wanted because Iraq posed an immediate and imminent threat to the security of the U.S. and its citizens. He gutted the economy for it. He destroyed long-standing relationships with countless international allies for it. He made America into this rogue superpower brat, disrespected and untrustable and appalling, for it. And it was never true.
How about this? More soldiers have died since BushCo declared the war essentially over six months ago than during the war itself. And guerrilla attacks on U.S. forces have more than doubled over recent months to more than 25 per day, with fresh American causalities coming in nonstop.
No matter, says the GOP. All part of the clumsy "rebuilding" process, they say. By the way, that $87 billion BushCo just begged for to keep the Iraq war machine clunking along? That's more than the fiscal debt of all the gutted U.S. states combined. Iraq is, by every account, a devastating U.S. money pit.
Might it be worth mentioning here that comprehensive new nonpartisan investigation that reveals how at least 15,000 Iraqis, including a minimum of 4,000 civilians, were slaughtered by U.S. forces in the first days of the invasion? Or that some estimates of total Iraqi civilian deaths go as high as nearly 10,000? Do those people matter? All those women and children and poor families? Nah. Screw 'em.
And you know why they don't matter, according to the GOP? Because we got rid of a pesky evil pip-squeak tyrant, that's why. One who was zero threat to the U.S., and not much of a threat to neighboring countries, and had no 9/11 connection, but who we know killed lots of his own people 20 years ago, with America's full and complicit assistance, including the biotoxins we sold to him.
And how he's gone. Yay! Mission accomplished! Except, of course, he's not. Still alive, apparently. But he's hiding somewhere! And he's probably really furious that he had to shave his mustache, too! Ha! That oughta show him! That's $300 billion and hundreds of dead U.S. soldiers well spent, baby! God bless America.
This needs to be said. This needs to be repeated, over and over again, because apparently it is still not clear and apparently Republican apologists love to trot it out as some sort of justification, some sort of hollow and childish accusation, signifying nothing.
Yes, Bill Clinton lied, too. He lied about stupid adulterous sex. And the GOP savaged him like rabid feral swine attacking a rutabaga. Had him impeached over it. Loathe him still, and his wife, too, with unprecedented level of hatred and bile and vicious litigious action never before seen in this nation.
No such fate for BushCo. Shockingly, the GOP isn't the slightest bit upset about this pro-corporate, oil-drunk administration's deadly string of lies. Shall we wonder why? Or is it just too poisonous and sad to consider for very long, lest the intellect curdle and the soul recoil?
OK, I'll spell it out: George W. Bush and his entire senior administration lied, and continue to lie, flagrantly, openly, knowingly, with full intent, about the need to drive this nation into a brutal and unwinnable and fiscally debilitating war, one that protects no one and inhibits no terrorism and defends nothing but BushCo's own petrochemical cronies and political stratagems.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/morford/article/The-Incredible-Lying-BushCo-This-just-in-More-2580147.php#ixzz2HB8RzUU6
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)It is a travesty but it is true.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)and think that it will be a galvanizing issue.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)There are huge numbers of us who will bring much more pressure to bear than the other side can muster. Watch us.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)I've been telling the Gungeoneers for years that they should be in the conversation, not sitting smugly on the sidelines.
Looks like they're going to have to live with what the "anti gunners" give them.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Annual tax or license renewal whatever you want to call it but is should be stiff, a very progressive form of revenue too..
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Progressive taxes are on the rich. Your idea is to make it impossible for poor people to own guns.
The rich never commit gun crimes, Phil Spector, Robert Blake, Dick Cheney.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)I don't want anybody to own guns period so this would be a good start.... making it hurt for people to own the guns will help them to give them up, less guns less crime with guns .... nothing to do with rich or poor and really do you think a poor person is buying guns with their money? Get a clue.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)It's called an ex post facto offense and, unlike gun control, really is unconstitutional. And yes, if they are high enough, the courts will find them to be ex post facto punishments.
And yes, working poor persons do in fact buy guns with their own money. Some of them own houses and cars too. But they are still lower class, have limited access to healthcare, decent schools for their kids, and frankly, law enforcement will not protect them until it is too late.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)I have much better things to do with what little I can scrape together than to worry about buying a gun...
Taxes as punishment you actually posted that? Isn't that the Grover Norquist line at least the rightwingers where I work say exactly what you just said.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)You don't have to be destitute to be poor. Drive through some of these big city neighborhoods sometime. Old houses or duplexes in the city with old or cheap cars in the driveway belong to lower class people.
Middle class people are doctors, lawyers, other licensed professionals, successful business owners, and master artisans. People who sell their labor by the hour on someone else's schedule are lower class.
Fold-out sofa bed in parlor = lower class,
guest room = middle class,
guest house with servants = upper class.
You are talking about taxes on working people as a punishment because you know you can't simply confiscate guns that were lawful to own when acquired. So you want to issue an across the board fine for having them year after year until "voluntarily" surrendered. That's an ex post facto penalty and a bill of attainder.
To get rid of all of them Constitutionally, the Feds need to buy them from people at fair market value. Perhaps a tax on gun and ammo makers could finance it. The fact is you think gun ownership is immoral and you want to punish people for having them. That's not how the law works. And your attempt to make me look or feel guilty by trying to associate me with Norquist is pretty pathetic. I have always supported higher taxes on the rich, including their off-shore assets and trusts. I'd say "nice try," but it really isn't.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)And, you must include rural people, many of whom were lower class anyway, and the closing of textile and other plants have mad either desperate. They hunt for food. I am totally against hunting for sport, but I understand hunting to live. There are many people in this country who literally hunt or fish most of their protein for their families. I grew up with some.
forthemiddle
(1,381 posts)You may have "much better things to do with what little I can scrape together than to worry about buying a gun..." But isn't that your choice?
You may think that owning guns are "immoral", but hypothetically, I may think using the internet is "immoral". Even though the vast majority of internet users are law abiding citizens, some of them use the internet for dire uses. Terrorist organizations, including Al Queada have be know to recruit and plan terrorist attacks via the internet, resulting in the death of thousands. Kiddie Porn syndicates have been known to exploit children, devastating their lives via the internet..... etc. etc. etc. And yet you are trying to equate all legal gun owners with your own morality.
In the past people have stated on this board that poor people SHOULD NOT waste "what little they can scrape together" on computers, or internet fees, yet others have ripped them stating how do you know that they were not given the computers for free, or bought them when they could afford them, etc. So I am equating internet use with ammunition use. Should we so heavily tax internet use (like you want to with ammunition) so only the well off can afford it? After all I may find the activities performed with a computer (not the computer itself, but the activities) immoral.
This is truly a 1st Amendment argument, vs 2nd Amendment. Would it be Constitutional to outrageously tax the internet because of immoral or illegal things someone MAY do on it? And remember there are millions of exploited children, and terrorist victims you could be saving.....
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)and have the taxes pay for some of the damages that the products cause....how about all the cigarette taxes then....and what about automobile taxes and gasoline taxes.
The products that cause the damages need to be taxed and if the costs of having emergency rooms and ambulances and property damages caused by these weapons, let alone loss of lives and lives lived in fear.... the taxes need to be really high to cover just the financial losses that we as a society suffer from gun violence.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)John.Mekki
(10 posts)What do we mean by "evidence", by the way?
Many people believe that the bible is evidence, other people the Koran..
We were talking about taxes. In what context are you asking about evidence?
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Say you've owned a gun for 10 years. You've not been taxed in those ten years. A law is passed that requires an annual fee to continue owning it going forward. The tax could be a registration fee or license fee.
I know gun enthusiasts are tired of the car/gun but that is exactly what happened to cars. Once upon a time there were no requirements for a driver's license, license plates, state inspections and the plethora of other regulations that were all imposed on existing ownership or cars going forward.
Yeah, I've heard the "not if it stays on private property" argument but we both know that doesn't apply to this conversation. Hell, if they all stayed inside somebody's house we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...but if they are designed to be punitive, then they are.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)and all this silliness about the 2nd amendment does not make it have to be free or cheap to have such weapons.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Cheap guns and ammo are the problem.... Make it expensive and you will have less of it... I gurantee and in the mean time the government brings in more revenue too boot.
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)or a tax on the powder- something that will help defray the costs associated with gun violence.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)charge 10k per bullet won't be too many people could afford to fire them and those that did would probably have a very good reason...
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)defacto bans have always been found unconstitutional
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)is the phrase that I think that you mean.
hack89
(39,171 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.
It may exist, but I've never seen a "de facto" practice ruled to be unconstitutional.
hack89
(39,171 posts)saying that black people have the right to vote but making them pay a high tax. It is not an outright ban on voting but the effect is just the same - hence a defacto ban.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)Plus, you just guaranteed the rich will have the guns and the ammo. Very "Hunger Games."
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Hunger Games..... We need to do everything possible to change mindsets and end this senseless need for firearms.
dexter sinister
(34 posts)Does 'prohibition' ring any bells?
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Make the bullet cost a couple of grand and they won't be getting fired off much.
tradecenter
(133 posts)I make my own using old wheel weights.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)but I am sure you don't create your own gunpowder so maybe we hit you nuts right there by taxing it 100 dollars per ounce....
dexter sinister
(34 posts)BWHAHAHAHA
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)I said tax the crap out of the powder, I could care less how to make bullets, no desire to even understand the chemistry or science behind it, so what does that have to do with my opinion on the matter of taxing the crap out of gun owners and ammunition supplies?
dexter sinister
(34 posts)(your words) out of something is a solution to anything?
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)makes the choice of ownership harder i.e., I am average lower middleclass there are much better things I can do with my money than buy guns and ammo, if you take that rationale higher up the income latter you may get the same result, obviously taxed at a large rate would be incentive enough for some people to forego gun ownership completely....
Let me put it another way, there are millions of NASCAR fans but 99 percent of them do not own a NASCAR or race in one...
Get it?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)dexter sinister
(34 posts)become one. There's no explaining hypocrisy regardless of which side of the political spectrum from which it emanates. (There is, actually, but it pleases nobody)
tradecenter
(133 posts)Did I insult you in any way? I just pointed out why your tax wouldn't work.
Whatever, when you want to have an intelligent conversation without the name calling, get back to me.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)tradecenter
(133 posts)I have my reloading equipment in my garage and when I melt the lead weights, my garage door is open and I wear a respirator along with surgical gloves for handling the lead bullets.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)tradecenter
(133 posts)I can reload a thousand rounds of .38 in a couple of hours if I really work at it.
When you say you buy the bullets, do you mean just the bullets or the whole cartridge?
Reloading is a cheaper way of keeping your ammo stocks up with certain calibers.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)tradecenter
(133 posts)My job is very stressful and after a 24 hour tour, I like to blow off stress by going to the range and shooting off a few hundred rounds. 
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
tradecenter
(133 posts)But shooting a few hundred rounds seems to relax me and then I'll go home and sleep and get ready for the next 24 hour tour.
I don't do this after every tour, just tours that have been particularly stressful.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)tonight spewing their idiocy....
dexter sinister
(34 posts)
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Any measures that, when enacted, still allow these mass shootings to occur will be considered a failure.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #131)
Post removed
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)and somehow aren't even interested in opinions that don't look like yours... I find that a true attribute of the right anything that doesn't look like them or act like them is somehow unAmerican....
dexter sinister
(34 posts)It bears a striking resemblance to his analysis of the Terri Schiavo case a while back...
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)rightwintards like yourself cannot have a valid conversation on the issue of gun control because, well because you are all nuts who want to remain armed for the sole purpose of killing other living things, human or animal, I'm sure you will defend both.
dexter sinister
(34 posts)jesusfuckingchrist.........
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)You should go on back to freeperville before someone drops a house on you too.... idiot.
dexter sinister
(34 posts)Even attempted assaults for being gay, and which were effectively repelled by simply placing my hand on my concealed revolver so the 3 guys with baseball bats could see it. They rapidly retreated, thus sparing me and my friend from what was undoubtedly intended to be a serious bashing. I didn't need to remove it from the holster, but I will tell you this: if they had continue to advance, I would gladly have put a 154 grain piece of lead right into their ugly faces and never lost one second of sleep afterward. The only worse people than those who try to assault others for who they are, are those who would deny them the ability to do it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)getting killed by guns, I would think the appreciation percentages would be just the opposite of what you state...
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)And, thare are MANY in this country, will be hit with a "progressive" tax that is really a regressive one, and will either: 1. have their guns confiscated and starve or 2. illegally own guns.
Maybe we should tax their fishing rods and tackle, too.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)No one has to 'hunt to survive' anymore.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)There are anti-hunting arguments to be made, but the availability of food stamps aren't one of them.
Besides, we've long since obliterated all the natural predators. So now the choice is to allow hunting or allow disease/starvation to run rampant and not be able to drive more than a mile or two without hitting and wounding a deer. I don't hunt, and I don't like most hunters, but that's just reality as it stands now.
spangled
(1 post)It's about our right to bear arms to protect ourselves. And what makes you think every gun owner is a right winger?
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Pachamama
(16,887 posts)Collecting and building an arsenal....seriously....While its not 100%, they have a good idea and good info....unless you pay cash for everything, live off the grid and make your own bullets and dont use any email or cell phones, its pretty easy for them to figure out who are building up the gun collection. And even then, if you try to live off the radar, that might ultimately attract attention too.
And lets get real - I dont care what kind of arsenal and weaponry you put together, if you are one of these paranoid people who believes the black helicopters and Obama are coming to get your guns, they could if they want to and while it would be a bloody shoot-out, the government will always outgun you and have more and better weaponry....
So truly, this idea against a gun registry is ridiculous....They would be better served getting a seat at the table....
MightyMopar
(735 posts)Pachamama
(16,887 posts) 
billh58
(6,635 posts)the Gungeon dwellers, but it represents the thinking and wishes of the majority of Americans.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)Then we lost the House and Senate because of the backlash against the Assault Weapons Ban.
Dr_Scholl
(212 posts)This will likely cost the Democrats seats in 2014.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Yet we are supposed to believe that everyone who posts at DU is a Democrat who wants Democratic Party candidates to win?
NickB79
(19,253 posts)Pro-union, pro-health care, pro-women's rights, pro-environmental protection. I'm sure as hell a Democrat who wants the Democratic Party to keep winning.
But the current push for gun control does not inspire my confidence in that trend continuing through the next election cycle.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)I see it in comments from a lot of people I know.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)The assault weapons ban may have played a role but not the role you give it.
The gun lobby this time is a paper tiger. Lot of noise and threats but not much else. You just can't have an increase in gun violence without people wanting some changes made.
It amazes me that some people here don't get it!
dexter sinister
(34 posts)NOW I get it. Well done, my friend, well done! 
primavera
(5,191 posts)Do gun owners wish to see guns in the hands of the mentally ill? Do they wish to see people carrying guns in schools? Do they want to see people be able to circumvent background checks when purchasing a firearm? Why would they? So what problem should they have with any of those proposed measures?
billh58
(6,635 posts)of the most vocal of the Gungeon crowd want all of those things you mentioned. To them the 2nd Amendment is ironclad, and allows for no regulation whatsoever. These are the hard-core NRA types and followers of Wayne "Pepe" LePew and Ted Nugent.
These are the "cold, dead hands" gun huggers that enable tragedies like Sandy Hook, and call it the "price we must pay for liberty."
primavera
(5,191 posts)The NRA supported the 1934 National Firearms Act regulating the machine guns and sawed-off shotguns commonly used by organized crime. They also supported the 1968 Gun Control Act. What do you suppose happened to the gun community to make them into such militant, fanatical opponents of any and all gun control measures?
billh58
(6,635 posts)Wayne Lapierre, Ted Nugent, and the NRA's corporate sponsors (most of which are gun manufacturers) and right-wing nut jobs like the Koch Brothers and Fox News. When you barely scratch the surface, it all comes back to extremist, Tea-Party Republicans.
Just one of many:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/koch-brothers-network_n_1560596.html
primavera
(5,191 posts)I confess, I've often suspected that the radicalization of the NRA reflects more the profit motives of gun manufacturers than the priorities of the average gun owner. And you're right, of course: politics has become so much more radicalized in general, why should gun politics be the exception?
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Mental illness is stigmatized enough as it is. If the federal government decides to define mental illness as a lifelong condition that cannot be treated, then yeah, I oppose it. It sets a bad precedent.
And none of the stuff you mentioned will actually stop mass shootings, so there's nothing to balance it.
The only thing that will stop mass shootings is limiting magazine capacity and limiting magazine change rate. It has to be both, not one or the other. Anything else isn't going to cut it.
primavera
(5,191 posts)The term could simply be defined by the statute. If you want a gun, you're clearly suffering symptoms of: acute anxiety disorder; paranoid feelings of persecution by an imaginary hostile world in which everyone is out to get you; delusions that having a gun will make you and others around you safer; and sociopathic disregard for the countless innocent victims of the weapons you're trying to obtain and the spaghetti western culture you're endeavoring to promote. Ergo, you're way too crazy to have a gun.
No, seriously, you make a good point. But I'm not sure that not being allowed to have a firearm constitutes a stigma disproportionate to the benefit of keeping guns out of the hands of those lacking the emotional stability to own and use them safely. If I have epilepsy, for instance, I'm not allowed to drive a motor vehicle until such time that I can prove that I am on medication and that taking medication has made me seizure free for a sustained period of time and I therefore do not pose a threat to other drivers on the roads. As far as I'm concerned, that's a perfectly reasonable constraint. My freedoms and liberties do not extend so far as to give me a right to harm others or place them in undue jeopardy. If there's a significant chance that I will have a seizure while driving, lose control of my vehicle, and run over a bunch of people, such hazardous, impaired driving is not a "right" I have, nor should it be. I'm not suggesting that anyone who has ever been diagnosed with a mental illness be precluded from owning a gun, only that the burden of proof shift so that the mentally ill person demonstrate that their condition is under control and does not affect their ability to safely and responsibly own and use a firearm.
As for your assertion that none of the measures proposed will reduce mass shootings, I'm afraid we'll simply have to agree to disagree on that point.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...instead they defaulting with that idiotic speech. When "they" "come for our guns," I'm blaming you, Lapierre, for so completely dropping the ball on this.
Agree with ending the unregulated transfers. Iffy about national registration. Seems like it borders on a 4th Amendment violation. Yeah, yeah, I know about auto registration, but that is for something that is necessarily out in public and is on public (that is, government) roads. It also enforces smog compliance. Cars (or trucks usually) that never leave the farm or other private land do not need to be registered. Also, auto registration is at the state level.
Background checks? Check away. Time restrictions? I can't imagine buying one per month. Except for food and gas, I don't buy one of anything per month. So the only people who do acquire more than one gun per month are government agencies, FFL dealers for inventory, and those supplying organized crime. That really has to end.
Kennah
(14,276 posts)The NRA isn't going to be onboard for ANYTHING. Just accept that.
Regulating private sales will probably get very broad support, but it won't have any effect on any of the massacres as those almost always involve legally purchased and owned guns. Doesn't make regulating private sales a bad thing, but I do foresee it creating a very large and lucrative black market in unlicensed guns. Expect "gun theft" to rise.
Registration gets people very nervous. That will get challenged, but it's hard to say what the SCOTUS will rule.
One a month rationing doesn't accomplish anything either.
AW and magazine ban? A renewal of the 1994 law? There's many more of them in private hands now, and it wasn't really a ban since it didn't ban anything. But the phrase does roll off the tongue nicely, "Assault weapon ban."
Deep13
(39,154 posts)It's has been obvious for a long time that they represent gun makers, not their paying members.
The AWB did prohibit >10 round magazines and it made them harder to get. Guns are machines. They don't last forever.
If military pattern rifles are prohibited--and I am not necessarily advocating that--there would be steadily fewer of them as time went on.
What regulating so-called private transfers will do is prohibit straw man sales to Mexican drug cartels. Whatever problem we have with gun violence here is insignificant compared to the gang wars in Mexico. The Mexican government has resorted to using the regular army to fight the cartels. They make the drugs there (and here), they sell them here, they buy guns at shows, and send them back to Mexico. This creates a demand for new guns even if the manufacturers do not directly sell to criminals.
Kennah
(14,276 posts)There wasn't ANY impediment, other than making them more expensive.
Since the AWB expired, how many millions more LCMs are in private hands? 1 million? 5 million? 10 million? So 31 to 40 million?
I believe there was a provision in the AWB that allowed one to return a broken or damaged AW or LCM to the manufacturer and buy a new one. The wear out factor was NEVER going to come into play.
Guns are machines, but they are repairable and incredibly durable.
The LCM ban, if it were a real ban, would stand a far better chance of actually doing something than the guns themselves. I mean, seriously, what was accomplished by removing bayonet lugs and flash suppressors from AR-15s?
Deep13
(39,154 posts)And I'm not suggesting we re-enact the deeply flawed 1994 law. I did find the ban on flash suppressors and especially bayonet lugs to be especially ridiculous.
Kennah
(14,276 posts)To a criminal, it's just a business expense.
To a massacre killer, they aren't exactly looking at their long term financial status.
RainbowOverTexas
(71 posts)There are still a ton a well kept operating guns from 100+ years ago. When a product is made well it will last a long time.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)I wouldn't shoot an original '03 Springfield no matter what kind of shape it is in. Or a '94 Winchester. Steel fatigues over time. I'd want a microscopic inspection before trusting something a century old.
The safe queens sitting in cosmoline for a long time will never see daylight. They are collectibles only. That applies to most collections. So we don't need to worry about those.
AR 15s, Sigs, Berettas etc are made of aluminum, unlike '03 Springfields and '94 Winchesters. They don't last forever. ARs need meticulous care. And anything semi-automatic has small parts that will wear out. Machines in actual use wear out. And ones held illegally or used in crimes will be confiscated by police further limiting the number available.
RainbowOverTexas
(71 posts)you can still by uppers even with the AWB. It would still take decades to get rid of them, not that that would matter anyways as any severely restrictive ban wont pass congress and ban compliant guns will be nearly just as deadly. Also I do have a Winchester 1873 that shoots pretty well, but I dont shoot it very often.
John.Mekki
(10 posts)Once the storm will quiet down, it will be business as usual
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)and this gun free for all is over.
Good idea.
Then you will have children with guns in schools
billh58
(6,635 posts)has been served a pizza. Enjoy...
hack89
(39,171 posts)then I would question that the change is monumental. Illinois is one of the most gun hostile states.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)there are so many more who are motivated now. It is a sea change, really.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Cosmocat
(14,565 posts)everyone was caught up in the moment, the tragedy of these poor children dying and during the Holiday season.
But, by New Years, everyone was back and immersed in their lives.
It is not even on the radar at this point.
And, end of the day, that was all that lunatic fringe in the House needed, just enough daylight to be able to just not deal with it.
Never was going to happen.
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)good news and it will be a galvanizing force for Democrats.
Great news!
Kennah
(14,276 posts)Unless there's a sweep out of the GOP in 2014, expect nothing significant to change.
Dr_Scholl
(212 posts)And not just because of Republicans, but conservative Democrats as well.
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)we will all see.
The gun free for all in this country is over.
Kennah
(14,276 posts)The questions are how much, how soon, and what.
Symbolic gestures like an assault weapon ban may actually do more harm than good and will require expenditure of significant political capital.
Regulation of private sales is probably one of the real changes that has a LOT of support across the political spectrum.
dexter sinister
(34 posts)hahahahaha
x 100000000 
sadbear
(4,340 posts)The issues of god and gays has pretty much been destroyed. It's time to destroy the issue of guns now.
Fuck 2014 and 2016. Losing those elections will be worth getting the guns issue under control. It may be a short term loser, but its definitely a long term winner.
Put America first.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)What do you would happen to the Democratic agenda as a whole if that happens?
FFS, think about what you're saying.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)if at all. Republicans have no idea how to govern and really, they have no desire to govern. If they did retake the Congress, it wouldn't last long.
Democratic agenda? Until we take the money out of elections, the Democratic agenda is a pipe dream. Having a Democratic Congress means nothing to a 'Democratic agenda'.
And I'm not talking about losing the presidency. America's not going to elect another republican president in a long time.
Yeah, I thought about what I was saying, and yeah, it's totally worth it.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)doing them.
"Normal" people. This shows how sick this society has become. Foisting off the sickness of this society upon some of those who suffer from illness is insulting to the maximum. What must be addressed is America's addiction to violence and destruction. It's about the base values of this country coming to change, not coralling those who suffer mental illness. It's about regulating gun lobbyists, weapons manufacturers, and to a larger extent, the military industrial complex.
And fuck Michael Bloomberg, who called NYPD his "private army", and used them to bloody and randomly arrest Occupiers for more than a year. If HE wants guns gone, it's because it's a power grab and a further move into a police state, which is already most obviously encroaching. The Bill of Rights obviously doesn't matter anymore. No way should only a militarized police be the only ones to have weapons.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)NickB79
(19,253 posts)To summarize:
Step 1: Propose gun legislation that doesn't stand a chance of passing the House.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Gun control!
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)And all the talk about the past didn't have Mike Bloomberg part of that equation in the past.
As he is the Great Equalizer against the NRA
and will heavily back ANY candidate on any side who is anti-NRA, anti-Gun in the street.
So it behooves the democrats to be on that side.
The NRA has lost this issue. Might take a while, a decade who knows, but the beginning of the end has arrived for them.
(now let's get rid of their tax free status, let's change some laws, repharase some things then call the NRA a terror org. and freeze all their assets so they can't pay their million dollar suits to blackmail politicians anymore).
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Because with the districts as gerrymandered as they are with Rs spread out to make bare majorities in most districts and Ds crowded into a few, if the Rs lose the majority in Congress, they may never get it back.
overthehillvet
(38 posts)on every gun sale in this country. period.... I want back ground checks to somehow include mental health records too.
I am a gun owner but I do not want criminals or unstable people to have guns. I am not an NRA member and never have been.
I was talking to some friends who were at a gun show in Ca today. They said there was a line at the NRA booth all day as people waited to give their money to join the NRA.
I think you have posted this obit much too early. The patient might have a head cold but this is not terminal for them.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Might take decades.
But it is done.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)You celebrate that that the worst of the 1%ers might be able to buy elections. Is that either liberal or progressive?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)they do
so we gotta do
a winner does what a loser won't
and killings by guns are not a partisan or label issue
one death=one dead person
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Are you sure you are on the right site? Freeperville and other sewers love that kind of logic
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)like a wheel, the NRA soundbytes go round and round
I am not against money. You appear to be based above..
It's a fake issue.
If you were against money, you would have advocated all the time to get rid of the #1 lobby group in the nation, the NRA. But I have never seen you advocate that.
SO your concern is touching now.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)He will buy what he can, but it will not matter much if at all
His MAIG members has a higher felony rate that the general populace, let alone those with CCWs.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Bloomie is a nasty 1%er and has done more evil than many in this world with his power and privilege.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I understand why you don't like him, but you keep distorting him to play your angle
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)His networth is estimated at 25B today...so unless he has some real sweet deal as the ultimate 1%er, I cannot see him donating 100s of billions to anything.
MAIG has more felon members as a percentage than the general population
beevul
(12,194 posts)Not.
"Hundreds of billions"
Bwahahahaha.
primavera
(5,191 posts)That's what passing laws is: identifying a problem and seeking to address it. All developed nations do it.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)This won't work for me.
In Washington, when the appearance of working on something is more important than actually doing something, a task force is appointed.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)So in that respect this pleases me. He is representing at least some of the people who voted for him. They asked for leadership on gun control and he is delivering it. That's where my pleasure with this ends.
Gun control is a divisive and dangerous issue. It is, for the right, what women's rights are to those of us on the left. They are just that passionate. If "legitimate rape" infuriated and inspired you, gun control infuriates them. The difference is that they are armed and many truly believe that their weapons are all that stands between liberty and tyranny -- so yes, they are dangerous. Ask Bill Clinton just how dangerous they are.
Worse, politically, is that there are a great many Democratic voters who are NOT in favor of gun control. This is not a left and right issue, it's not conservatives versus progressives, it's gun rights activists versus gun control activists. So even a win doesn't get you votes. Which is one reason why Pelosi, when she first assumed her role as speaker of the House, said publicly that gun control legislation was NOT on the table. Obviously gun control advocates don't care about this, but others might.
Finally, while I am thrilled to see Obama finally proposing SOMETHING that at least some of his voters seem to want, something at least sort-of left, I would far rather see him direct this energy and political capital towards addressing things like wealth and income inequality, social justice, poverty, healthcare, and our free trade disaster. One in five American kids doesn't have enough food to eat. Their parents are wage slaves at Walmart if they are lucky. Free Trade (thanks Bill) has destroyed our jobs, our wages, our unions, and our future. Healthcare costs are climbing so far and fast you'd think NASA had launched them on one of their deep space probes.
And the wealthy and wealth inequality are out of control. Seriously out of fucking control.
Twenty murdered kids is a horror, but ten MILLION kids going hungry apparently isn't even worthy of mention. I want to see Obama tackle those issues.
tradecenter
(133 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)enough by either the 20 kids murdered or 10 million at risk of hunger to demand real action and real solutions are two sides of the same coin.
Maybe if we could convince people to really want to make life better for children in one way, whether to make sure they don't get shot or they get good food to eat everyday, that progress would start us moving on more issues.
The US simply must address these gun massacres, if we wish to claim to be a civilized country.
President Obama has 4 years and no reelection campaign ever again. I hope we see progress on many issues.
area51
(11,910 posts)when we don't have a right to health care?
napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)I remember this powerful sign outside the homeless paper's office in Seattle. It asked:
What is the difference between a prisoner of war under the Geneva convention and a homeless person?
The prisoner of war has a right to food, shelter, and medical treatment.
Then under it, this picture of a poor homeless guy sleeping on a bench.
It was so powerful because it brings to attention the way the innocent can be treated worse than the guilty, and how important it is to help people.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)We will have your back on this. So many of us will fight for this, it will make the Brady Bill seem like a stick in the mud. Seriously.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)You can't get significant legislation passed unless you find a well-funded lobby to support it. Forget about passing a bill on its merits. The NRA is against the bill? Maybe retailers like Wal-Mart will support it. Who elected the NRA and Wal-Mart?
To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Right after a public option for health insurance and $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue from the wealthy.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Nor would it have affected the shooters ability to rack up a body count in an elementary school.
Nor will it affect the nation's gun violence numbers or the overall violence numbers.
If we're not talking drug legalization, then we're just pontificating and pandering.
LongHairedCountryBoy
(6 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)I trust VP Biden to do the right thing. He did help write the original law that included the assault weapon ban Bush- gang let expire.
Walmart is the top retail gun seller in America. I'm sure the walmart stockholders don't want to hurt their stock.
I bet reasonable controls will pass. Any old school politicans who get nra bribes would look like unelectable baby killers if they fought to keep elephant stoppers in the average crazies hands.
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
Pholus
(4,062 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Pholus
(4,062 posts)Or is your lack of comprehension merely the product of poor homeschooling? Seriously, "your Heston," "your Kipling," "your Shakespeare" would just be references to the subject's body of work or quotations...oh never mind I'm pretty sure it's a wasted explanation with you.
Finally, you didn't even ask me you asked some other poster this all important question. Way to pay attention there. That makes you what, like 0 for 2?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Or will you be going the Cheney/Romney route, like most gun Prohibitionists?
Pholus
(4,062 posts)And my read says the guy you were trying to mug was yanking your chain in the first place.
tward3
(1 post)I have owned guns since I was six years old. I am 52. I have never considered using one to harm anyone. Taking guns from fifty million men like me would do nothing to prevent killings. How many million otherwise peaceful Americans would you kill in order to take guns which pose no threat? Are you willing to shoot me to take my guns?
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And then let us know how it goes...
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)I guess you should have looked eh?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...maybe you could answer that question?
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)many gun trolls that show up here. What question?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)Get a grip.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)It's called violence by proxy.
Also there a lot of women who own and can competently shoot firearms. Lots of former women veterans, hunters and some who have just plain empowered themselves.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Which would mean the vast majority of the 'repeal the Second Amendment and seize all guns'
crowd are, in fact, chickenhawks...
MightyMopar
(735 posts)Calling other DU'ers defamatory names for not volunteering for what the poster hopes is a civil war is wrong on many levels. If I was younger I would gladly volunteer.
I think technology could help beat the rebel gun extremists much easier than anyone anticipated. if Google wants to drive your car, I'm sure robots and drones could make life tough for rebel gun extremists
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)99%+ of those advocating the seizure of guns expect others to do it for them.
You also know little of asymmetrical warfare. What happens when "they" look just like "us"?
You expect it will be over in short order; however what you'll most likely get
is Ulster's "Troubles" writ large...
MightyMopar
(735 posts)People would lose their cushy lives, families and homes to keep a close to useless rifle? You wonder why there's the term "gun nuts"?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...might have other ideas- and therein lies a very big problem.
If 99% of gun owners go along quietly, and the rest decide the don't need to play well with
others, we will have tens of thousands of people that are better armed than most cops
thinking that a war is on.
And at that point, it will be. Only fools and lunatics could look forward to such a thing.
Unfortunately, there are people feel just that way- just suppress your gag reflex and read
Free Republic and other right wing mouthpieces.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)MightyMopar
(735 posts)I've been shot at before in this crazy gun culture. I was on the high school rifle team and played linebacker, I'd give my life to beat the NRA crowd and save those first graders at Newtown.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...chickenhawks that expect others to do it for them. But before you go, consider
how many times in history it's been said "it will be over in a month or two/by Christmas"
Or just remember this infamous photograph:
MightyMopar
(735 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)The problem was you elected to receive.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Maybe the gun confiscation volunteers could start today with the firearms that are currently illegal.
Response to onehandle (Original post)
Post removed
Vanje
(9,766 posts)You left your caps-lock on.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)Extreme RBKA is a conservative position, i hope you like your Bagger and ALEC allies.
Furthermore I don't think it would be as hard as is made out. If these extremist are hiding behind guns becuse of scary Obama they'll piss themselves when they see the first robot tank in their driveway. You'll have your hands in the air and your guns laid out in front of that robot tank very quickly.
RainbowOverTexas
(71 posts)what exactly is high capacity ammunition?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Enough about how you play with your onehandle.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)After a similar massacre, Australians came together and took strong action to prevent future slaughters. And it worked. No civilized country tolerates routine gun massacres.
Aspire to end the massacres! Other civilized countries have led the way.
As long as Americans have the constitutional right to have arsenals of mass death in their basements, the gun massacres will continue.
Repeal the Second Amendment and enact real gun reform now. Stop the gun slaughter.
KeepinItReal4u
(4 posts)Assault weapons are illegal in CT. but this horrific event still took place
"Sec. 53-202b. Sale or transfer of assault weapon prohibited. Class C felony. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, distributes, transports or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives any assault weapon, except as provided by sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class C felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which two years may not be suspended or reduced."
source : http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202a.htm
CT. has some of the nations strictest laws and not one of them prevented the mentally ill person from committing the crime
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/17/connecticut-gun-laws-among-the-nations-strictest/
Response to onehandle (Original post)
Post removed