Skip to main content

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) pauses during remarks to the American Conservative Union's annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, February 9, 2012.  REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS)
Given the "black helicopter" notions of the National Rifle Association leadership and the organization's wackier members, House Speaker John Boehner would just love President Obama to get a bit specific about gun control 100 days before the election.

Having not a thing with which to cudgel Obama with in the way of all the new gun laws the NRA claimed he would introduce but didn't once he got to the White House, Wayne LaPierre—who has steered the association for more than two decades—has recently imbued the NRA membership with the notion that an all-attack on the 2nd Amendment will happen in Obama's second term. So he must be defeated or the Republic is at risk.

At a meeting of the National Urban League in New Orleans Wednesday in the wake of the massacre in Aurora, Colorado, Obama dared suggest that civilian versions of military assault rifles “belong in the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.” He also said efforts to strengthen gun-control laws after a shooting like this one have in the past been “defeated by politics and by lobbying and eventually by the pull of our collective attention elsewhere."

That is a needle that surely did not go unnoticed at NRA HQ and other redoubts of Obama-hate.

But Boehner, putting on his faux bipartisan hat, said:

“I’m not the expert on this, but if the president’s got ideas on this, I’d be happy to take a look at it.”

Wink, wink. Take this bait, Mr. President. Propose a new gun-control law. Or just hint that you might do so after the election. It doesn't matter how mild and sensible a law that might be—prohibiting, say, the manufacture and sale of 100-round rifle magazines. Boehner knows this would be red meat for GOP operatives eager to pry fence-straddlers out of the Democratic column on election day.

Indeed, what Obama already said, non-committal as it was, has probably already sparked plans at NRA HQ for an email and flyer campaign describing his views as unAmerican, foreign, communist and the like.

Despite the catalyst of the most recent slaughter, nothing can be gained either by the president or Americans seeking stricter gun legislation by heading down this path at this moment. That ought not to be the case. But the gun lobbyists with their wads of cash and well-honed take-no-prisoners electoral approach have generated a toxicity in the matter that allows for no reasonable discussion. Such a discussion has to happen. But, beyond what he has already said, there is zero upside for the president to engage in one before November.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:40 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Agreed. (12+ / 0-)
    Despite the catalyst of the most recent slaughter, nothing can be gained either by the president or Americans seeking stricter gun legislation to head down this path at this moment...But the gun lobbyists with their wads of cash and well-honed take-no-prisoners electoral approach have generated a toxicity in the matter that allows for no reasonable discussion.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:49:11 PM PDT

  •  You're right... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NormAl1792, Sylv, Matt Z

    I don't like it one bit, but you're right. Be even less of an upside for any Americans who run afoul of the next shooter, though. But if people support guns that much and aren't willing to hold the NRA accountable, then I guess those are acceptable losses.

    "Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Isaac Asimov

    by tytalus on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:49:32 PM PDT

    •  let's call a truce until after the election. (13+ / 0-)

      I'm on the pro-2A side of the fence.

      But I agree with MB: if we have these debates now, and demand action now, we are going to lose enough undecideds to put the election at risk.

      There's too much at stake.

      I propose that we basically declare a truce and stop arguing about gun control until after the election.  

      Once Obama's in for the 2nd term and hopefully with more Democrats in both houses of Congress, then we can have at it and both sides of the firearms debate can go to work persuading Washington.  

      But at this point in time, the thing to do is concentrate on winning elections.

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:18:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  See, I feel it's the opposite . . . (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        smiley7, ranger995

        It's time to really stand up against the NRA and other huge lobbying groups. People voted Obama in because he promised change and because the alternative was gawd awful. The alternative is still gawd awful and all the folks who have grown skeptical about "change" -- or worse, feel hoodwinked by a Dem candidate yet again -- could be recharged if Obama stated strongly what he would do about a serious issue and how he'd do it. Other groups have huge sums of money but he's the president and can demand attention.

        I think Obama and his election team -- which I have no fondness for -- think Williard Romney will shoot himself in the foot so Obama doesn't have to take strong stands. I think we need a genuinely progressive, courageous president who will.

        Don't ask me nothin' about nothin'. I just might tell ya the truth -- B. Dylan

        by ponderer on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:42:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's increasingly clear that Mr. Obama was right (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee, 43north

          about his messaging having failed, what with focusing so much on getting crap done instead of talking about it. He managed to shove healthcare reform through an exceptionally hostile Congress; IDK about anyone else, but he's delivered on Change as far as I am concerned. Not as much as I'd like, but it's nothing like an empty campaign promise.

          As someone who doesn't like guns at all - I've idly mentioned I'd like to see a much more minimized version of the 2nd Amendment passed into law - most of our violence stems from other societal factors which are more pressing to tackle than gun rights directly, especially in this toxic political climate.

          So, I don't think this would be a wise move politically or a prudent one in terms of priority.

          •  There's room in the Second Amndt. for regulation. (0+ / 0-)

            Even Scalia in the Heller DC opinion (5-4) suggested plenty of room ... although he did read on the subject like the Chesire Cat in Alice grins!

            It's legislators and high elected officials who have feet on clay on this bundle of issues!

            Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

            by TRPChicago on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 04:37:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  and then lose the election. (8+ / 0-)

          Sorry but No.  This is not the time for that.  

          It would be a purely symbolic gesture with zero chance of getting legislation passed.  And it would lose a bunch of undecideds to the RW propaganda that Obama is going to take away their guns.   Is that what you want?  

          Save it until after the election.  Then we can have a bunch of feisty RKBA and DKGC diaries and start arguing over specific policies.  

          "Taking strong stands" that accomplish nothing and lose elections is exactly how to NOT have a courageous progressive President.

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:20:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Gun control is simply not one of those issues that (8+ / 0-)

          needs to be battled now, less that 4 months out.  It can literally lose the election for us, if we take it too far.

      •  "Let's call a truce while I feel that my long (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        smiley7

        winning streak might be in danger".

        How very, very big of you.

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:20:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But this will come up (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        43north, KenBee

        in the debates. No doubt about that. How will O. handle that? Does he lie? Anything less will hand over the keys.

        I have pondered this since getting over the initial shock of the most recent event. I cannot disagree with BM. But what about the debates? What will Romney say? Is there some way for O. to let Romney hang himself?

        There is nothing more exciting than the truth. - Richard P. Feynman

        by pastol on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:57:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bring up Romney's record in MA. (8+ / 0-)

          He was pro-gun control. And I'm not talking NRA sanctioned gun control either. I'm talking AWB and more onerous gun control laws.

          Quite frankly, I think this would be the perfect time for President Obama to say:

          "My fellow Americans; lately we've seen a tragedy occur in Aurora Colorado and less recently, over in Arizona. While I think we should not push for more gun control laws; I believe this is a good time to address the root causes of crime. It will be slow. It will be hard. It will not fix everything immediately. We start with jobs (insert jobs plan here). We continue with a push for single payer health care that includes mental health. We legalize marijuana and treat it like alcohol or cigarettes. This will have a side benefit of also helping to reduce crime in Mexico."

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:11:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  How long before the whacks in the NRA claim (6+ / 0-)

    the shooter in CO was an Obama plot to limit gun rights? I'm sure they'll tie it to "Fast and Furious" as well. At this point I'm willing to believe they'd go there. They've been pulling the "he's just giving you more rights so he can take them" away schtick for a while. At some point they're going to have to up the hysteria or people might begin to notice they're lying about pretty much everything.

    Many people thought Bush was "the kind of guy you wanted to have a beer with". People are beginning to realize that Romney is "the kind of guy you want to pour a beer on".

    by ontheleftcoast on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:51:06 PM PDT

  •  The NRA has had its (7+ / 0-)

    ...suckers members claiming that Obama's going to take away their guns for years already now.  They should actually want him re-elected, because as their boogeyman, he has inspired a lot more spending on firearms & ammunition, which is really what they are about.

    GOP Agenda: Repeal 20th Century.

    by NormAl1792 on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:51:36 PM PDT

    •  What they're really (12+ / 0-)

      all about is filling their coffers with donations and paying themselves large salaries.

      They jumped the shark around the time Charlton Heston started showing signs of Alzheimer's.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 03:24:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I remember very clearly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      43north, KenBee

      that ammo was hard to come by and expensive about four years ago, and firearms were costing more in general too (handguns especially) around here in Iowa, and when you questioned the retailers as to why, the answer was "Obama will make this stuff illegal PDQ." We all saw how that turned out. But I have to agree with Obama's comment that it's hard to imagine a legitimate sporting usage for an AK or AR15. If you need 15 or 30 or 100 rounds to put down whatever it is you're hunting, you should put down your rifle and take up knitting, because either you're too poor a shot to be hunting whatever it is you're hunting, or you've picked a weapon completely unsuited to the task. I would much rather put a 77 Ruger or a nice Winchester to my shoulder than an AR; comes in a variety of calibers and configurations, nice to look at, much simpler to maintain a bolt action than a semiauto. Obama's comment that these weapons belong on the battlefield, not the street, has an interesting range of interpretation. I could say that includes police as well, but criminals have these weapons and may thus be better armed than the cops. Police should have the tools they need to combat the criminal elements in society; the problem is that these very same weapons are readily, and commonly, used against innocent civilians by mistake or intentionally.

      Your black cards can make you money, so you hide them when you're able; in the land of milk and honey, you must put them on the table - Steely Dan

      by OrdinaryIowan on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:46:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not-so Ordinary Iowan: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OrdinaryIowan, oldpunk, PavePusher

        I agree on the hunting firearm sentiments, preferring Ruger #1 or Winchester, Browning, Dakota or similar versions of the Hi-wall single shot.

        All of those models of quaint firearms, including all bolt actions, can be traced to some version of a military gun, long-ago.

        The appearance of a Browning Safari II semi-automatic, with it's engraving and burl walnut furniture doesn't lessen it's pedigree to the military BAR of World War II fame.

        As to magazine capacity?  "Factory" is my usual go.
        Glock 19 = 15 rounds.
        17 rounds in the PD-issue version with "plus+2" magazines.
        Other makers have similar capacity in 9mm, less in larger calibers.

        No "need" for a 30-rounder in my opinion.

        The vietnam era M16/AR-15 magazines were 20-rounders, not the current NATO STANAG 30-round magazine.

        Again, that was "factory" and I see no "need" for greater capacity.  

        You mentioned Police.

        One downside of current police armament is that we've become a nation of "clean this shit up - and get back on patrol".

        Gone are the days of calling in back-up, waiting for a negotiator, or other man-hour intensive concepts.

        Roll-up.  

        "Stop what you're doing."
        bangbangbangbangbangbangbangbang
        POLICE!!! Show me your hands!.
        "Uh... Ted?  We're supposed to say 'POLICE' first, shoot later."
        "Shit.  Got that backwards again?
        "Yep... I'll grab a spray can of paint and write something 'terrorist' and we'll call it a good shooting."
        "Thanks man... you're always looking out for me."
        "Thin Blue Line bro... thin blue line."
        •  Good points all the way. (0+ / 0-)

          Virtually every sporting firearm has the military heritage you mention, all the way back to the times when the flintlock deer rifle (actually smoothbore, most likely) was the fightin' weapon too. Your point about factory capacity mags seems reasonable as well, at least to me. The arms race on the street is ongoing, and, sadly, sometimes it's hard to tell who's the good guys..

          Your black cards can make you money, so you hide them when you're able; in the land of milk and honey, you must put them on the table - Steely Dan

          by OrdinaryIowan on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:00:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  AR- and AK-pattern rifles are quite suitable... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas

        for hunting various game.

        Almost all states have legal restrictions on magazine size for hunting, no-one uses full-size mags for that.

        Oddly, in California, where all such rifles are limited to 10-round mags, those same mags are legal for hunting.  Weird, eh?

        Also, none of the civilian-legal models are used "on the battlefield".  The true military versions have full-auto or 3-round burst firing mode, not generally legal for civilian use.

        It ould behoove all who want to fight over these issues to actually understand the current laws and technology of the subject.

    •  will re-newal of the AWB (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, 43north

      be in the Dem Platform, again- this time?

      Our president has his failings, but compared to Mitt Romney he is a paradigm of considered and compassionate thought.

      by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:25:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rs would like to see a new gun bill sponsored by (13+ / 0-)

    Tester (WY)
    Manchin (WV)
    McCaskill (MO)
    Nelson (FL)
    Stabenow (MI)
    Brown (OH)

    You can probably add the names of a few other D incumbents, up for election this fall in tight races, to be on this sponsor list.

  •  President Obama could take the family out for some (8+ / 0-)

    skeet shooting in the Rose Garden tomorrow, but NRA would still be jerks.

    "Four more years!" (Obama Unencumbered - The Sequel)

    by jwinIL14 on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:55:08 PM PDT

  •  The gun lobby has already won the debate. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, historys mysteries, Smoh, Matt Z

    ...and, as Sparky the Penguin put it, "These occasional civilian massacres are the price the rest of us pay.  Over and over agin, it seems."

    GOP Agenda: Repeal 20th Century.

    by NormAl1792 on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:57:25 PM PDT

  •  President should say "Bill O'Reilly has some good (6+ / 0-)

    ideas, Speaker Boehner should talk to him in one of his Fox appearances".  

    Bill-o The Clown wants the FBI informed any time a heavy gun (ie assault weapon) is sold with the buyer logged.  He also wants online ammo sales logged by the FBI so if somebody is buying 6000 rounds online the FBI would be tipped off about it.  

  •  Perhaps the President should publically challenge (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole, Pola Halloween

    the Rs to come up with a plan to protect Americans. The NRAs usual retort - enforce the current laws - are obviously NOT working. Innocents are still dying. So, let the Rs suggest what reasonable laws they would support in order to solve this horrific national problem.

    Unless, of course, they believe their right to own assault weapons, tanks, SAMs, and small tactical nuclear devices trumps all reason.

    Nature created the human race, but humans created racism.

    by GrannyOPhilly on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 01:06:46 PM PDT

    •  He should. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GrannyOPhilly, Superpole, JesseCW

      But he'll get smacked down unless he takes some ground back on gun rights.  If the GOP is left with only their default arguments--citizens armed can take care of themselves--then the President can put them in the wilderness with a proactive case for the government role in public safety.  For example, residences, commercial sites, etc., all have to meet a litany of zoning, health, safety and fire codes.  Is there any reason why security is left up to individual discretion in just about every jurisdiction?

      •  Is there any reason why security is left up (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        43north, GrannyOPhilly

        There are reason(s), and all of them are totally unacceptable-- in a nation like ours where there is basically a open ended regarding the amount of money we spend yearly on "security".

        I'll be diaring on this shortly... should be up on Saturday

        "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

        by Superpole on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:59:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  no, because: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      If he does that, the nasty Republicans will probably find a way to twist it to their advantage.    They will float something and try to lure him in to support it, and then they'll spring a trap.

      Best to just leave it: if the Rs come up with something, just don't respond to it.  

      In any case no legislation of any kind is going to get passed until after the election, so there is no point in making symbolic statements either way.  

      The time to tackle these types of contentious issues is after the election.

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:24:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right, of course, but I hate that the NRA (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee

        controls the dialog. The American people should do that - not a lobbyist group. I'd rather see the NRA die than anymore innocents.

        Nature created the human race, but humans created racism.

        by GrannyOPhilly on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:53:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't want the whole NRA to go away. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee, rockhound, oldpunk, PavePusher

          They are THE group that does firearm safety training and other firearm training.

          The NRA-ILA though...

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:00:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  afaic, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee

            There's no difference between the the two when donations to the NRA are used for ILA lobbying.

            You seem to be a semi-reasonable gun owner, but I'm sure you know there are many others who are not. They are the ones I'm concerned about. They are the reason why we need to update our gun laws. Their desire to own a 100 round automatic assault weapon is not a right. Our Constitution gives Congress the right to make laws that promote the general welfare and protect Americans, just as it gives American the right to own a gun. It's the size and power of the guns that is the real issue.  

            Nature created the human race, but humans created racism.

            by GrannyOPhilly on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:39:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, membership dues and donations (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound, oldpunk, PavePusher

              to the NRA aren't allowed to go to the ILA side of things.

              I own multiple firearms that would fit your definition (if what you meant by auto was actually semi-auto). I don't see how you can regulate them effectively.

              As for power: 5.56/.223 (which is the most common AR15 round) is actually VERY underpowered when compared to even a 'light' deer round.

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:07:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think you know what I meant about size and (0+ / 0-)

                power. I don't know gun specifics from horseshoes, but I know the difference between a one shot at a time 6 bullet hand gun, which is not unreasonable to own imho, and an  Army size machine gun carrying 10, 20 or 100 rounds which no one outside of our military has any reasonable need to own.

                Again, I'm talking about reasonable laws, not "taking away any one's guns" like the paranoid fear mongering claims perfected by Wayne LaPierre.

                Why didn't you comment about the UNreasonable gun owners who are, as I pointed out, the crux of the problem? And I'm not talking about gangs or criminals. You know they're out there. If 2nd admendment supporters really cared about their fellow Americans, who also have a right to feel safe when they leave their homes, they'd have no problem bringing back the assault weapon ban. So where's the reasonable suggestions from a reasonable gun owner? You don't even want to try?

                But it's not really about that, is it? It's about continuing the fear mongering to increase gun/ammo sales, line the pockets of Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Lobbyists, and to keep the vote of the low hanging fruit. They gotta keep juggling all the political footballs of God, Guns and Gays, to keep their base, right?

                I wonder how reasonable gun owners feel when they realize they're all being used as pawns by the Corporate Greed Wing of the Republican Party.

                Nature created the human race, but humans created racism.

                by GrannyOPhilly on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:27:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here's the issues as I see them, with your comment (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rockhound, PavePusher

                  The Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban any firearm from being owned. It made certain rifles illegal to manufacture based on cosmetic items. There are millions MORE out there now.

                  The reasonable suggestions from a gun owner:

                  jobs
                  education
                  jobs
                  single payer (with mental health care!)
                  jobs
                  marijuana legalization
                  jobs
                  better social safety nets
                  jobs

                  I'm all about removing that fear mongering when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. Democrats should come out firmly in support for firearm rights. We'd peel off a huge chunk of single issue voters who vote against their own interests right now based on that ONE issue.

                  Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:41:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thank you - good ideas, yet seemingly all (0+ / 0-)

                    lean towards kids who get into trouble due to economic reasons & budget cuts. None address the current gun problems we're facing. Like the Aurora shooter being under psychiatric care (breaking news) yet was able to purchase firearms & ammo w/no problem.  

                    I think most Dems are fine with gun rights but the fearmongers take any comment about responsible laws, and demonize that person. That's no way to solve a problem and responsible gun owners like you should push back on that tactic.

                    I'm really not trying to offend you, this issue just hits too close to home with me. I'm sorry I even engaged; I usually avoid RKBA diaries. I apologize for jumping on you like that.

                    Off to the Astros/Pirates game now. A hot dog & a pretzel will do me good. I'm sick of popcorn after Romney's Excellent London Adventure! Have a good evening.

                    Nature created the human race, but humans created racism.

                    by GrannyOPhilly on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:29:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's because we're not facing a GUN problem. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      oldpunk

                      There are millions upon millions of firearm owners in this country who NEVER break a firearm related law or kill anyone or maim anyone. If the firearms were the problem, wouldn't we see violent crime go up as the firearm laws were liberalized over the course of the last 25 years? More guns != more crime.

                      The problem is that laws that look responsible and like they could work, won't. Not in this country with our vast amount of civilian owned, unregistered, firearms.

                      I don't know enough about Holmes being under psych care. If he was adjudicated mentally unfit, then someone dropped the ball, big time.

                      You have not offended me. I am glad you engaged. I hope I haven't offended you either (I try to stay civil and succeed most of the time).

                      Enjoy the game! I wouldn't mind a hot dog right now, but would have to pass on the pretzels.

                      Here's one mind blowing thing about Rmoney: he was anti-RKBA as governor of MA but hey, the NRA backs him now?

                      Huge WTF there...

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:39:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  " but I know the difference" (0+ / 0-)

                  No, it appears that you actually don't.

                  "Army size machine gun carrying 10, 20 or 100 rounds which no one outside of our military has any reasonable need to own"

                  Those have been very tightly regulated since 1934, and they are not the type of weapon under discussion here.

                  •  Good job focusing on details of gun specifics. (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm focusing on the big picture trying to find an answer here. Your attempt to make me look ignorant just defends the status quo. Where are YOUR ideas to protect innocent Americans? Or is collateral damage acceptable to you in all cases?

                    At least KV acknowledges the ILA part of the NRA is a problem. My question is, when do you people plan to start speaking up about it? When are you gonna push back within your own organization? How many more innocents have to die before you people wake up?  

                    Nature created the human race, but humans created racism.

                    by GrannyOPhilly on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 09:49:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you try to base legislation on ignorance.... (0+ / 0-)

                      well, let's just say the results are never good.

                      Please notice that crime rates and especially murder rates are going down.  There are a number of reasons for this, but no-one's ever been able to conclusively demonstrate any correlation to gun control.

                      I am awake.  That's why I point out flawed appeals to emotion when what we need are fact, logic, evidence and truth.

                    •  P.S. Did you know that the weapons.... (0+ / 0-)

                      you seem to want to ban are far less powerful than bolt-action hunting rifles derived from former military rifles of a design over 100 years old?

                      •  irrelevent (0+ / 0-)

                        Again, you focus on irrelevent details rather then coming up with a reasonable solution to the problem of innocent  people being assaulted/killed by bullets fired from guns owned by people who bought them legally.

                        Every single gun out there was bought legally after manufacuture. I wonder how so many ended up used in crimes. They must have been stolen or lost by the original law abiding owner, right? So how many of those good law abiding owners reported those guns stolen/lost to the police dept or even their insurance company?

                        If I run a business to raise pit bulls, it' my responsibility to make sure they don't get loose and bite anyone. If I don't, my dogs get put down, I can get fined or arrested and may lose my entire livelyhood.  

                        Get back to me when you start to care about people who don't agree with you but have to share our society with paranoid people anyway.

                        Nature created the human race, but humans created racism.

                        by GrannyOPhilly on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 01:22:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  "automatic assault weapon"....? (0+ / 0-)

              No such thing.

  •  Since He's Already Paying Full Political Price for (6+ / 0-)

    confiscating everybody's arms, why not bring out a few sensible proposals and run on them in the election.

    Where can they escalate this to-- claim that he already took all the guns?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 01:17:57 PM PDT

    •  A few sensible proposals (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, IndieGuy, G2geek, Matt Z

      would provide the NRA with easy targets to campaign against. The best they can do now is conspiracies and threats.

      "Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Isaac Asimov

      by tytalus on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 01:57:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gooserock, got to agree, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ranger995, JesseCW

      He's basically already said it, no military type guns for civilians and a conversation about violence, a sensible start. I think this position makes the President look stronger, just like supporting Gay marriage.

      Plus, we scream fo better Democrats, but bow to politics too often when good progressive opportunities arise to make hay. This must stop, then we can have change we believe in and have hope.

      Children are more secure when they know where the boundaries are. Voters may share the same inner feelings. So, why must we alter our progressive boundaries when the majority of the people poll in favor of our ideas on almost every important issue?

      Remember, from our past political knowledge, Americans vote for a leader as president.

      "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

      by smiley7 on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:55:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's nothing mild or sensible about it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas

    The only motives for banning drum magazines are:

    1. Irrational fear of big numbers, or
    2. Spite.

    The President could really change the game by coming out in support of S.2188.  Doing so would forever deprive the right a monopoly on the issue of self-defense, force the conversation to proximate actions government must take to secure the public.

    •  I disagree with your claim on drum magazines... (10+ / 0-)

      ...but the only way to prove it is on the gun range with an appropriately large wager. You will fire your semi-auto rifle loaded serially with 10, 10-cartridge magazines.

      I will fire mine loaded with the 100-round drum. First person to fire 100 shots collects the wager.

      As for S. 2188, I am not opposed to concealed carry, but the training provisions for such laws are grossly inadequate in many states. In Colorado, there is no requirement that a person ever demonstrate that they have fired ANY gun, much less the one they seek a permit to carry concealed. Training can be as few as three hours. Not only should laws require adequate training (or testing in lieu of training), but there should be reasonable renewal tests and inspections of weapons being carried.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:11:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed on the training situation. (11+ / 0-)

        In the end, the issue of training is one of the main hurdles to many states offering reciprocity on their own.

        One thing, though:  I'm betting I could shoot 100 rounds faster with my ten, 10-round mags than you could with the 100-round compensator.  Those things jam.  Far as I'm concerned, they're the ballistic equivalent to Truck Nutz.


        Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

        by IndieGuy on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:31:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not a very good bet. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee

        Might as well have a chugging contest where you can just pour your drink out on the bar.

        I am very skeptical of training requirements.  There's no evidence whatsoever that mandatory training has any impact whatsoever on accidental firearm death or injury.  So the question is whether or not mandatory training will be used as means to effectively turn a shall-issue regime into a may-issue one by subjective standard, or otherwise institute procedures that make it prohibitively or overly burdensome to appeal.  At this stage in the debate, it's very difficult to trust the gun grabbers not to take advantage of such a tool once it's in their hands, so without clear and convincing evidence that voluntary training is inadequate we're going to have to dsiagree.

        •  So Greg Block's shooting classes... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, G2geek

          ...are a scam? Yes, you and I will have to disagree all right.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 03:07:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

            What possible connection is there between Greg Block's course and public health policy?

            •  "There's no evidence whatsoever that mandatory... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tytalus, G2geek

              ...training has any impact whatsoever on accidental firearm death or injury." That's your comment, not mine, which is a response to that astonishing claim.

              Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 03:57:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  WHERE has mandatory training (0+ / 0-)

                been required/implemented for any length of time (here in the U.S.)?

                "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

                by Superpole on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:00:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Please explain. (0+ / 0-)

                How do you go from "there's no evidence that mandatory training has any impact whatsoever on accidental firearm death and injury" to "Greg Block's classes are a scam."

                I suspect you're trying to be witty here, and while connecting two random thoughts is funny in a lot of situations I'm pretty sure you were trying to make a point.

                •  It's simple. If classes in training people both... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...how to use guns effectively as well as when don't provide any benefit (beyond hitting the target better), then why would anybody sign up for them. I'm not just talking about accidental deaths here. I'm talking about people learning when it's appropriate to draw their weapon. Unlike you, one place I don't believe it's appropriate is a dark, theater filled with gas and/or smoke and a chaotic crowd of scared people. That's how even more people get shot.

                  Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                  by Meteor Blades on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:10:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Pete, the issue is in the wording (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pete Cortez, KenBee, oldpunk, PavePusher

          "Applicants shall receive a course of approved training delivered by NYPD at applicant expense" will require a $300 per-day, four day course.

          OK, you say... that's the cost of doing business.

          Sheldon, a long-time contributor to the Manhattan Borough President, desires a Pistol Permit.

          Sheldon pays his money, and his application is walked to the appropriate hands for signature.  He's given a date for four consecutive days at the range, starting in 3 weeks.
          That however, doesn't meet with his "off on Tuesdays" schedule.  Four consecutive days, becomes four tuesdays - at your convenience - please call ahead.

          Mohammed, a taxi driver and Egyptian Coptic Christian, long-time Manhattan resident and recent release from Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital applies for a Pistol Permit.
          Citizen?  Yes.  Employed?  Yes. Taxi driver for a Medallion cab company.  Ever victim of a crime?  Stabbed twice, strangled nearly to death once, shot recently.
          Very interesting.  Do you have your non-refundable money orders made payable to The City of New York?  Yes.  Application fee, fingerprint and background check fee, and mandatory training fee.

          We'll be in-touch.  Don't call us, we'll call you.

          That application is put into stack #2, the no-hope-for-a-permit stack.  The money orders are sent for deposit in the city's accounts.

          Stack #1, is for folks who'll get a permit... but it's going to take 6 months or longer.  If you're smart, and in that stack, you'll find a "rabbi" in NYC parlance - like the Parks Commissioner, who can receive a valued endorsement or contribution to his/her campaign for City Counsel.

          That person could, in-turn "enquire" about said Pistol Permit and it may make it to a higher place on the stack.

          Range time?  Available.  But your schedule must meet our schedule.

          Mohammed?  We'll his lawyer or other advocate may enquire about the permit... but with the City Budget Crisis?
          NYPD resources for training civilians to keep and bear arms has been reduced to one class per month.

          I believe Mohammed is scheduled for a class... (flip-flip-flip)... (flip-flip-flip) oh, here it is.  April 5, 6, 7 and 8, 2018.
          Purely coincidence, that a Orthodox Coptic Christian would be scheduled for class on three major church holidays... the only dates available, 5 years from now.
          You could, of course re-schedule for a later date... say, summer of 2019?
      •  What does training do except improve aim? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher

        Are you seriously suggesting that if James Holmes had been forced to attend mandatory gun training (thus making him a better shot), that the massacre would have been better, not worse?

        Mandatory training can be suggested as a means for dealing with idiot rednecks who shoot themselves, but how does it help us with the gun nut who simply wants to kill as many as possible?

        Inspections of weapons being carried could detect if an semi-auto had been illegally converted to full automatic, but do you also expect someone who did convert a weapon to produce it for inspection?  And again, doesn't address anything about Colorado.

        The real problem with the Colorado shooting is that nothing can be done except reduce the size of the magazine.  And there, more gun training simply makes the shooter a better reloader.

        •  No, I'm not suggesting any such thing... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, 43north, KenBee

          ...This has nothing to do with Holmes or his skills. He didn't have a concealed carry permit.

          The issue is that we have many "law-abiding gun-owners," as the NRA likes to say, carrying concealed firearms who don't know when it's appropriate to actually draw their weapon or use it or who have the necessary training to use it well is what I am talking about.

          There were two issues being discussed here: why I think high-capacity magazines should be banned, and why I think S. 2188 is a bad idea because it would let poorly trained concealed firearms permit holders carry their hidden guns in states where better training is required.

           

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:02:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I don't understand why it would be bad, they all (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smiley7, Superpole, JesseCW

    already believe that he is coming to take their guns, just like they think he is a socialist. There is no way he is going to get them to believe otherwise. I just can't understand this type of defeatist thinking. "Oh my god, we can't make new legislation concerning guns, because all of the crazy-ass NRA guys will not vote for Democrats" Like fucking Ted Nugent is ever going to  vote for a Democrat. What a bullshit excuse to do nothing.

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 01:26:29 PM PDT

    •  goal: independents in swing middle america states (9+ / 0-)

      not Ted Nugents and other R and RW voters...and also not inspiring them enough into donating money by being panicked by phony NRA mailings.

      If they are not motivated enough to vote, that's fine by me also.

      basis for a lot of this is the 94 election losses down ticket that resulted in a cultural and political vandal like Newt and the current crop still there.

      This is practical politics, it may be sucky and seem cowardly but we'll have to suck it up, just remember one thing here: reepers back in power kill many more than guns do imo.

      focus your frustration on that for now.

      From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

      by KenBee on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:38:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Correct. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smiley7, ranger995, JesseCW

      what we're seeing here is the ultimate example of The Fear of Rmoney.

      OMG!!!! He just cannot win! we must delay common sense action, obviously needed now, it might cost Obama a few hundred votes...

      this is unbelievable

      "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

      by Superpole on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:10:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Disagree (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, smiley7, Superpole, JesseCW

    No gun zealot will vote for him anyway.  He could at least demonstrate the courage not to be intimidated by the gun nuts.  He owes that to JFK, RFK, MLK....among oh so many others.  

    •  It's not the zealots we're talking about. It's ... (14+ / 0-)

      ...the reasonable gun-owners who voted for him in 2008 who could be nudged into opposition.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:13:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can be nudged into opposition too (0+ / 0-)

        Keith Ellison has my vote.   The rest of them?  Heck I can't even find out if Obama still has Medicare eligibility age on the table.  Once they start cowering you can't take anything for granted.

      •  Oh Yes, Because Reasonable (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW

        gun owners are just sooooooooooo gullible, so ignorant. they don't have a heart or any humanity at all. surely they have no sympathy for the innocent victims of the latest madman.

        you've got to be kidding me here. this is a total insult of reasonable people.

        "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

        by Superpole on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:20:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How many gun owners do you know personally... (7+ / 0-)

          ...Superpole? I know a lot. Some would never vote for a Republican. Some would never vote for a Democrat. And some, the ones at issue here, voted for Obama last time but are switch-voters and would ponder changing their vote this time if they thought what they consider to be unreasonable gun legislation would be the consequence of voting for Obama in 2012. What exactly is the benefit from having the president speak in favor of legislation that has zero chance of passing before election day but 100% chance of pushing thousands of voters in crucial states into not voting for him or voting for his opponent?

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:18:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Zing>>>>this right here (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, rockhound, oldpunk, PavePusher
            What exactly is the benefit from having the president speak in favor of legislation that has zero chance of passing before election day but 100% chance of pushing thousands of voters in crucial states into not voting for him or voting for his opponent?
            ...too long for a sig, but well said.

            From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

            by KenBee on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:05:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  not only that, the president can't pass the bills (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dougymi, smiley7, JesseCW

    himself and you can forget about congress taking up gun control anytime soon.

    however, it's just not a big deal considering the gun nuts already think Obama is going take their guns away.  

    that damage was done back '08/'09.  so i don't think it would hurt him that much if he did come up with a new proposal.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 01:37:42 PM PDT

    •  'that much' !? that this is even close (4+ / 0-)

      and this parasitical 1% sociopath is even running should mean we take no chance with this type of political experimenting.

      If there is polling that shows independents would vote for the party actively fomenting 'reasonable' gun laws, and that polling suggests the gains are clearly greater than the losses, someone needs to make that known.

      I would think we would have seen that poll by now, or the Karl Rove / Crossroads ad for more gun laws.

      Politics and political compromises suck, , but less so than having President Mitt.

      From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

      by KenBee on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:45:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  here you go (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW

        Poll finds gun owners, even NRA members, back some restrictions

        (Reuters) - Most gun owners - even current and former members of the National Rifle Association - support some firearms ownership restrictions including criminal background checks for prospective gun buyers, according to a poll commissioned by an anti-gun lobbying group.

        The survey, conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was carried out in May but was released on Tuesday in the aftermath of the Colorado movie theater shooting that killed 12 people last week.

        http://www.reuters.com/...

        "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

        by smiley7 on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:20:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  'customers is king'- Luntz polling to order (5+ / 0-)

          as was also noted in the article (or maybe a blog post, can't remember) about that study that I read...the customers being Mayors Against Illegal Gun a group mostly funded by Bloomberg..Bloomberg being a zillionaire and potential Luntz King Customer  #1, 2, and 3.
            Something like confirmation bias here...what's the word?......

            Whoever wrote what I read about this 'study' was discounting that poll, but even then , mostly I've got no problem with it.

          Even here on dkos RKBA threads we have some members and former members of the NRA, fellow dems, dkossers in good standing arguing about the degree of 'some background checks' but not their basic existence or even very much against the current set of laws, variable state to state of course.

          What you will find on here is mostly agreement that there are some minor tweaks to what there is now and that enforcement of these laws: 'some background checks' is pretty spotty.

            People claim they see massive private parking lot sales at gun shows..people here say 'call the police'.

            So while no one here takes Luntz seriously, some say a serial liar, there is essentially agreement for 'some background checks'. Most of the other questions are similar and familiar issues.... I'm glad you posted that link, I wonder if this is the basic framing of the 'Draft Bloomberg' movement preparatory to the Reeper Convention now that Mitt is thrilling people the world over.

          "No time to be picky, draft 'Bloomberg Now, it's an Emergency, Bloomberg/Rice 2012'."
          ..but I digress...

          Actually, more the article seems more like a political talking point and campaign brief than a serious study. 'Bloomberg Now and Forever'

          No problemo.

          Except for this:

          The big problem with that study, IF the article actually is quoting the actual questions asked:

          In addition, 71 percent of current or former NRA members and 80 percent of the other gun owners supported banning people on a terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
          the terrorist watch list, an absurd collection of people, done with little apparent supervision, feedback, or oversight.

            To suggest such a thing is soooo stupid...shades of Guiliani911.
          If there was some database that could be trusted...maybe.

          But politically that 'watch list' is the poison pill for that question...but useful to show 'compromise'.

             Since we're here on dkos, I don't believe I really have to offer the litany of ways the lack of due process around the application of this terrorist watch list will never be good law.... or work.

          Others have done that here for years now.

          Bloomberg. gah!

          Thanks for the link and your reply.

          From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

          by KenBee on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:24:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Some of those items already are law... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, 43north, KenBee, PavePusher

          ...in at least some states (including Colorado). None of them would have stopped James Holmes from carrying out his massacre.

          I am a gun-owner and I support far stricter gun laws than were polled here. But pushing them three months before a presidential election is a gigantic mistake.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:32:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •   disagree, doing what's right has it's rewards (0+ / 0-)

            the President knows this very well.

            All he is saying is that citizens should not have military style
            weapons.
            It is a reasonable position and one he should drive home.

            A sheriff was killed in our small community last night by a gun carrying person, apparently responding to a domestic dispute.

            Underneath, we've collectively had enough of guns, the President knows this, too; better than most.

            Trust him on this and don't worry; the economy trumps everything in November, but leadership. He's not going to put guns on the main menu, but I'm grateful that he has it on the lazy suzann.

            Americans want a leader.

            "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

            by smiley7 on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:28:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not knocking what he's saying... (5+ / 0-)

              ...What I'm urging that he not do is fall for the trap Boehner is setting. Obama has made his comment, indicated that he is (probably) in the place that most Americans are regarding these particular weapons. There is no reason for him to go further than he has until after the election.

              Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 01:40:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Did you know.... (0+ / 0-)

              that pretty much all current modern hunting firearms are direct derivations of military designs, some dating back to the 1880's?

              What you seem to want is to apply a cut-off date to technology.

              Ummm... not seeing the feasability in that.

  •  Wrap it in a jobs creation package (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, Meteor Blades, KenBee, 43north

    The current NICS system (supported by the NRA) is woefully non-functional.  

    It is supposed to contain the names of people who are prohibited from firearms ownership by virtue of being within several different categories - convicted felons, adjudicated as mentally incompetent, currently subject to a domestic violence order of protection, etc.  A NICS check is part of all firearms purchases from licensed dealers.

    The data is primarily drawn from state databases, many of which are non-existent or in serious disarray, which leads to the deficiencies in the NICS database.  Several states report no data at all, either because it does not exist or they simply refuse to provide it to NICS.

    It is pure speculation, but I believe that it would take thousands of people several years to work with the states to get their records up to speed and entered into the NICS database.  

    Such a move would use an existing law with which very few people disagree, put untold numbers to work for a few years, and go a long way toward accomplishing the almost universally acceptable goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of people who are legally prohibited from possessing one.

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 04:19:13 PM PDT

  •  bloomberg endorsed wrong, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, rockhound

    for the wrong reason, too.

    so very not good.

    Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.
    * Join: OBAMA'S TRUTH TEAM *

    by greenbird on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:38:06 PM PDT

  •  Hey Johnny-Boy, Obama's clear of the gun-trap (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smiley7

    80 % of success is showing up

    Corporate is not the solution to our problem

    Corporate is the problem

    by Churchill on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:39:00 PM PDT

  •  This sounds like what happens on DKos . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole, ranger995, JesseCW
    But the gun lobbyists with their wads of cash and well-honed take-no-prisoners electoral approach have generated a toxicity in the matter that allows for no reasonable discussion.

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:40:04 PM PDT

  •  Respectfully disagree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smiley7, JesseCW

    Obama has forced Romney to publicly come out in favor of private ownership of assault weapons.  This is not a good position for Romney in this election year.

  •  Yep. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole, KenBee, Meteor Blades
    Such a discussion has to happen. But, beyond what he has already said, there is zero upside for the president to engage in one before November.
    Obama can't bite before the election.

    But, I for one would like to see a "reasonable discussion."

    In my lifetime.  

    •  Oh Yeah... (0+ / 0-)

      we've got lots of time to endlessly discuss the issue, right? hey, if we stall long enough, the next slaughter will overlap with the discussion, and we start all over again!

      "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

      by Superpole on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:08:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The three “G”s. (0+ / 0-)

    Guns, God and gays.
    First the fear, then the smear.

    •  "Guns, God, and Gays" is itself a Dog Whistle. (0+ / 0-)

      The people it targets hear it loud and clear.

      Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

      by JesseCW on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:29:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gun control (0+ / 0-)

    At the national level is another 12 years away, until the population of Latinos and African Americans grows, and the percentage of 65+ white republicans shrinks.

    Those in support of gun control really need to focus on a few friendly states first, and make a working example of heavily taxing firearms and ammunition until they become impractical to purchase.

    I've seen some hardboiled eggs in my time, but you're about twenty minutes

    by harrylimelives on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:55:14 PM PDT

  •  it doesn't... (0+ / 0-)

    help that the percentage of Americans who even want more gun control has plummeted in the past quarter century...

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 06:59:06 PM PDT

  •  "Such a discussion has to happen". (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smiley7

    ..."but not at this moment".

    Yayyyyyyyyyy!

    Oh, very good. yes, let's play 11th dimensional chess one more time ! let's oh so carefully discuss the issue, take lots of baby steps, analyze again and again, drag out the same ol' already known stats, debate what js and is not an assault weapon, blah, blah, blah.

    what a load of complete nonsense.

    Common sense and basic humanity are no longer our guide.. gone now in the name of political expediency and feeble hand wringing over whether "forcing the issue" now might lose the incumbent a few independent voters in OH or Virginia.

    Never think outside of the teeny, tiny political box, never.

    Weak, very weak.

    Proceed with your time wasting; I'm pressing ahead.

    "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:06:38 PM PDT

    •  Show me your three-month path to ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rockhound, KenBee, PavePusher

      ...victory on gun-control measures, Superpole.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:37:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  trite (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Superpole

        "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

        by smiley7 on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:32:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's Typical (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          smiley7

          there's just no sense of urgency.

          we're getting cut down like hogs; I've had enough of the stalling, terminal "discussion"

          "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

          by Superpole on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:50:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You do know that murder rates are... (0+ / 0-)

            dropping, didn't you?

            •  The Homicide Rate is Not Dropping (0+ / 0-)

              in Chicago.

              NPR did a piece on this, this morning.

              yes, overall the homicide rate in our nation is dropping.

              SO WHAT??

              it's still one of the highest in the free world.. and the number of accidental shootings of children is totally unacceptable.

              if you think this is acceptable, you've got some sort of ax to grind that I'm not interested in

              "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

              by Superpole on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:23:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So, rates are not dropping.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                in an enclave with some of the strictest gun control in the nation?

                How very odd.  I refer you to Prohibition and it's similar results.

                And your assumption that I find our over-all rate acceptable?  That's very odd too, since I espoused no such position, nor even hinted at it.  Please bury your Strawman, it's burned out and useless.

                Your axe appears to need some grinding, as it's quite dull and pitted.

        •  And true. (0+ / 0-)

          "What's your plan, man?"

      •  FIRST THINGS FIRST (0+ / 0-)

        please show me the living, breathing "democrats" in congress who actually CARE, Mr. Blades.

        I'm talking other than Kuc and Bernie Sanders. and it has to be hundreds, not 10 or 12.

        please provide links proving more than a handful (if that) of democrats in congress who have the guts and humanity to finally stand up to the NRA and their pathetic robot followers.

        THEN we'll talk time frame/strategy.

        I am not a congressperson. I'm forced to work with the total clowns there now.

        http://www.businessinsider.com/...

        "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

        by Superpole on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:47:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are saying something has to be done NOW... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee, PavePusher

          ...but you are not providing a reason why now will actually produce a beneficial result. I am arguing that for the president to do more in the next three months than he has done so far, for him to take the GOP bait in this matter, could have electoral implications that makes doing anything in this arena impossible.

          I would assume from your passion on this subject that you don't want symbolic action but something real, something that produces results. I believe that anything the president does right now in the next three months will be nearly symbolic and not only not productive but most probably counterproductive. You consider that a hand-wringing, chickenshit, avoid-the-issue approach. I consider it common sense.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:21:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I think NRA members should be asking the NRA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smiley7

    what they are going to do about all this violence being done at the barrel of a gun. How come members are not holding the NRA accountable for not actively lobbying congress to prevent the mentally unstable people from getting their hands on guns. I honestly think it makes guns owners look bad that they are not standing up to their own organization and demanding that something be done.

    I called the NRA the other day and after being told, by Eric, that the NRA was not going to comment on the Aurora event, I said hey, no problem, let's talk about Tuscon or Fort Hood or Columbine. At what point is it going to be okay to talk about what the NRA can do with all it's lobbying power to make congress either support more mental health subsidies to states to id and treat these people BEFORE they decide a gun is the answer to their problems. Or how the NRA can lobby congress to close some loopholes to prevent criminals from getting guns at the gun shows. Surely the NRA does not want these mass murders to keep occurring. Eric just kept saying that the NRA had no comment on the Aurora event. So, it's clear that the NRA looks at Aurora as being an isolated event. And as a member of the NRA, I would be very worried that the organization that represents me thinks this way. Also, Eric, being a patient and very american dude, hung up on me instead of having a rational conversation.

    If I was a member of the NRA, i'd be very worried that these are the people representing me. The right to life trumps the right to bear arms. You really don't need a gun when you are already dead.

    I don't think the President should be the one having to "do something". I think the members of the NRA are the ones that should be doing something. And I will be happy to help them.

    Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

    by yawnimawke on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 07:15:29 PM PDT

    •  How do you decide who's mentally unstable? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      yawnimawke, PavePusher

      The Aurora shooter never did anything to attract attention before.  Innocent until proven guilty demands that we all be presumed sane.

      Do we issue a mandatory psych test before each gun sale?  First, very easy to fake.  Second, administered by whom?  Evaluated by whom?  And to what end?

      I can already tell you how it would go down.  Teabaggers and the NRA would rig the evaluations, and we'd suddenly discover that most "brown folk" are mentally imbalanced while every white redneck is quite sane.  Oh, and just wait until everyone who fails the gun psych test is also ruled unfit to vote.

      Then come the court challanges, the cries of discrimination and racism, until the Supreme Court upholds the voting disenfranchisement of millions.

      No thanks, I'll take my chances with the next lone gun nut vs. institutionalized nationwide discrimination.

      •  i'm not making myself clear. Mental Health care (0+ / 0-)

        in states is the first thing to get stripped when budget cuts are done. People who are in a need of that care suffer from not being treated and/or getting meds. When they are not getting cared for, they have a tendency to act out in all sorts of ways. Families have no where to turn if they have a member who needs help and they cannot provide it for them. The NRA, being a a HUGE lobby, has the ability, through it's hold on those very same legislatures that strip mental health subsidies for states, to demand that mental health not be stripped. It makes sense that as part of their lobbying efforts to protect 2nd amendment rights that they also try to help the people who when not treated, have a tendency to pick up some guns and go out and create chaos. I don't think there needs to be a psych test for a gun purchase. I think there should be funding for mental health facilities to grab these guys BEFORE they even make it to gun store.

        I appreciate the jump to testing but that is not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about PREVENTATIVE measures BEFORE guns are even thought of. The NRA and it's members should support the mental health programs in all the states. While it won't stop all the loonies from slipping though the cracks it will stop the cracks from being the size of the grand canyon.

        Earth: Mostly harmless ~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (revised entry)

        by yawnimawke on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:58:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Which is satire? This or (0+ / 0-)

    http://thenewinquiry.com/...

    this?

    You decide, dear readers.

    Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

    by JesseCW on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:20:01 PM PDT

  •  The overall murder rate is down slightly... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, PavePusher

    ...but spree killing numbers are flat, they stay pretty much the same year after year.

    No guarantee that stricter gun laws will prevent these, since some spree killers forgo guns in favor of home-made pipe bombs or knives. (I am pro-gun control btw, so this isn't a partisan statement.)

    There is one very peculiar thing about spree killers in this society.  They are all male.  Lots of female serial killers, but almost no female spree killers.  Why are almost all spree killers men?  Why does the rate not vary much?  Those are the interesting questions.  The answers might lead to a reduction in the number of these events.

    I guess what I'm saying, let's ask the right questions about the Colorado massacre.  The availability of firearms may not have anything to do with this particular issue.

    Please feel free to HR me for my informative and argumentative nature. 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

    by rbird on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:21:15 PM PDT

    •  The overall murder rate is down a *lot*. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk, PavePusher

      Not slightly.

      There are female spree killers.  A very close friend of mine watched one kill his teacher when he was in elementary school.

      I have no doubt the disparity is very closely linked to the much higher rate of male suicide.

      Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

      by JesseCW on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:32:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I should have said "mass murder events"... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        ...since the Colorado massacre is not, strictly speaking, a spree killing.

        There might be a link between such events and suicidal thoughts in the perpetrators, but not all mass murderers and spree killers have suicidal thoughts, nor do all of them view their attacks as suicide missions.  What gets under my skin about this particular type of crime is the stability of the numbers...or apparent stability, since I'm not an expert and am relying on the several articles I've read.

        Please feel free to HR me for my informative and argumentative nature. 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

        by rbird on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:49:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How do other cultures compare to ours? (0+ / 0-)

          I know they happen in Japan, but as to the frequency of events, I have no idea.  Is the flat rate of these events, or their occurrence, culturally linked?  Is it neurologic, some mis-wiring that occurs mostly in the male brain?  The articles I've read on this subject don't have any conclusions, only questions.

          Sorry to be off-topic.

          I agree that this is a none-too-subtle attempt at a trap by Republicans.  I'm never in favor of walking into a trap.

          Please feel free to HR me for my informative and argumentative nature. 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

          by rbird on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:56:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The NRA endorsement process is nuts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    As a NRA life member (joined because I hunt, love to target shot, and because the NRA trains and supports our Olympic shooting teams) I cannot the obvious intent of the Wayne LaPiere and the Radical Republicans who have taken over this once proud organization to endorse Willard Romney for the Presidency this fall. They are claiming that President Obama will push gun control laws in his second term, but are about to endorse the only ex-governor who ever signed into law permanent bans on the sales of assault style semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines into law (Willard)! Both of which they worked hard to get repealed on the Federal level. It is time Progressives, who are also members of the NRA to form a caucus of NRA members who have had enough of Wayne and his Radical supporters to take this proud organization back!

  •  Not just undecided GOP... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smiley7

    The RKBAers here are already lined up against Obama's sensible gun control thoughts.

    Belonging to the NRA because you "like to hunt" and "support the Olympics" is like joining the Ku Klux Klan  because you like white linens. They are a radical, anti-progressive organization that does not deserve a penny of liberal support.

  •  I read that the NRA was asked for comment (0+ / 0-)

    about Obama's speech, but declined to comment. I thought that was odd. Doesn't their press release really write itself?

    Have they commented yet?

  •  Worst speaker ever...... (0+ / 0-)

    he still hasn't produce one job.

    No jobs yet Mr Boner....your times running out.

    by Camp on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:37:21 PM PDT

  •  Plan of Attack (0+ / 0-)

    At the very least we should have lawyers planning/writing what we want in a law now! We should be have a plan of attack, and have definite firm ideas of what we want.  IE no more gun shows w/o background checks, some system that sets off red flags when 600 rounds of amo are ordered, etc.  I am pro 2 amendment.  Certainly even respect the right of someone who might even want to shoot an AK47 for fun, but the guns must be kept out of the wrong hands. If we can't do that then we don't have the privilege. We need to be able to hit the ground running when we are able to present a control argument.

    •  Totally agree about plan of attack being... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      43north, KenBee, PavePusher

      ...built now. And something that existing gun-control groups aren't doing: because they have failed. But no need for the president to be involved at this stage; far better that he not be.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:47:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  LazyCash49.com (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    KenBee

    my buddy's aunt makes $60 hourly on the computer. She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her check was $16740 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://www.LazyCash49.com

  •  There is a lie being spread that Obama has.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    43north

    signed a UN gun control treaty which bypasses US laws. I have so far been able to find out that Obama has said he would not support any treaty that impinged on 2nd amendment rights, and that any such treaty would never be ratified by Congress. I have not been able to find out with certainty whether the proposed treaty with its unacceptable wording has even come up for a vote at the U.N. Anybody know the current status of this treaty?  

  •  Come. Let us reason together. (0+ / 0-)

    Does this mean you missed it? Obama HAS called for more gun control, post Aurora. An above the fray sort of call for, of course, a bipartisan effort.

  •  "...at this moment..." (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, rockhound

    So when does he move?  After the election? This is exactly the kind of language that the far right uses to to suggest the Democrats have a stealth plan to take their guns and as crazy as that may sound this rhetoric feeds the perception. I think the President (and Romney) need to clearly spell out their positions on this and every other issue affecting the American people before the election. Keeping quiet "at this time" with the intent of acting later just feeds the crazies. Of course, as I have stated many times, I believe gun control is a losing issue for Democrats now or after the election.

    You want twelve dollar gasoline? Bomb Iran!

    by wishbone on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 08:04:41 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site