On Wednesday, President Obama unveiled new measures in response to the Dec. 14 gun massacre in Newtown, Conn.,, that left 20 school children and seven adults dead. The measures range from expanded background checks for gun purchases to improved access to mental health care.
On the merits, all are useful policies. But they amount to only minor changes in the law and won’t seriously restrict access to firearms. What’s sure to upset the millions of Americans who want stricter laws is that the modesty of these initiatives doesn’t nearly reflect the national outrage that followed the tragedy. Even some of the president’s more significant proposals, such as renewing the assault-weapons ban, which 58 percent of Americans favored in a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, lack the support of key members of his own party. On Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada all but dismissed the idea outright. “Is it something that can pass the Senate? Maybe,” Reid told an interviewer. “Is it something that can pass the House? I doubt it.”
Comments
What seems like a long time ago Ronald Reagan wanted stricter gun regulations. He wanted the Brady Bill. He didn't get it. Clinton finally got to sign it. There are indeed measures on the books but most have been stripped of enforcement powers over the years. Regquirements for inventories for dealers, though there is a background check there is no register, the ATF was stripped of many of its enforcement capabilities. Rational pols have long known the weapons industry has been out of control and the number of particularly lethal weapons circulating in public is far to high.
This time around some of the more technical measures will pass. Probably the registry, the mental health portions, tougher background checks, but the bans have no hope. From my perspective the fight has always been over the wrong thing. Pols should have sought legislation that banned certain military munitions, if these munitions are banned then the sale of many military type weapons is irrelevant. Certainly the NRA and its supporters would scream, but to the ear of the public a munitions ban seems far less onerous than a gun ban.
This nation myself included have a long tradition of hunting and shooting for sports. It needs to be respected. As a combat veteran I can't get to excited about protecting a few folks who like to play soldier with military type weapons. I understand those who love guns but provisions can be made and collectors can still collect, but we don't need these munitions out their in the world.
Mr. Turk, I know you like the "munitions" route. As you know, I own an AR15. I also have the capability to reload for it. No, I do not reload to "military specs", no point in that. But, even reloading to a spec suitable for target shooting is lethal. I don't think munitions are the answer. (for anyone else reading this, I do not have any "pre ban" 20, 30 round magazines, nor do I use the AR15 for "defense", it is just another rifle I use for sporting purposes)
The real issue behind America's lethal gun culture has nothing to do with sport hunting, that's only a smokescreen for what is really going on. Behind the rabid defense of permitting open trafficking of powerful automatic firearms is keeping open the veiled threat of violent insurrection among adult white males of European ancestry, the same white adult males that led to the slaughter of millions of people when fascism reigned in the 20th century. The Second World War largely destroyed this testosterone-driven madness on the European continent, but unfortunately did not have a large impact on the European male populations of the US, and since then American fascism has thrived under the guise of John Wayne/Clint Eastwood shoot-em-up Wild West rugged individualism, or what one might call the "don't tread on me" syndrome.
Civilized countries around the world clearly understand that one can have a respected sport hunting culture that includes strict controls over gun ownership, use, and sale. In these countries all gun owners are registered, they pay ownership fees, and they must take licensing tests to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of gun ownership. Hunters are proud of the strict, formal requirements that sustain their high standards as responsible members of society. Most importantly, only sport hunting guns are legal and available for sale; there is no legal trafficking of automatic firearms.
Civilized, intelligent people can easily distinguish between these two worlds. The tragedy of this country is that a significant percentage of predominantly white males are doing their best to obfuscate this distinction.
Fascism reigned in the 20th century? It never "reigned", it was defeated by democracies after rearing its ugly head.
Evidently, according to this comment, large portions of American adult white males are to be suspected as being "fascist".
"Behind the rabid defense of permitting open trafficking of powerful automatic firearms is keeping open the veiled threat of violent insurrection among adult white males of European ancestry" - This is no doubt a reference to the 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution, which in the commentors opinion seems to have become insurrection, rather than a defense against tyranny of government. Their is no "veiled threat", the constitution openly declares that people may keep and bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government.
Moving on to "civilized countries", that allow sport hunting. That would be countries like the UK no doubt. The UK had about 59 homicide deaths by gun last year. However, their violent crime rate is 5 times that of the U.S. So, it is much more "civilized" to rob, beat, bludgeon, rape and murder as long as a gun is not used.
Oh my God...not only are you factually wrong, but you are a racist, and apparently proud of it. There is no "open trafficing in powerful automatic weapons" - automatic weapons have been largely banned since the National Firearms Act went into effect in the 1930s, with exceptions only for legitimate collectors who are closely regulated by ATF. The "facists" in Europe were met and defeated by the very "white European males" you attack, joined by men and women of every ethnicity. And the overwhelming majority of gun crimes in this country are committed by young males of various races as part of our gang and street crime terror - not by your hilarious cartoon of white males who wanted to grow up to be John Wayne - about as far from a facist as you can get. You are one scary, misinformed fellow.
I believe that one of the reasons gun laws meet formidable resistance is that gun owners, myself included, do not believe that other preventative measures have been honestly attempted and implemented. Yes, some of those measures are "gun laws", but not the type we are seeing discussed right now, ie., magazine limitation, number of guns purchased per month, etc.
Sandy Hook, the perp was not licensed. His mother was. Law: Guns are stored in a safe at all times unless it is on your person or under your direct control. Obviously, that was not the case since he shot her while she was sleeping. The law details exactly what standards that safe has to meet to prevent easy access by unauthorized persons.
The media skewered LaPierre, yea, he looked stupid. But his message really wasn't. We use guards with guns to protect our money, we have gated guarded communities, armed security in some stores, etc. But not for children? Wait, yes we do, in some places, and it works just fine, provided a sufficient number are employed.
We haven't linked databases as the President has indicated he wants to do. Good move, yup, the paranoid types don't like it, too bad.
We have some really smart people in this country, but instead of using their smart ideas, we have politicians talking to them, and then trying to figure out how to use their ideas to further political careers and agendas. That is no way to promote safety.
Hunters should be able to have the various guns they've traditionally used for hunting. Law-abiding adult citizens should be able to have a pistol for their own defense. Loopholes should be closed; guns shows should be illegal. These should be federal laws, not state laws. And that's where it should stop. All of these apologists for the nra are just blowing off steam over their own paranoia and fear.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Electorate that wants "change" you are referring to is only limited to 5 states out of 50, all are ultra-liberal. The rest of the country wants to enforce thousands of laws already on the books and better security for schools. You know, things that would actually do something to reduce likelyhood of another mass shooting.
I don't understand why pro-european style gun control lobby wants new "strict gun laws" which do nothing to prevent those and are just a political power grab, as the people who go on shooting sprees do not care about laws, becuse they are, you know, criminals, as in people who do not follow laws. So your proposal will punish millions of lawful gun owners while doing nothign to reduce crime. Chicago has strictest gun laws in the country yet is the gun murder capital of the country, to give you one example.
As an independent I resent the notion that these new laws will do any good to prevent crime. Laws passed in NY and proposed in MA are utterly idiotic, 7-round magazine limit is essentially making useless majority of firearms released in last 100 years. Do you honestly believe that a criminal will load 7 rounds into 10 round magazine as new laws prescribe? At columbine they used 10-rd magazines and shot 96 rounds, changing magazine takes trained person 2-4 seconds.
All these laws are designed to do is to make liberals feel good about "doing something" and scope political points, nothing else.
This comment has been removed.
What MSM media doesn't tell them is that assault weapons have been completely banned since 1986, the real ones that fire more then 1 round with trigger pull. They are impossible to find and mostly illegal to own, and cost over $10k to buy legally. What they want banned now is regular semi-auto sporting guns that only look like military ones, with nothing in common function wise, no burst or full auto mode. And that "hi-power" rifle talk is complete BS, AR-15 round is .223 which is about same size as .22, you can't hunt anything bigger then a coyote with these.
And to those who like making "cabin in the woods" comments, I am high level IT professional living in a close Boston suburb, not some gun nutcase in the woods of Montana.
Well bully for you! But don't despair- I'm sure there's still land available in Montana.
If they won't pass sensible gun legislation they are leaving us no alternative but to repeal the 2nd ammendment. It can be done. We got rid of slavery and that was written into the body of the Constitution.
And should you get your way with that proposal Adrianne do you suspect that 300 million guns will just vanish into thin air? I suspect you believe we law abiding citizens will just cheerfully hand our guns over to the smiling man in the uniform who comes to take them? And I am almost certain that the nice young man in the hoodie and baggy pants will rush to his local police department and declare, "hallalujah, they've repealed the 2nd amendment. Here's my Glock!"
"hoodie and baggy pants" Wacky? What are you trying to say? Are you gunnin' for the inner-city crowd? Sure sounds like it.
Listening to several of the comments by advocates of gun control and the personal attacks that accompany them are galvining many who might favor some gun restrictions. Adriannel comments probably express the feeling of many of the gun control groups and that is why many are refusing to support gun control measures.
Massachusetts has some of the most restrrictive gun laws in the nation including the Bartley-Fox gun law which carries a mandatory prison sentence. The authorites are not using the law. Adriannel wants to punish law biding citizens - that sentiment is going to doom any meaningful gun legislation.
It is not punishing law abiding citizens if we the citizens repeal the 2nd ammendment.
"Liberal Lion" Ted Kennedy completely backed away from support of gun control legislation. Perhaps Joshua should ask why that occurred.