Sunday Roundup
Why has the idea of sensible gun control legislation become so politically radioactive? Not even a recent run of deadly gun rampages (including the shooting deaths of four police officers in Oakland, the gunning down of three policemen in Pittsburgh, and the massacre of 13 people in Binghamton, New York), the second anniversary of Virginia Tech (the worst mass shooting in U.S. history), and the president of Mexico all but pleading for Barack Obama to do something about the tidal wave of bought-in-America assault weapons wreaking bloody havoc on his country have been able to create the political will to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of Columbine; what better moment for the president to forget how difficult it would be to take on the NRA, and remember his campaign promise to push for a ban on these killing machines?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Speaking of Columbine and guns and school.
Once when I was about 12 in the early 50s in a rural Texas grammer school I wanted to go hunting with a friend, and brought my little crackshot 22 cal.rifle to school so I could ride the bus to his home and we could hunt that weekend. I explained to the teacher the gun was unloaded and set in in my locker. She had me do an impromptu gun saftey class for my class. Which I did. Showed them how to handle and aim the rifle, Never to load indoors or point at a person. Everything went fine. No problems.
Had a good hunt btw.
One day the pencil sharpner went out,and us country boys took our little pocket knives out and were busy sharpening pencils. Nobody was injured. Or indeed even surprized.
Looking back I am amazed that I never had the urge to shoot or stab and rob anyone. Nobody did.
We grew up with guns and knives (farm and ranch work) It seems none of us saw these things as anything but tools . To use when needed.
I think guns aren't the problem . I think somehow our society has changed , more hollow, uncaring
Or maybe We were just abnormaly simple little kids.
Huffington: "Why has the idea of sensible gun control legislation become so politically radioactive?"
Because people are learning that "assault weapon" is a meaningless term that was invented by the gun control lobby in an attempt to ban any firearm they think looks scary enough to frighten people who know nothing about guns.
The bottom line is the 1994-2004 AWB was a useless law that was so ineffective that even some gun control advocates had the courage to admit did not impact crime in any way. Heck, even the government's own study says so:
http://www
"Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at
best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in
gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share
of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on
the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity
limit) without reloading.
The "assault weapons" ban died a natural death when it was allowed to "Sunset" in 2004. Sensible people from both the republican and democratic circles (65 democrats sent a letter to the attorney general recently in opposition to an AWB) are doing all they can to ensure that it will never again see the light of day.
I agree. Since when was there a third rail around some imaginary slippery slope on guns. Perhaps we need to put a different headline on the issue. Instead of gun control, “Attack Weapons Control” is a better and more accurate framing. Perhaps handgun owners and hunters would find that a less appealing a cause to support, which is really the biggest issue right now. If we start with hand guns we can forget it, especially after all the lost traction regarding the Brady bill.
"Instead of gun control, "Attack Weapons Control" is a better and more accurate framing."
1. "Attack weapon" is redudant
2. Anything can be used as a weapon.
I guess you must have completely missed the Heller decision and its implications--not only will ANY gun ban be held up in court for years with a high chance of getting thrown out but renewal of the Clinton fertilizer is political suicide in much of this country--even Kali has a couple of bills in the hopper about making Kalli a shall issue CCW state
I hope Obama knocks on my door to take my guns. He"s gonna be disappointed though because I don"t own any(and proud of it). However,I would love to meet him and shake his hand.
I think a lot of people forget that former President Bush was not the only President to take on powers that violated the Constitution. If history is studied anymore then you should know that Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, Wilson imprisoned war protestors and political opponents and protesting the war was illegal, President Roosevelt put Japanese Americans into interment camps. These were all progressive administrations. Perhaps Americans cling a bit to much to our Guns(I have a bunch) but our history shows what our government can do and we need to be willing to stop it if necessary. Read the founding fathers writings and you will understand why they put Gun ownership into the Bill of Rights. We do not have a constitutional right to Deer hunt. If that was the interpreatation then all states would be guilty of violating our constittional rights by having hunting seasons and regulated hunts.
Very sensible post with historical accuracy.
As for actual gun control. What's wrong with with the buyer/owner must be an adult, a US citizen, never had a felony convidtion, never been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. This all should be part of the instant background check.
As for the problem that Mexico has with US guns, perhaps with the instant background check, a red flag shows if this guy buys 5 weapons per mo (or some arbitrary figure) without a dealers license.
Having over 300 million people in this country, you will always have the occasional nut and the lesser of two evils is to be shot dead rather than beaten to death with a ball bat or knifed.
The ATF is already alerted when someone buys multiple guns in a single purchase.
"What's wrong with with the buyer/owner must be an adult, a US citizen, never had a felony convidtion, never been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. This all should be part of the instant background check. "
Nothing is wrong with any of that. Except that we don't need new laws for it because these things are already checked by the NICS system.
photo
" Assault weapons did not exist at the time of the writing of the hallowed 2nd Amendment, thus it seems unlikely to me that the amendment refers to them". Neither did computers, t.v. cable, movies, radio, internet, satellite communication, must I go on?? Are you willing to allow your 1st Amendment rights to be based on 18th Century technology and for that case, morals? This issue won't go away unless you do with the 2nd Amendment what you did w/ the 18th Amendment, repeal it. This as you all know will not happen in this country. There is a way to repeal an amendment, but doing it to this one could cause another Civil War. The Framers as you say had no idea of these type of weapons anymore than they did of porno, violent rap music, and for that matter abortion, which is also protected according to the Constitution. Left or Right would like to cherry pick, but this is not what the Constitution is all about. You can't pick and choose from the Const. If you do you will really shoot yourself in the foot.
" Assault weapons did not exist at the time of the writing of the hallowed 2nd Amendment, thus it seems unlikely to me that the amendment refers to them".
At least the time line in the original post was correct
"Assault weapons" did not exist until 1994 when the Assault Weapons Ban defined that term for a period of 10 years. They now only exist in the happy states of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and possibly a couple of others. Let's keep it that way.
And since the Ninth Circus Court incorpoated Heller in the Nordyke case--I have a suspicion that the Cali AWB is not long for this world
Here"s the problem with the 2nd amendment. I have just as much right to :feel safe" as the gun-nuts do. And believe me having a bunch of rednecks running around "packing" does not make me safer.
I think you misunderstand the constitution. You do not have a right to feel safe. You do have a right to a gun.
I hope that helps you understand.
Actually a "well armed militia" as in the military has a right to carry a gun. The framers of the constitution seemed pretty clear. At that time we had no standing army and thus the Minutemen.
You are wrong. I do have the right to feel safe . You do not have the right to threaten my safety.
Common stereotyping. Most people who own firearms are not rednecks.
I am neither a redneck nor a gun crazy person. I carry a gun for my personal protection. I don't just feel safer, I am safer. Perhaps you are physically capable of protecting yourself, but I am not, particularly against the type of criminals on the road these days. There's no calling 911 when your cell phone does not have service. So live in a state that has gun control laws you approve of and leave the rest of us alone.
I'm sorry you feel that way Bob.
I don't consider myself a redneck or gun nut.
I've carried a weapon since I joined the United States Army in 1983.
I've been trained in the use of every weapon I own.
I've never drawn a weapon out of anger.
I've never had to fire a shot at anyone.
When my son was young, not only were my firearms hidden from him, but I didn't keep any ammunition in my home or vehicle out of the fear that he may be curious and hurt himself or one of his friends if he stumbled onto the weapons.
I'm now 44 yrs old. I have a concealed carry permit. With my job, I go into the inner city and walk into abandoned homes. It gives a guy a real pucker factor when going into some of these homes. While in the homes, I've walked in on gangs, dealers and homeless. On 3 occassions, I was able to leave the property because they saw my firearm. There is no doubt that if needed, I would have used it aiming dead center mass as trained. I'm very pleased and hope to continue never using it.
When it's in my vehicle and home ,chamber is always kept empty and the safety on. This way I will never have an accidental discharge and if a situation escalates, I have to think about what I'm about to do (that 1.5 seconds of thought could be very important).
The latest mulriple killings all occured in districts with strict guns laws. So banning guns makes us safer?
My family lives in a large county in New Mexico. Law enforcement may be up to 3 hours away if they are in the other end of the county. It is also a drug and migrant corridor. We have very little violent crime... and every head of the household is armed, by county law. Maybe in cities help is just a phone call away, but not out there.
Tommythinker you got it right; each local has its own fears, be it urban or rural, northeastern or southwestern America.
In case the point needs to be made, regional guns laws don't work. It's too easy to drive guns in from the next city. Only a major national anti-gun effort has any hope, and the Obama administration is too afraid of touching off another culture war to do that. Already guns are flying off the shelves just on the fear of future restrictions. If there's one thing the gun industry thrives on, it's fear.
Heller makes a national gun ban unconstitutional, to say nothing of the fact that passing said legislation is politcal suicide
The burglar alarm, safe building, and lock installing companies thrive on fear too. Is there anything wrong with that?
Gunsters, if you must shoot your food or defend your livestock, please do it with a registered weapon that kills one thing at a time. Guns are killing machines. Assault weapons are mass killing machines. Assault weapons did not exist at the time of the writing of the hallowed 2nd Amendment, thus it seems unlikely to me that the amendment refers to them. Gun owners should be required to undergo psychological testing in addition to background checks.
"Assault weapons are mass killing machines. "
Assault weapons, by federal law, are semi-autos. 1 trigger pull = 1 bang.
"Assault weapons did not exist at the time of the writing of the hallowed 2nd Amendment"
And TV, radio, high-speed printing presses, telephones, computers, and the internet did not exist at the time of the First Amendment.
"Gun owners should be required to undergo psychological testing "
Then so should voters and computer users.
As there exist millions of legally owned "assault weapons" in the United States, and very few of them are ever involved in any homicide, including a "mass" homicide, then it would seem either that the majority of "assault weapons" in the United States are being misused or that your assessment of the nature of "assault weapons" is incorrect.
I've found that when you find yourself assigning pet names or little nicknames to people or groups, as in the quaint "Gunsters", you've pretty much shown that you are no longer a viable part of any discussion going forward. You are not open to addressing the issue anymore, you are no longer able to relate in any way. You want to anger and radicalize a group? The best way is to marginalize them...
What alot of poeple don't realize is that you can't just go down and buy an assult weapon as defined by the military. Those are full automatics. You can only buy semi automatics (unless you have a federal firearms permit).
My hunting rifle is much more powerful than an M16A3 full auto weapon. I can take out a target at 3/4 of a mile (if I wasn't old and could still see good enough).
It’s a civil rights question really.
You’re saying that people should be “reasonably” restricted of their right to keep (purchase, store, own) and bear (carry, use in self defense against criminals or tyrannical governments) arms, in the sake of making the country a “safer” place. Let’s not mention for the moment that statistics and history have proven that violent crime against the innocent and tyrannical government actions increase when law abiding citizens are restricted from firearms. Your argument that we should have “common sense” psychological testing for gun owners is akin to (lets pick another amendment and apply that logic) an argument that we should have “common-sense” restrictions on the citizens right to vote. For example in order to have a say in politics (i.e. a vote) a citizen should need to show that they have an informed world view and are not voting based on sensationalized and often untrue news stories and campaign ads. So if we want to restrict firearms to only those law abiding citizens who we deem “responsibly trained” (be this Law Enforcement, or a rigorous exam in firearm proficiency, or a psychological exam), then can we also restrict voting to those who have passed an intellectual aptitude test designed to determine if they are truly informed about all of the issues the candidates in the election are supporting? (continued
-3pp
Assault weapon:
Coined in 1970, but not defined.
Not a recognized military term.
Used as the title of a book in 1986 (The Book of Assault Weapons - Gun Digest), but again not defined. the book applied the term to just about every type of firearm in existance.
Defined in 1994 by federal law as 19 specific semi-auto (1 trigger pull = 1 bang) firearms or and semi-auto firearms with more than a set limit of primarily external features. Although the news media and the gun control groups frequently apply the term to firearms not meeting the criteria spelled out by the federal law.
This is a pointless debate. It is handguns that are used in 77% of firearm murders each year, not long guns. Light, easily concealed, easy to point at your victims, and often cheap, they can carry far more rounds than most long guns. Although a shotgun is intimidating and makes a helluva mess, in enclosed spaces such as schools, most mass murderers prefer the convenience and killing power of the handgun.
A long gun ban of any kind would only address a small part of America's murder problem.
And yet most of the gun control laws are aimed at long guns.
And yet the Brady demanded renewal of an expanded form of the 1994 legislation FOCUSES ON LOWPOWERED SEMIAUTO ONLY CARBINES
"Although the news media and the gun control groups frequently apply the term to firearms not meeting the criteria spelled out by the federal law."
I couldn't agree with you more. However, have you ever noticed that Paul Helmke, Arianna and others have perfect knowledge of which guns were used in which crimes, even crimes where the firearm is never recovered or made public by the police? They know if the weapon used was in fact listed in the 1994 AWB legislation. They know when the firearm was manufactured and sold. How can these handful of people have such uncanny insight and then be willing to share their ability with us in these Blogs? I feel doubly blessed.
Some more for the education of the posters here:
Assault rifle: A select-fire carbine length rifle firing light to intermediate power and small to medium caliber cartridges fed from a detachable magazine.
Select-fire means the firearm has both a semi-auto (1 trigger pull = 1 bang) and a full-auto (1 trigger pull = bang, bang, bang, ...) mode and can be rapidly switched between modes by the operator, without tools or disassembly, by means of an external selector, usually a lever.
This is the same basic definition used by the US military, the US State Dept, and firearm experts. It is based on the characteristics of the progenitor of the type, the StG 44 of WWII (StG = SturmGewehr, translated as "assault rifle").
As assault rifles have a full-auto mode, they are classified as full-auto NFA Title II firearms, aka machine guns. To possess such a firearm requires a lot of paperwork and takes several months for approval.
Assault rifles fall under the auspices of federal laws passed in 1934, 1968, and 1986. the 1994 AWB had nothing to do with these firearms.
To possess an "assault rifle" or other machine gun ( including crew-served, sub-machine gun, or machine pistol), one must be finger printed, photographed, and obtain an affidavit from state authorities attesting to your character and ability to possess. You must fill out a special form and send all this, plus $200 (not refundable) per firearm, to the BATFE. The BATFE will "process" it for a few weeks and then send you infor to the FBI. The FBI will conducted a thorough backgorund check over the next several weeks and send an approve/deny back the the BATFE. If approved, the BATFE will regsiter the firearm to you, complete the form, and attach a tax stamp and return the form and tax stampt to you. You must keep these on file and be able to produce them if ever asked by law enforcement.
Failure to follow these proceedures is a federal felony worth 10 years in federal prison.
Further, the firearm you purchase will be used or "pre-owned". It will have to have been made by 1986 and have been registered for civilian ownership by 1986. Since there are no new ones entering circulation, they are becoming more rare and more expensive, so you will have to pony up several thousand for even a well worn one.
Oh, and you cannot take it across state lines without notifying the BATFE. They can also show up at your door to check your paperwork at any time.
With regulations as draconian as that, it's amazing there is any gun crime at all!
If having a gun as a means of protection, then why are the number of gun related shootings and killings rising?
It is like the capitol punishment argument(which I never understood either).
I never understood why even the most "sane" people who post the most "sane" arguments against automatic weapons being banned own these types of weapons in the first place.
Really, the desire to shoot animals with such weapons is kinda crazy. The desire to shoot human beings....
Is shooting a gun a sexual turn on, a kind of foreplay, some sort of power trip, a way to compensate for feelings of insecurity, of feeling less than? Is the fear of other human beings so great that one feels the need to arm themselves against what one cannot see, does not know, or doesn't understand? What is it exactly? I really want to understand this gun fetish issue....
I just want to understand why sane people are so irrational when it comes to this issue, especially when people who are killing their families, killing the police, and killing each other with GUNS are increasing.
"arguments against automatic weapons being banned own these types of weapons in the first place. "
Semi-auto or full-auto?
BINGO!! You nailed it.
What proof do you have that the number of people getting killed by guns is increasing? The FBI says violent crime is decreasing in the US. Please state your sources. No matter how well publicized and sad the recent cases are remember there are over 300 million people in the US. What would probably be better to reduce violence is reducing the exposure of our young people to desensitizing violent movies and video games. But that would violate the first amendment rights of Hollywood and the Corps. making money off of this violence.
The ATF has stated that only 17% of guns seized in Mexico are traceable to the US. The majority are coming from Central and South America or more likely from corrupt Mexican Police and Military. A lot of the killing is done with Automatic weapons, RPG's and some with 50 cal sniper rifles which the US gave to the Mexican military.
Once again, allow me to correct some misperceptions:
The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban had nothing to do with any of the following: Machine guns, sub-machine guns, machine pistols, Assault RIFLES, Full-auto firearms, MP5s, M16s, or military AK47s. No firearm which fires more than one shot per trigger pull was addressed or affected by the 94 AWB.
I grant that Obama has been in office for less than one hundred days, but in several ways it seems that Obama is showing himself to be just another typical politician, another George W. Bush with much the same agenda and goals but with a much better vocabulary.
Don't be ridiculous.
Even if you think that's true, you have to admit that the vocabulary alone is a MAJOR improvement.
The fact he is good at reading the teleprompter is somewhat irrelevent
....Well yes, you're correct. The fact that english is now spoken again in the white house is an undeniable plus!
Also, don't paint all Democrats or Republicans with the broad guns brush. Some Republicans have always supported gun control, especially Northeast located ones. At the same time many rural Democrats have always been pro 2nd Amendment. The balance got all crazy in 93 and 94 w/ the Brady Bill, and the Crime or Assault Weapon bill. At that time many Democrats pleaded with Feinstein, and Schumer, and others to let it go. They didn't and out went the Democratic majority in Congress for the first time since 1954. Was it all due to gun control bills, no, but it added enough to have them booted out. Now, when Gore lost Tenn. and Arkansas, and later you even see Kerry with a shotgun, supposedly shooting ducks, what does that tell you. Heck, even Hillary talked about shooting her daddy's shotgun. This issue though both parties have agendas, is a Democratic loss no matter how you slice it. Obama knows this as do Pelosi and Reid. This is why it is on the back burner till at least 2012, after the election, if then.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
