President Obama Enlists Public to Urge Congress to Act Against Gun Violence

[cal04]

Source: ABC News

President Obama is trying to enlist the public’s help to urge lawmakers to act on his proposals to curb gun violence, telling Americans, “It’s got to be up to you” to make a difference.

(snip)
“None of this will be easy,” the president says in his weekly address. “Already, we’re seeing pundits, politicians, and special-interest lobbyists calling any attempt at commonsense reform an all-out assault on liberty — not because that’s true, but because that’s how they get higher ratings and make more money. And behind the scenes, they’re doing everything they can to protect the status quo.”

“But this time, it can’t be up to them. It’s got to be up to you,” he says.

(snip)
“Ask your member of Congress if they support universal background checks and renewing a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And if the answer is no, ask them why not. Ask them why an ‘A’ grade from the gun lobby is more important than keeping kids safe in a first grade classroom,” the president says.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/obama-enlists-public-to-urge-congress-to-act-against-gun-violence/

---

&feature=player_embedded

[secondwind]

1. K&R 1-800-980-6944 ........ make the call NOW!

[krispos42]

2. So I'm to call my Congresscritter and urge them to legalize pot?

And universal background checks? Because that will certainly reduce gun violence.

Bans on assault weapons and magazine-capacity limits certainly won't.

[farminator3000]

5. sure, that too, why not?

of course REGULATING ass. weapons and mags will reduce crime- (and weed instead of alcohol, also less crime)

if mrs. lanza didn't have a bushblaster and 30 round clips, obviously less violence.

if james holmes didn't have his guns, because he was known to be dangerous, no violence.

it isn't rocket science.

they 'banned' machine guns, people still have them, but who has gotten killed by a full auto machine gun lately?

[krispos42]

6. "assault weapon" is and will continue to be a red herring

If the fuckstain had had a conventionally-styled Mini-14 and 10-round magazines, there would have been just as many dead in Newtown. Sames goes for Sideshow Bob in Aurora.


If we don't address the root causes of violence, then trying to regulate the tools of violence will not work. Trust me, legalizing pot will save far more lives than a magazine-capacity limit or banning rifles with pistol grips.

[farminator3000]

8. it is odd how you make these proclamations of truth out of thin air

i don't think assault is the best term, either, but you have to start somewhere.

i like 'offensive weapons regulation act'.

but they are just words- the concept is the important thing-

if lanza had only 10 rounds, then someone would have a chance to tackle him while reloading (ala loughner)

if holmes' bushblaster hadn't jammed, he might have killed 40 people.

so, once again, obviously, the firepower of the gun has a direct impact on the outcome.

if mrs. lanza was forced to keep her 'target shooting' gun at the range...because her child was disturbed...

not rocket science, just common sense

[krispos42]

9. It's avoiding the real issue

I mean, Fuckstain left a trail of half-empty magazines throughout the school and shot kids as many as 11 times; obviously ammunition capacity was not a factor. He killed the adults first, I would presume, then shot a bunch of 6-year-olds at his leisure, the sick fuck.

And if Sideshow Bob in Aurora had stuck to using regular magazines (either 30 round or 10 round ones) his rifle would not have jammed and he would not have had to use the shotgun. But again, he was in the front of the theater and everybody was running away from him; reloading would not have been a problem.


If the issue is firepower, then stop worrying about regulating semi-automatic guns fed from detachable magazines ONLY IF they have more than an allowable number of secondary features.

Either regulate all semiautomatic guns, or regulate all guns fed from a detachable magazine. Or both, if you prefer.

[farminator3000]

32. no, it is exactly the issue- violence happens because any yahoo can buy any gun they want

you state these 'truths' as if you were there when it went down.

the terminology that you are nitpicking about actually mattering is the red herring-

i'd be fine with calling them "rambo-style fudpuckers".

all the hoohah about the 2nd amendment is just plain silly- there are more guns than people or cars.
everyone who wants a gun has one, i think. all the nra does is sell more gunz, period.

the issue is you don't need a military gun designed to kill the most people from far away to defend yourself.

back to machine guns- there are 15,000 in AZ- even though the laws against machine guns could be stronger, they still aren't used by psychos because they are regulated.

you can't regulate all semi-autos- there are 100s of millions of handguns of that type.

you can regulate detachable mags as a 'military' feature- there are millions of guns that have built in chambers for hunters and such

you could use 8 as a number of rounds.

the feds have to be involved, the states obviously can't get their s together:
http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/17/states-take-action/

***

But the research on actual gunfights, the kind that happen not in a politician’s head but in fluorescent-lit stairwells and strip-mall restaurants around America, reveals something surprising. Winning a gunfight without shooting innocent people typically requires realistic, expensive training and a special kind of person, a fact that has been strangely absent in all the back-and-forth about assault-weapon bans and the Second Amendment.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/16/your-brain-in-a-shootout-guns-fear-and-flawed-instincts/

[dkf]

44. So do you think that legislators are clueless...

Or are they trying to appease the public without doing much that would REALLY piss off gun owners?

Or is this an incremental thing where first they have these features, then they remove the one, then the other, and then semi-autos are illegal?

I don't get this.

[krispos42]

45. Well...

We have a disgusting habit in this country of letting unelected people write laws. "Unelected legislators", or lobbyists, write these things and our congress critters and their staffs (in other words, future lobbyists) just sign onto these things. Happens every day.

Hell, there are dozens of think tanks that write legislation just for the purpose of having it ready for when the time is right. That is what ALEC does.

So some of them probably are clueless. The rest. ..

I think they are latching what already passed 20 years ago. The terms have already passed into the common vocabulary. It's politically feasible and garners positive attention from the base.

The beauty is that once the term is minted and legitimized, then it can be expanded under the radar.

The 1993 ban created a new class of firearms, "assault weapons", defined them in an arbitrary way, then proceeded to ban them.

The new, proposed ban now expands the definition to include more guns, among other things.

[BainsBane]

13. root causes of violence?

what would that be? Men? Sure, we could look you all up, but that would interfere with civil liberties.

[krispos42]

14. You want a list?

Here ya go, in no particular order:

Drug prohibition.

Economic stratification.

Wealth inequality.

Corruption of the political system by wealth inequality.

Lack of unions and collective bargining.

Lack of job security.

Lack of job advancement.

Lack of universal single-payer health care, including mental and physical health.

Lack of environmental regulation.

The prison-industrial complex.

Lack of manufacturing jobs.

Pollution of the air and water with toxic, mind-altering chemicals and elements.

Lack of a comprehensive, government-supported system of cheap or free higher education.



Or, yanno, we could just kill all the men in the world. Or all the poor people.

Or maybe just the poor men?

[BainsBane]

18. in other words

anything to avoid giving up the mass murder machines you need to make you feel complete.

How did James Holmes, a PhD student, commit murder because of poverty or lack of manufacturing jobs? The poor can't afford mass murder weapons, the kind you spend day and night fighting to protect above all else. How about Alex Lazza or the Columbine killers. None of them were poor, and very few if any mass murderers are.

Your assertion that poor men are responsible for mass murders is categorically false. The number one factor correlation to violent crime is the proportion of men from age 16- 30 in the population. The US is a relatively prosperous nations with murder rates far in excess of most poor nations without widespread proliferation of guns. Yet again, you misfire.

There is not a chance in hell I will ever believe you give a rats ass about poverty. But i do believe you enjoy creating smokescreens with no evidentiary basis. No one who spends his days showing complete disregard for human life has any moral authority to speak about poverty.

The corruption of the poltiical system is EXACTLY why we have gun proliferation unlike anywhere else in the world. And you can clap yourself on the back for contributing to it.

[krispos42]

28. Mass murder machines

In other words, any gun you don't like.

Men commit most murders. And most murders occur in poor, urban areas, if memory serves. And "most" is not "all". I thought that was obvious, but again...

I didn't say the poor were responsible for most mass murders, though. Sorry.

The poor seem to be affording plenty of murder weapons, and since mass murder is defined as 5 more victims, they by default have mass-murder machines as well. FAIL.



That's what it's all about, isn't it? You despise and fear people that have any interest at all in military hardware or history, and you want to outlaw any action that you think will in any way encourage that kind of interest. Thought police.

And here's a clue: PROPOSED GUN RESTRICTIONS, especially irrational, reflexive, knee-jerk ones, are fantastic business for the gun industry. But you're the one waving the bloody bodies of the Sandy Hook victims, not me.

Gun sales when up under Obama because everybody figured there was a good change he would outlaw certain types of guns. And you know what? Looks like they were right. But people have spend the last 4 years or so buying guns that they figured they wouldn't be able to get in the future. And you know what? It looks like they were right on that one, too.

YOUR side's irrational, knee-jerk reaction to Sandy Hook is SELLING MORE OF THE SAME GUNS YOU WANT TO BAN.

It happened during the 1993 ban, too. People bought far more semiautomatic rifles DURING the ban than before the ban. YOUR SIDE'S work in 1993 actually caused MORE people to buy semiautomatic rifles, and shifted the industry to adapting those rifles to a wide variety of uses above and beyond the "military fetish" you claim they have.



And the corporate interest stuff is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.

Why? Because gun companies make the same amount of gun every year, regardless of the laws. Why? Because 15 million guns a year are sold in the country. That is the demand for them. And even if, tomorrow, an assault weapons ban was implemented, there would STILL be 15 million guns sold in 2013. And gun makers would make about the same amount of money.

Your positions are complete and utter horseshit. You seem to think that if the AWB prevents 1 millions guns from being sold, that the number of guns sold will drop by a million.

IT WON'T. A million DIFFERENT guns will be sold instead.


And I'm waiting for you to admit that the corporate media is getting all of this gun control stuff right. And has been since, say 1989, when the movement first started. Because we know that the oligarchy just LOVES the idea of heavily-armed peasants, right? Right?



If I was the gun industry, I'd be pouring money into YOUR side.




And you've made it clear sever times today that you support torture and extraordinary rendition and domestic spying and drone assassination, as long as it has the blessings of the Democratic Party and Democrats. If that's not the very definition of "authoritarian", I'll wait for a better one to come along.

[farminator3000]

38. your previous post reads like something Lapierre's kid would have written for a school paper

it goes from false 'statistics' to 'thought police' to 'laws are bad' to reverse logic AND false premise (the nra ensured the first AWB had plenty of loopholes so sales of holy weapons could continue abated) to taking it personally to defending gun companies to making personal attacks to going yay, buy more guns to BS again and concluding with the preposterous idea that Dems are somehow more authoritarian than Repukes.

WTF?

[krispos42]

40. Actually, that was meant specifically for him from a another thread

And I never insinuated nor stated that the NRA ensured anything about the first ban.


I also never said that Dems were more authoritarian than the Repubes. My point was that disagreeing with the party is not proof of being a troll for the Other Side.

[daybranch]

27. Do not forget

already enacted gerrymandering and the proposal to use this to deny not only the wi8shes of the people within the state but also to let legislators select the President rather than the people doing it. Look atwhat repugnants want to do in this area. Weare fighting gerrymandering in Ohio. We will not be stopped.

[daybranch]

26. It aint so.

Limitations on rate of fire and capacity of magazines reduce the killing capacity of the weapon whether called an assault rifle or not. Reducing this ability to kill great numbers in a very brief time decreases the threat posed to society's innocents. As a gun owner with a family tradition of guns for both hunting and self protection, and the son of a father who was murdered even as he killed his attacker with a handgun, and a combat infantryman who served as a point man and later as a machine gunner, I am very aware of the capability of military type weapons including semiautomatic high caliber weapons, fully automatic weapons of intermediate calibers, and belt fed machine guns. I know there are benefits for homeowner protection about AR 15 and other military style weapons which are attractive for home self defense. For example semiautomatic Ar 15s are smaller and have little recoil. These characteristics make them more useful in the close quarters faced in a home break in where the intended victim may be smaller or weaker such as most females. The lack of high recoil itself attracts women to the gun for self defense. It also may be that the simple operation including firing several rounds and avoidance of reloading actions such as pumpimng a multishot shotgun, also makes these more appealing to women. In actuality, men consider whether our wives and love ones wil be able to protect themselves and the family when we are unavailable, so these guns are often purchased with females in mind.
However while I understand the additional usefulness and attractiveness of a semiautomatic military style rifle for home defense purposes, I abhor the additional mechanisms that can be combined to provide an extremely high rate of fire for sustained periods. In particular bump stocks in combination with high capacity magazines. I have no wish here to inform those dirous of such features to seek them out but I wish you are horrified as I am by the knowledge that with these mechanisms implemented by the gun owners them selves that the gun can fire over a hundred rounds in a minute without reloading. While 100 and 200 round drum magazines are obviously unnecessary, there is really no valid family protection reason for anything over 5 round magazines. Some sy we should allow 10 round magazines but taping 2 ten round magazines together gives youtwenty rounds- way more than needed in a short time. 30 round magazines taped together quickly get you 60 rounds etc. Five round magazines should be the legal limit.
By limiting the magazine to 5 you greatly decrease the ability of the gun to fire high volumes of bullets in a short time- practically eliminating the usefulness of the bump stock also. So limit the magazines to 5 rounds which was adequate for semiautomatic military rifles in past wars. That certainly is adequate for protection of your home and family and even exceeds any utility for hunting.

[madville]

33. I've been around guns a long time myself

It's surprisingly easy to make or modify some firearms and magazines. Give me a welder, dremel tool and drill press and it would be an hour job to put a couple of AR-15 ten round or a few five round magazines together and make them 20 rounders. Weld the springs together for the extended length and add an anti-tilt follower for reliability.

Sure that might be illegal at some point in the future but if someone has evil intentions they won't care and a law won't stop them.

We are talking about simple pieces of aluminum, plastic and steel after all. Nobody cares about tinkering on stuff these days since it is readily available to purchase, take them off the market and necessity is the mother of invention and all that.

[farminator3000]

41. that's too bad about that. there ahould be a law against it.

if its that easy, i guess there should be a law that you can only own one mag of 8 or 10 rounds.

or put hidden serial numbers and tracking chips in ALL OF THEM and have a buyback for old ones.

the cops can track you through your phone if they want- why not put a chip in mags, it would be cheap. GPS or RFID.

[madville]

30. Under the AWB she still could have had the same weapons

People need to understand that the assault weapons ban would not have prevented this incident.

[farminator3000]

35. that only makes sense if you are talking about the OLD AWB or one that is too weak

see the chart in post #32-
CT has a 'ban', but she still had the gun.

this simply means the gun should be on the new list, which it is, i believe.

you need to understand the relationship between past, present, and future, for starters.

[madville]

37. I'm speaking of the present

Anything concerning assault weapons that would be able to get through congress would have to be as weak or weaker than the 1994 ban and at that point I doubt we could find enough votes willing to take the political risk over a limp law.

What list are you referring to? Banning guns by name is a weak tactic as well, they can rename a firearm in as much time as it takes to reprogram the engraver.

[farminator3000]

39. you are not

i'm talking about the new 'ban' proposed by Feinstein that bans ~120 guns and allows over 900 grandfathered in.

look it up, 'feinstein ban 2013', its on her site.

it bans both named guns and features, obviously.

so why does the 'ban' HAVE to be weak to get through? afraid of the NRA? you seem so...negative.

[madville]

42. I've already read it, won't pass in it's current form

It is doubtful it would get through the Senate, not a chance in the House.

Too many restrictions for this Congress. Nationwide registration under NFA will be a huge point of contention, bans too many features and doesn't have the previous loopholes that made the 1994 ban ineffective.

I'm just saying it won't pass in this Congress. 2-4-6 years from now, anybody's guess depending on elections.

[farminator3000]

43. that's your opinion, i'd say 900 grandfathered guns is quite generous

i don't really get how the new law lacking loopholes is a bad thing.

imagine, just for a moment, that the House would do what the MAJORITY of people want, instead of what the NRA wants.

it does sound crazy, but...


Would it be possible to tighten the law? In theory, yes. Back in 1996, Australia imposed a much stricter version of the assault weapons ban after a mass shooting. The Australian version avoided many of the loopholes in the U.S. law: Not only did the country ban all types of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, but it also spent $500 million buying up nearly 600,000 existing guns from private owners.

As Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff pointed out, Australia’s law appears to have curbed gun violence. Researchers in the British Medical Journal write that the ban was “followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides.”

Still, an Australia-style ban would face much more difficult hurdles in this country. For starters, there are more than 200 million guns in circulation in the United States, making a buyback much more costly. And a full ban would likely face heavier resistance here, both from the courts and the public. Even Feinstein has promised that her new version of the assault weapons ban would still “exempt over 900 specific weapons.” Gun-control advocates aren’t quite ready to propose overly sweeping measures.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/

***

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

***

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/assault-weapon-buy-back-bill-introduced/

[madville]

46. Whether the law is good or bad is not really the issue

The NRA and right wing will not allow the House to pass it. They would slaughter any Republican that voted yes in the primaries, maybe even go after Boehner for allowing a vote on it.

I'm just saying it doesn't pass in the next two years.

If they do allow it through I'll be convinced te GOP is on some planned suicide mission lol

[farminator3000]

47. the NRA has no right to declare issues or set agendas or influence anyone. it should stop.

they WERE about gun safety not too long ago...


http://thehill.com/homenews/news/278157-nra-stumbles-in-fight-with-obama-over-guns

they aren't off to a very good start.

imagine if it passed tomorrow and worked.

they'd be in even worse shape in 2014

i'm starting to think they'll shoot themselves in the feet, so to speak.

"4 million NRA Members Simultaneously Shot in Foot by Lone, Crazed Gunman"
would make a good title for an article about a LaPierre puke-speech.

[BainsBane]

10. why should you support the Democrat Party?

You're only on a Democratic site.

[krispos42]

15. The Democratic Party supported extraordinary rendition...

...torture, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, warrantless domestic spying, Gitmo, drone strikes, preventive detention, and diminishing the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.


And that's only since 2001.

Do you propose banning those that didn't support the wars when originally proposed and implemented?

[BainsBane]

21. brief history lesson

The Republicans dominated the House, Senate and the Presidency from 2001-2006. I guess they didn't cover that in Guns and Ammo.

The democratic party supports efforts to protect human life above whatever twisted thing that festers inside of you that makes you think you need mass murder weapons to feel complete.

[krispos42]

22. And significant portions of Democrats supported those things

And when the Democrats took power in 2006, THEY DIDN'T UNDO THEM. In fact, THEY CONTINUED them. How much stuff was renewed in the Defense Reauthorization Act? In the Patriot Act? How many were signed by Obama?

I believe ALL OF THEM.


The Democratic Party does NOT support efforts to protect human life. Not all of them, anyway.


The fact that you would make such a caricature of me says very dark things about you.

[BainsBane]

24. so you are admitting you hate Democrats?

Dark things about me? Who is the one doing everything in his power to oppose efforts to save the lives of defenseless children? You've made very clear what your values are in life.

[krispos42]

31. So you're a noble crusader now, and I'm a child-killer?

I reject the false dichotomy of the argument. I reject the notion that anything that can be done that might save children's lives should be done. I rejected it when the Republicans and Democrats told me that torture and war and spying would save children's lives, and I reject it now when people tell me that the country has to be disarmed "for the children".

People defending privacy rights are guaranteeing that children will be exploited and beaten and killed. Do you advocate for the destruction of privacy? You know, to save the children.

How much power to do you want to give the NSA to save the children? Imagine if all of our mail and internet traffit was monitored by the government! Imagine how many lives we would save!


I'm being sarcastic... are you?

How many defenseless children were killed in Iraq because Democrats supported the war? Afghanistan? If you're so concerned about the dead children, then are you for or against Democrats?

How about Obama?

[BainsBane]

34. " I reject the notion that anything that can be done"

that might save children's lives should be done." Yes, that much is clear. You value your own ability to stockpile weapons capable of wiping out an entire town above the rest of our right to live. No shock there.


Your torture excuse is bullshit. Torture is a form of violence. Assault weapons are a means of inflicting mass violence. That is their only purpose. They are not a right. The same culture that condones torture is the same culture that legitimates assault weapons, and typically the same people. The Tea Party is big backers of both. There is nothing in the constitution that privileges mass murderers above the rest of us.

Your attempts to pose as a civil libertarian are laughable. I don't believe your self serving canard for one minute. And I doubt any Democrat on this site is stupid enough to fall for your ruse. This is about gun profits above human life. That and the incredible sense of entitlement by people who think they are the only ones on this planet that matter, and that their so-called rights trump human life is thoroughly repulsive. As offensive as you may find it, others Americans besides you have a right to life. The constitution provides no guarantees for the rights of murderers or for the weapons that enable them to slaughter 20 people in sixty seconds. It is not a civil liberty. It's pure, unadulterated evil.

Only in America are they people so perverse they equate civil liberties with the machinery of death. We truly live in a diseased culture.

[krispos42]

51. Can I get your support for a national 5mph speed limit?

Yes? No?


I mean, it would save thousands of children's lives a year. But I guess you value your own ability to drive at deadly speeds to go visit your hair stylist than all those children's lives.


And the Democratic party passively supported torture. They did not hold Bush or any of his minions accountable, either during or after his administration. No investigations, no prosecutions, and they did not act to stop it during Bush's time in office. So, do you support torture? Keep in mind the Democratic Party does.

Besides, torturing terrorism suspects saves lives. You want to save lives, right?

[BainsBane]

53. this is exactly how you convince more Americans to support gun control

Keep it up. The NRA has succeeded in pushing more Americans toward supporting an assault weapons ban, and you are doing your part too. All the time and money the Brady campaign wasted when they could have sent you guys on the road and had the deal sewn up in no time.

For not being a member of the NRA you display an uncanny ability to recite uncle Wayne's talking points verbatim.

[krispos42]

54. So you're not willing to do anything

To save children from needless death. You have limits.

[BainsBane]

55. are you willing to subject guns to the same restrictions cars have?

Registration with the state and federal government through VIN numbers? Mandatory insurance, rigorous federal regulations as to how they are manufactured and operate so as to minimize casualties? Any car used in a crime is quickly tracked down through federal databases than are explicitly illegal for guns thanks to the gun lobby. Every one who operates a car is licensed by the state and must produce a birth certificate to receive that license. They need to be tested, they are limited by age, and if they violate the terms of the use of that vehicle they lose their driving privileges.

Then there is the fact that the purpose of cars is transportation and the purpose of assault weapons is war and mass murder.

Let's see: transportation or mass murder. That's a tough decision, but I'm going to venture that transportation has a redeeming social function while mass murder doesn't.

Thanks for the side show. Another empty talking point easily refuted by anyone with an IQ over 45. Of course the fact you people have repeated it 1000 times in this month alone makes that a bit easier.

[krispos42]

57. Regardless of intended purpose

Thousands of kids are killed by cars every year. Are you willing to lower the speed limit to 5mph to end these needless deaths?

Answer the question. Prove to me that when you preach to me about doing anything to save the lives of innocent children you walk the walk.

[BainsBane]

60. how on earth

would you buy your guns if you couldn't transport them in a car? How would the WMD you worship get to market without the evil cars? By all means, revert to the days of horse and buggy. That would take care of the assault weapon issue.

Thanks for ignoring my points. It shows how little you have to say. Speed limit are 30, 55, and 65 respectively. Limits on guns, non-existent. Gun makers are also exempt from law suit over the deadly consequences of their products. I would be very happy to see guns subject to the same restrictions as cars. You, however, ignore the argument because you lack the ability to counter it. Of course one can't blame you individually. That NRA meme is unsupportable by logic or facts.

[krispos42]

62. You're dodging the question.

It's not about me, it's about you. Do you support lowering the speed limit to 5 miles per hour to save thousands of children a year? Yes or no?


There are plenty of limits on guns. Where to carry, how to carry, how to transport, what kind of ammunition you can buy, the caliber of the barrel, and the operating mechanism are a few things. So are how to buy them. You can't sell them across state lines without going through a federal firearms licensee. You can't sell them to foreigners, criminals, the mentally ill, people with protection orders against them, etc. And states like California also specify lots more stuff... how well armored a gun store has to be, an assault weapon ban, a magazine-capacity ban, outlawing private handgun transfers, etc.


Now, I answered your question. Please answer mine.

[BainsBane]

56. and of course there are speed limits already

federally mandated. The gun lobby refuses ANY restrictions on guns, and you insist any effort to restrict your access to mass murder machines equates with torture. So that's another great analogy in favor of gun control. Thanks. I knew I could count on you.

[krispos42]

58. there are thousands of gun laws on the books

California alone has over 109, 000 words in its gun laws.

Try again.

[BainsBane]

61. 109,000 words?

Really? Name laws than impose restrictions comparable to that on cars. Since word count means so much to you, tell us how many words are devoted to traffic and automobiles in California.

Yes, there is so much gun control. It's oppressive. Now we know you were spewing pure bullshit in Meta. As I noted, a different response in every thread.

[krispos42]

63. At last count.

I copy and pasted all of California's laws into Word and did a word count. I got slightly less than 109,000. Rural states like Vermont and Wyoming had 5,000 or less.


Your turn.


And I have no problems with stricter restrictions on guns and gun owners that carry in public. But you don't want to know my opinion, you want to tell me what it is.


And I can't give the same reply to Question B when it is vastly different from Question A. If I did, THAT would be bullshit. And you know that. The discussion wanders, as they are wont to do, and you claim it's me dodging the question. Of course, you mask your questions in accusations, but that's okay; you're pro-gun and thus your comments and insults are immune from repercussions.

[Robb]

11. "ANYTHING but GUNs!!111"

[krispos42]

16. Guns are a tool, not a cause.

I reject the notion that it's okay to ignore poverty, shitty schools, shitty healthcare, etc., just as long as nobody's killing anybody.

[Robb]

17. And I think you're pretending we can't walk and chew gum at the same time to protect your guns.

[krispos42]

19. Not my guns

I don't have anything that would be affected by either Connecticut's current or Feinstein's proposed Assault Weapons Ban.

That's not the issue. The issue is that there exists a segment of the political landscape that is so determined to have as few guns in private hands as possible that they will pass any law possible, regardless of sense or effectiveness.

[Robb]

20. But you admit to the rest? Do you REALLY think we can't do two things at once?

I don't think you do. I think you're being, generously, intellectually dishonest -- and it colors all of your posts.

[krispos42]

23. I must have missed the part about what two things you want to do

Please explain. Do you mean an AWB and drug legalization?

I think the latter will save far more lives, and improve society far more overall, then the former, which I feel will do nothing to either save lives or improve society.


I support universal background checks, and I fine with firearms trafficking being federal, if it matters.

[BainsBane]

49. specious argument

there always exists a segment of the population that believes something. A segment of the population believes the moon landing was a hoax. So what? That isn't the issue at question. There are very precise measures proposed by the president that you oppose. Not only that, you have insulted Elizabeth Warren, Obama, the vast majority of members on this site, and the majority of the American public as "stupid" because they support an assault weapons ban. Oddly enough, most of us don't equate intelligence with an unyielding defense of an individual's "right" to own weapons enabling him to commit mass murder. That position would fall under "a segment of the population."

[krispos42]

52. Yeah, the very precise measure that Obama and Warren and Feinstein and Schumer support...

...will still let people own semiautomatic rifles that feed from a detachable magazine of unlimited capacity.


You aren't going to argue that, are you?

[BainsBane]

59. How do you know that to be the case?

Have you read the legislation? If so, I'd like to see a link. You could of course write them and suggest improvements, but that would require you want to see the law improved or passed at all.

Additionally, your response completely ignores my point. You asserted "a segment of the population wants to see as few guns in private hands as possible." A segment of the population is a meaningless trope. The very purpose of an assault weapons ban is to get rid of the most deadly weapons while respecting the rights of individuals to bear arms. You are not happy with such a compromise. So the result of your intransigence is to demonstrate how extreme and inflexible the gun zealots are and to push more and more Americans toward more aggressive gun control.

It is Wayne LaPierre himself, the rest of the gun lobby and their allies who made the assault weapons ban a likely proposition. If the NRA had not been so obtuse in insisting on greater gun proliferation rather than coming out for some half measure like universal background checks, the public debate would likely be in a very different position today. You engage in the same sort of intransigence with similar effects.

[handmade34]

3. rec!!

[samsingh]

4. kick

[SpartanDem]

7. Good. People who priortize gun rights are twice as likely to call public officals

and 4x to donate money.

[farminator3000]

36. that isn't good at all, it's just evidence of the nra making people paranoid and being slimy

did you happen to notice the difference between pro and anti gun comments calling in to news outlets before and after obama's speech?

funny how the real standout on that chart is 'give money'. hmm.

or take money to call and post stuff on the internet?


In a way, of course, they’ve always been the gun control party. It was a Democratic president, FDR, who targeted gangster weapons like sawed-off shotguns with a hefty tax in 1934 and who, four years later, signed a law requiring those selling firearms to obtain licenses. And it was another Democrat, LBJ, who pushed through the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned sales of firearms by mail and to minors. Both FDR and LBJ initially sought more expansive regulations, only to see their plans watered down by Congress. More recently, it was Bill Clinton who signed the Brady Bill, which mandated a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a gun, and an assault weapons ban. And now it’s Obama’s turn to push for a renewed assault weapons ban, limits on high-capacity magazines, universal background checks (and a more comprehensive federal registry), and research into the roots of gun violence.

But the gap between Clinton’s successes, which came in the first half of his first term, and Obama’s announcement this week spanned nearly 20 years – a period during which the Democratic Party all but gave up on the issue of guns.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/17/the_return_of_the_gun_control_party/

[Comrade_McKenzie]

25. I'd like to see a ban on concealed carry and open carry permits. nt

[madville]

29. Why? Those have very little if anything to do with gun violence

[farminator3000]

48. is that true? no explanation?

i'd say more permits:
http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-carry.html

leads to more crime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

indiana, kentucky, pennsylvania, alabama, tenn. all towards the top there.

more guns = more people shot.

in a lot of states a permit is like a fishing license- cheap and easy to get

[BainsBane]

50. I think we need to start with what's doable

Last edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:19 PM - Edit history (1)

and the President's proposals are reasonable. My meagerly informed understanding is that higher numbers of concealed carry permits do correlate with higher homicide rates, but that's a tougher haul politically. It also, I believe, falls entirely under state jurisdiction.

[Glassunion]

64. "My meagerly informed understanding is that higher numbers of concealed carry permits do correlate

with higher homicide rates" - where did you find that information?

[BainsBane]

65. I suggest you consult a dictionary of the English language

It helps to have some familiarity of language when you're on a discussion board.
I wish you luck with that.

You might try learning how to use a search engine like Google. [link:http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2240&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3D%25E2%2580%259CShooting%2BDown%2Bthe%2BMore%2BGuns%252C%2BLess%2BCrime%2BHypothesis%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2Bby%2BIan%2BAyres%2Band%2BJohn%2BJ.%2BDonohue%2BIII.%2BStanford%2BLaw%2BReview%252C%2BV%26oq%3D%25E2%2580%259CShooting%2BDown%2Bthe%2BMore%2BGuns%252C%2BLess%2BCrime%2BHypothesis%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2Bby%2BIan%2BAyres%2Band%2BJohn%2BJ.%2BDonohue%2BIII.%2BStanford%2BLaw%2BReview%252C%2BV%26sugexp%3Dchrome%2Cmod%3D4%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8#search=%22%E2%80%9CShooting%20Down%20More%20Guns%2C%20Less%20Crime%20Hypothesis%2C%E2%80%9D%20by%20Ian%20Ayres%20John%20J.%20Donohue%20III.%20Stanford%20Law%20Review%2C%20V%22|

[Glassunion]

66. I asked a simple question: "where did you find that information?". Nothing more.

Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:40 AM - Edit history (1)

You could have simply posted a link or an example of how you came to the conclusion that you hold. Which would have led me to read, comprehend, and absorb that information for myself. But instead, you choose to insult and look down upon me for asking that question in the first place.

You have no idea where I am coming from, and what my point of view is. All I was doing was asking a simple fucking question; in the hopes of seeing things from a point of view that I may have not considered. I understand that DU is full of trolls as of late, and that our armor may be thick to ward off the on slot, but my question was simple and honest. "Where did you find that information?"

I am sorry that you feel my question is beneath you, and also that you feel an insult is the best response to honest discourse.

[BainsBane]

67. You asked an absurd question

I was quite clear that I was meagerly informed on the subject. You might very well have asked how do you know you are meagerly informed? If I had claimed actual knowledge on the subject, that would be different. Or if you were interested you could have Googled yourself. I see nothing honest about your question. And I did provide you with a link. Given your intense curiosity, you must have read it all immediately. So there's your point of view.