Skip to main content

pistol with extended magazine
Vice President Joe Biden will meet Wednesday with gun safety and gun violence victims' groups. On Thursday, he will meet with representatives of gun ownership and sportsmen. He will also meet sometime this week with representatives from the entertainment and video-game industries. Biden already presided over a summit with law enforcement officials last month. The discussions are all part of the effort by an administration-wide task force on gun violence that Biden heads to come up with a report on options by the Jan. 31 deadline President Obama has set.

The task force was established in December after the slaughter of kindergarteners and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut, by a young gunman armed with a rapid-fire semi-automatic rifle owned by his mother, whom he also killed before shooting himself when police arrived on the scene.

Staff aides say the president wants to act quickly for fear that delay will allow the massacre to fade from memory as other pressing matters take over the government's and public's attention and the prospects for new legislation also fades.

(Continue reading below the fold)

While the full parameters of any such legislation have not yet emerged, some items are clearly on the table:

• A reinstatement of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004. That ban, part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, forbade new sales of 19 semi-auto rifles with specific features. Already owned weapons in these categories, as long as they were legally acquired, were excluded from the ban. The law also limited the capacity of newly manufactured magazines and other ammunition feeding devices to 10 rounds. But it allowed higher-capacity magazines that already had been manufactured to continue to be sold. There were millions of these.

• A requirement for universal background checks of anyone seeking to purchase a firearm in any venue, whether from a federally licensed firearms dealer or from a private individual. Currently, private individuals at gun shows and elsewhere can sell firearms without running a background check to see if prospective buyers have criminal records or mental health issues that bar them from gun ownership.

• Tracking firearms through a national database.

• Creating a more robust mental health check of potential buyers.

• Legislating tough penalties for carrying firearms near schools.

So far, the idea of licensing gun owners, of limiting the number of firearms a person may buy in a certain period to prevent "strawman" sales, requiring robust safety and proficiency tests, banning internet sales of ammunition and limiting who can obtain licenses for carrying concealed firearms do not seem to be under consideration. And First Amendment obstacles may prevent anything other than jawboning when it comes to the content of video games.

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda. [...]

The White House is also developing strategies to navigate the rocky and emotionally fraught terrain of gun politics once final policy decisions are made. The administration is quietly talking with a diverse array of interest groups, including religious leaders, mental-health professionals and hunters, to build as broad a coalition as possible, those involved in the discussions said.

Everyone favoring new laws knows that the road ahead has one major obstacle, the National Rifle Association. The NRA's leadership includes gun manufacturers as well as right-wing politicians and celebrities. The organization has been a driving force behind changes in gun laws over the past 25 years, including keeping the assault weapons ban from being renewed nine years ago as well as the spread of state legislation mandating easy-to-obtain permits to carry concealed firearms.  

Biden has said the administration does not fear taking on the NRA. Which is a good thing because that organization can be counted on to stand stubbornly in the path of even the mildest new legislation if it doesn't mandate the spread of firearms as a means to stop gun violence.

On the other side, there are a number of organizations seeking new gun restrictions. The formation of a new one to counter the gun lobby was announced Tuesday by former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly. Giffords was severely wounded when shot in the head by Jared Loughner in Tucson two years ago. In the shooting spree, Loughner also killed six other people and wounded 19 with a semi-automatic pistol fed with a extended 33-round magazine. He was stopped when he attempted to reload.

The organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, will push for a national dialogue on gun violence and raise money to counter the NRA. In an op-ed, Giffords and Kelly write:

Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission. Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.
Currently, opinion gauged by the polls, including one by Daily Kos/PPP, have shown that a majority of Americans support new restrictions, especially background checks and reinstating the assault weapons ban. That marks a change in what has been a decades-long downward trend in support for additional restrictions. But we can expect a full-bore campaign by the NRA and other gun groups, like the Gun Owners of America which thinks the NRA is a sell-out, to bend public opinion back in their direction.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:25 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Shut Down the NRA, and 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

  •  How about a gun tax? (20+ / 0-)

    The bigger the gun, the bigger the tax when you buy.

    Also, a one-time tax for existing guns, the bigger the tax for the more guns you have.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:26:40 AM PST

  •  I wish they would take up the idea of (25+ / 0-)

    mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.

    But, I'll tell you, I am glad as hell to see Biden taking this so seriously.  This doesn't seem to be some focus group, let's think about it for awhile and let it fade away so we don't have to actually do something type of approach.

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:31:02 AM PST

    •  a trampoline is apparently more dangerous (7+ / 0-)

      than a gun.

      "The Republican party primarily exists to represent the interests of business elites in the political sphere and redistribute power and resources to the wealthy. Its enduring values beyond that end have always been up for grabs." Gary Younge

      by politik on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:45:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why isn't anyone tailing about how much gun (9+ / 0-)

      violence costs us literally?  That guy Cheney shot in the face? We taxpayers paid the hospital and doctor's bills since he was on Medicare.  

      When I was a resident at University Medical Center in Tucson (the hospital that saved Gabby Gifford's life and tried to save Christina Taylor Greene) we had a bunch of border area ranchers that started to shoot unarmed migrants on or near their land.  One man had his dominant hand wrist blown through.  His medical care alone cost taxpayers six figures.  Finally the sheriff's dept. visited the ranchers and told them they may be liable for the medical bills their targets were racking up.  That stopped the shooting real quick!

      •  Ah, but you are a physician (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, Womantrust, glorificus

        So you are logical, and you are used to thinking in terms of cost-benefit analysis, some conception of best practices, and your goal is to reduce morbitity and mortality.  None of those considerations hold, sadly, when it comes to public policy on firearms. It's an uphill battle getting people to think logically about costs and benefits with this issue. Congress defunded the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at CDC in 1996 and has prevented the agency from engaging in anything that could be considered to "promote or advocate for gun control." JAMA article here: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/...

        And in 2011 in Florida, Gov Valdemort signed a bill that places a health care provider's license at risk if s/he discusses firearm safety in a way that a board deems "irrelevant" - which seems pretty stupid given that a physician or mental health worker may be the best person to prevent a suicide.  Ditto - Congress passed a law preventing US military commanders from discussing private gun ownership with their direct reports, which strikes me as utterly bizarre and unhelpful given the possibility of service members inflicting harm on themselves and others.  

        But... this is where we are as a country.  This is the sort of irrational approach we have to this topic.  It's not just guns either.  They tried to shut up NOAA on climate change. It is shocking that in area after area of public policy, people can't apply cost-benefit analysis, research, or even openly communicate.

        “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

        by ivorybill on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:04:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I believe membership in the NRA includes (0+ / 0-)

      liability insurance.

      •  Manditory (0+ / 0-)

        for everyone who owns a gun.  For each gun they own, just like cars.

        Not all gun owners are in the NRA, thank heavens.

        I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

        by coquiero on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:08:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK.. so you have made NRA membership (0+ / 0-)

          all that more attractive.

          Seems to me if you believe the NRA is against the principles you want to promote, you have just pushed a good portion of the country, progressives included, into their open arms.

          The fact is, liability costs of legal gun owners is so infinitessimally small, anyone would be willing to underwrite that risk... especially the NRA!

          •  I'm willing to take that chance (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bon Temps

            I'm not that concerned that I'm driving progressives into the arms of the NRA.

            If you think that kind of fear tactic will make people back off of gun control, go for it.

            As I said, I'm not concerned.

            And if it's so very easy to insure gun owners, it should be a cinch to convince America it's a good idea.  Win-win.

            I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

            by coquiero on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:42:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  This would effectively outlaw guns for poor people (0+ / 0-)

      Class Warfare.

      "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

      by TheHalfrican on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:14:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Tend To Be On The Side Of The RKBA Group (17+ / 0-)

    here (although not a gun owner myself). But my gosh those seem like pretty sane and straightforward ideas.

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:32:03 AM PST

  •  am contemplating organizing an NN panel proposal (14+ / 0-)

    on this if you're interested contact me via Kosmail

    • A reinstatement of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004. That ban, part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, forbade new sales of 19 semi-auto rifles with specific features. Already owned weapons in these categories, as long as they were legally acquired, were excluded from the ban. The law also limited the capacity of newly manufactured magazines and other ammunition feeding devices to 10 rounds. But it allowed higher-capacity magazines that already had been manufactured to continue to be sold. There were millions of these.

    • A requirement for universal background checks of anyone seeking to purchase a firearm in any venue, whether from a federally licensed firearms dealer or from a private individual. Currently, private individuals at gun shows and elsewhere can sell firearms without running a background check to see if prospective buyers have criminal records or mental health issues that bar them from gun ownership.

    • Tracking firearms through a national database.

    • Creating a more robust mental health check of potential buyers.

    • Legislating tough penalties for carrying firearms near schools.

    “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama XIV (-9.50; -7.03)‽ Warning - some snark above‽

    by annieli on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:36:23 AM PST

  •  Didn't anyone watch Piers last night? (22+ / 0-)

    No diaries?

    A must see.

    An excerpt is at the top.  The entire interview is below--watch it all for the true experience.  

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    The thought of this guy with a gun, let alone with 50 guns, is frightening.  He alone could turn me into a gun hater.  

    As long as this straw man tactic, of saying reasonable gun control means taking away all guns, predominates the vernacular, we won't ever solve problems.  

  •  Thanks for reposting that poll result diary (6+ / 0-)

    I'd missed the news about majority support for an assault weapons ban. Hopefully, if they try to reinstate one, they'll do a better job than the last one, plagued to hell and back with loopholes and grandfather clauses. It's almost funny how hard the NRA fights against something that gun enthusiasts consider so toothless. Makes me wonder.

    There is nothing so ridiculous that some philosopher has not said it. -- Cicero

    by tytalus on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:42:36 AM PST

  •  need to address background check loophole too (15+ / 0-)

    I was reading how if the feds don't finish check in 3 days, then the sale can proceed. but sometimes feds run into issues during the checking that take more time.

    good to see will cover the 40% of private sales too.

    also issue of not all data in the fed system due to supreme court case saying states need only voluntarily comply.  

    The Virginia Tech mass murder in 2007 was by a gunman declared mentally ill by a court but he passed a background check because information not provided to FBI:

     

    While the database flaws do not appear to have been a factor in the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, they have been linked to other attacks, including the Virginia Tech mass murder in 2007. In that case, a Virginia state judge had declared the gunman mentally ill, but the record of that proceeding was not submitted to the F.B.I. He was able to pass a background check and buy the weapons he used to kill 32 people and wound 17 others.

    "It is in the shelter of each other that people live." Irish Proverb

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:47:12 AM PST

  •  repeal the tiahrt amendment (10+ / 0-)

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    and allow BATF to actually enforce already existing laws.  no way should anyone even be talking about an AWB or NFR.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:48:11 AM PST

    •  That is a good idea. But it wouldn't do... (12+ / 0-)

      ...much for cases like Newtown. Perhaps nothing would.

      Something similar to what's in that excellent diary you linked is what the Gun Owners of America did in Colorado.

      There, you can obtain a concealed carry license if you pass a background check and have as little as a one-hour firearms course that does not include any shooting. In other words, even if you have never fired a gun in your life, you can get a CCL there.

      But GOA took that another step similar to the Tiarht amendment. They got the state to tell county sheriffs (who issue CCLs there) not to disclose to any authority, state or federal, how many concealed carry licenses they issue or even to keep records on how many. One could argue in the computer it would be impossible to comply: the records are automatic. But nobody actually adds up the CCLs, so nobody knows how many have been issues statewide.

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

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:02:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nothing is going to deter the determined. (7+ / 0-)

        Psychodynamics are frustrating things.

        People look for 'reasons" in tragedies and people, understandably, look for ways to prevent things from re-occurring.

        Sandy Hook, like any other tragedy, will be totally dissected and studied, compared and reviewed. Doubtlessly there are people searching for templates or other calculating criteria to be more able to predict who might be prone to meltdown and hurt others.

        The main issue is these incidents - massacres - are really rare when you look at "incidence per 100000". You/we are talking about one-millionth of 1 percent. In a country of, lets say 200 million adults, that means 200 possible incidents, yet we have only a fraction of those, so the incidence per 100000 in microscopic yet people think that a tax or a few more hurdles (or insurance - guffaw) will help eliminate these event and it really does seem preposterous.

        I BELIEVE we can severely curtail accidents and thefts with increased pressure on gun owners to secure their weapons (which most do anyway, but people are careless and leave guns around, which IS irresponsible to the Nth degree) or face serious penalties.

        I don't think we can prevent ALL these incidents which will be dissected in hindsight. They are too rarified and unpredictable.

        (Anybody that thinks this means I have a NRA card is fucking stupid.)

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:31:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lizzy Borden took and axe/ and gave her mother (8+ / 0-)

          40 wacks.

          And then when that was done/

          she didn't go down to the school yard and butcher 26 more people because that's really hard to do with an axe.

          People go berzerk in every society.  Anthropologists have reported men in societies as disparate as the Kung! and the Inuit sometimes just completely losing their shit and killing their families.

          Unless we find a way to get rid of knives, of rocks, of fists - we can't completely stop that.

          But I can pretty much promise more kids would be alive if this shooter had a bolt action rifle instead of a civilian variant of an assault rifle.

          "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

          by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:26:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry, but I don't think you've factored in a (0+ / 0-)

            couple of things.

            These were kids.  They were not going to defend themselves in any way.

            Any weapon would have accomplished the same end.  

            This happened in Bosnia and happens in any number of violent, repressive societies.

            It is horrible, but not preventable unless we start identifying and helping these mentally abherrent folks a lot quicker.

            ....and somehow get parents to realize that they cannot have weaponry around these problem individuals.

  •  Whatever happens, it won't go far enough (11+ / 0-)

    for me. We aren't Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre.
    Even so, an assault weapons ban and a background check would take us leaps and bounds beyond our current sad state of affairs.

  •  As a gun owner, I agree with the proposed measures (23+ / 0-)

    Assault weapons and rifles, high capacity clips, gun shows with no background checks, all have to go.

    I am all for thorough background checks, insurance and gun registries.

    I live in a tough town (Los Angeles) and I believe that I need to carry a gun in the trunk of my car.  It may have saved my life once and it helped me save another in one hairy event.  But that is all anyone needs.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:57:53 AM PST

  •  Do something to control the proliferation (12+ / 0-)

    "the more guns, the more funerals"

    About 4500 prohibited guns handed over in one month under the Australian government's buy back program.

    The arguments for the status quo are getting tired, I've seen them, from comparing gun rights to abortion rights to saying anyone who wants gun control has "feelings of insecurity."

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:09:16 AM PST

  •  Biden's meeting partners (6+ / 0-)
    On Thursday, he will meet with representatives of gun ownership and sportsmen ...
    If we're end-running the NRA and their groupies, then who might this turn out to be?

    Any clues?

    As a practical matter, I'm in the camp that believes we must have a national gun and ammunition database before all else. Otherwise, the direct solutions have no chance of passing and aren't worth the effort.

    In general, I support any measure that gives the gun crowd in this country the uncomfortable, 24/7 sensation that law enforcement is always a half step behind them with a microsope, a stack of legal paper and a trained, ass-sniffing police dog.

    I didn't used to feel that way, but that was before I experienced a faceful of the ones hanging around here to remind everyone that no measures will ever work except more gund and more deadly ways of playing with them.

    •  He'll meet with the NRA as well as other groups. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sophie Amrain

      Hearings on the legislation will involve all sides. No reason why preparatory meetings to consider legislation shouldn't.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:55:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We are not going after law abiding gun owners and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy

      shouldn't feel like we need to make them "feel like they are uncomfortable and living under a microscope".

       I am a gun owner, 40% of gun owners are Democrat....once we start making it seem as if this is no longer about preventing mass murder and more about targeting all gun owners.....that's where you lose me.

  •  THIS is something we should track & check: (14+ / 0-)
    Between May 10 and July 20, Holmes bought four guns, 6,295 rounds of ammo, and explosive chemicals
    37 mins ago from twitter.com by editor
    Aurora theater shooter bought 6,300 rounds of ammo in just over two months!!!

    For what purpose?  We now know..

    THIS is why we need some new laws!!

  •  Anything short of restricting both the kind (9+ / 0-)

    and the number of firearms a person can own will be far short of what is appropriate, but these measures are an excellent start.

    Unfortunately I fear they will be seen as far too draconian as-is. And that's a shame, because compared to gun-fetishists' favorite exemplars of "liberal" gun laws (e.g. Israel) they're laughably light-handed.

    Not that it should matter, but I write this as a gun owner myself.

    •  They will only be seen as too draconian by those (4+ / 0-)

      extremists who see ANY new law as "infringing on their rights"

      •  A law that makes something formerly legal, into (0+ / 0-)

        something illegal, is 'infringing on rights'.
        Just because the implications of what you want to do makes you uncomfortable, doesn't change the meanings of words.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:50:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh??? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber
          Just because the implications of what you want to do makes you uncomfortable, doesn't change the meanings of words.
        •  Seems as if you have a logic problem (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, Womantrust

          Just because something is legal (for example, if the law is silent on it) doesn't mean you have a right to do it. It just means it's not illegal to do it. I'm not an attorney, but to me those are two different things.

          Similarly, if a new law prohibiting that "something" comes into being that is constitutional (as some limits on the second amendment are, according to Heller), then it's not infringing on a right. It's merely making illegal that which formerly was not necessarily illegal.

          Take the 48 ounce drink in NYC (to use a somewhat silly example). No one had a "right" to buy a 48-ounce drink. When that was made illegal by city ordinance (or whatever mechanism was used) it merely made illegal that which formerly was legal. It didn't infringe on anyone's rights because there was no "right" to such a drink.

          •  The right to drink a big Coke is not in the Bill (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, FrankRose

            of Rights. The right to own a gun is.

            •  Um hmm (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tytalus, glorificus, Womantrust

              But the right to own any kind of firearm whatsoever is not in the second amendment. The right to own any kind of ammunition whatsoever is not either. Neither is the right to carry a gun anywhere and any time. Nor is detail on whom constitutional limitations on firearm ownership may be placed.

              The Constitution is silent on these matters.

              I think my analogy holds.

              •  Well to put it this way, do you feel like your (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                rights to a speedy trial, or freedom to pick your religion, or rights to protest or rights to come on Daily Kos and say whatever you like....do you feel they should be up for local, state or federal regulations or a perhaps even "more defining or details" in which some would say the Constitution is a bit silent on.  What about limitations?  Who has the power to "define it" and what if the people were against it?  To what extreme would you allow "defining" before you felt like your rights were being disturbed?

                Basically, do you think the 2A is just as important as the others?

                Again, buying a big coke is a right in the way my owning a gun is.  My right to own a gun is a guarantee and is the 2nd right I have under the American Constitution and  it is as valuable a right to me as typing this is and posting it to this forum.

                •  Answers (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tytalus

                  1.  Note my use of the term "constitutional":

                  Similarly, if a new law prohibiting that "something" comes into being that is constitutional (as some limits on the second amendment are, according to Heller), then it's not infringing on a right.
                  So -- in response to your question, if a constitutional restriction on the laundry list you've included in your response is passed, then I'm OK with it.  

                  2.  I believe the second amendment is one of the Constitution's fatal flaws. Slavery and withholding voting rights from women were others. Those two have been corrected. We now need to correct the second amendment, to the degree possible in this deeply flawed nation.  

                  So -- in response to your question: I absolutely and positively do not believe the flawed, anachronistic, and frankly stupidly and opaquely worded second amendment is as important as other rights.

                  I know there are those who think otherwise. Some of the them are honest and well-meaning.  Some of them are as stupid and frankly deranged as this Alex Jones character, to whom I would have preferred to not have been introduced. But I disagree with both.

                  We need better gun laws. We need to reduce firearm violence in our nation. There are far too many homicides, accidental shootings, and suicides by firearm in the USA.

                  In short, we need to grow up as a nation and disabuse ourselves of the foolish notion that, in this society, widespread firearm ownership is both positive and non-correctable.

                  •  Ok, thanks for answering. I disagree but respect (0+ / 0-)

                    your view.

                    To me, is part of the Bill of Rights and I want it to stay that way.  Until it is changed, it is as much my right as any of the others....and I value it just as much.  As 40% of gun owners are also Democrats, I am certain I am not the only one on this site who feels this way.  

                    Again thanks for the discussion.

                    •  A thought experiment (0+ / 0-)

                      You are a farmer in 1828 Maryland.

                      With respect to the question of slavery, do you believe that "until it is changed, it is as much my right as any of the others?"

                      Or do you feel that it is wrong and less than, say, freedom of religion or freedom of speech?

                      Again, I'm not equating slavery and our nation's current concept of gun ownership. I'm merely using examples of two institutions that are arguably anachronistic.

                      •  Well as I am black and a woman, I can answer (0+ / 0-)

                        with some emotion and forethought in regard to some of the anachronistic principles in the Constitution that have morphed over time for various reasoning.

                        Slavery was obviously barbaric and went against every other freedom that was guaranteed by the Constitution to American citizens, even though a black man or woman was not considered at the time to be anything remotely equal and free or even a real citizen. Never was slavery a right that anyone could argue had a place in society or should have been protected.  It was present at that time, but even then it was known to be wrong...they just ignored that part of their conscience.  Times changed, however, and enough people decided a change was necessary and a war evolved and changes to the document reflected that our country would be free of slavery.  The process was followed and thus we began a nation free of slavery. Slavery should have never existed in our society and its place in our history ended.

                        The issue of women and their right to vote, same principle, in some regard. It took years of dedication, women protesting, modernization of times etc and in time...the Constitution was changed. Women not being able to vote had no place in our society anymore, and thus the change happened.

                        With guns, however, there was a real purpose, a real need and that purpose and need still exists today. Anti- gun advocates tend to believe they serve no purpose, because in their eyes and experiences, they are unwanted and unneeded but to those of us who do use them...and I say "use" because they are a tool...guns can and do still have purposes in our society.

                         How and why? The obvious are police and military uses...those are a given...and any other occupation that would mandate a firearm.

                         Farming and ranchers are definitely hindered greatly without a gun.  I know this as I grew up on a farm.  Not only are they needed to protect livestock from predators but also for family working in the fields who might encounter the same such issues.  I never worked in the field without one.  Also, when we harvested our food for the year, a bullet was the most humane way to put down the animal for processing.  There really is no other way that is as quick and painless for the animal.  So again, these are givens.

                        People who just live in rural areas and yet have no farm or ranch, what about them?  Yes, they all have guns...why? Again predators is a given but also the sun would set and rise again in my area before our lone sheriff could make it to our place, if there was an emergency. This is common in rural areas and so guns are needed here for protection...just in case.

                        Women who have been abused or who are being stalked or have left a violent partner, do they need guns?  Maybe, and they have a right to protect themselves with them.  Guns and training in self-defense might save a woman's life in these circumstances.  My first marriage was abusive.  I left and he knew I was armed.  It might have saved my life a time or two....can I prove that?  No one really could but I am still here and he left me alone.

                        The elderly who might not be young or able enough to fight off an attacker, should they be allowed to protect themselves?  A gun and training for the elderly can and does save lives.  It has happened many of times that an elderly person saved their own lives from attack because they were armed.  Had they not been armed, they might not have survived the attack. Many people like to say that you have more of a chance of the attacker taking the gun and using it on you...but really how does one prove that?  The attacker is already attacking you...even with no guns in the equation, the attacker is still there to harm you....and likely will.   I would rather have a 50/50 chance than none.

                        Hunters...now here is the one that most people like to focus on.  Why?  Well, this is one argument that people can say is must be a sport or hobby and thus it's easy  to argue that surely we, as a gentler society, can "live without”.  Most people picture hunters as lily white middle aged men who go on winter deer trips to brag about how many Bambis they wiped out in a weekend.   So surely most people do not have to hunt to survive anymore, right?...Well, perhaps, unless you are in the Appalachian Mountains or parts of Alaska or Montana or in the Louisiana swamps or the plains of Texas or in West Virginia and you are very poor and this is the way you get food for your family.  Oh wait a minute...hmmmm... maybe there is a lot of people who need guns to hunt for this purpose.

                        What about those urban dwellers...surely they need no gun?  Well, what if you lived in a crime ridden area with bugler bars on every window and door and you had no right to possess a gun to protect yourself anymore but yet you knew every criminal outside still had theirs.  Would you sleep easy?  Would you feel comfortable knowing that?  See, pass all the laws you want, 310 million weapons are still out there...and those who want them, will have them....especially the criminals.  It's just now the law abiding gun owners will be defenseless.  No one really know how many lives might be saved every day because a criminal decides not to break into one home or another because he or she decided the gamble of walking in on an armed homeowner was just too great.  No one collects data for that....and home robberies that were stopped by a law abiding gun owners, don't seem to make the news as often as the other way around.  Maybe one of these criminals saw one of those signs that says “Robbers will be shot, survivors will be shot again” and decided to move on down the line.  He won’t answer a poll later about his malice activities, so we will never really know how many times that may happen.

                         Not one single thing talked about lately as a solution to mass murders, would have stopped Adam Lanza from killing those children that morning. He could have used a different type of guns, a shrapnel bomb, a chemical bomb or drove his car into the building.  He could have set it on fire or simply did what the Columbine murderers did during the last assault weapons ban and bought them illegally.  Evil minds will find a way....throughout history we know this as fact and it will continue until the end of time.  We must try to lessen it by going after the real evil and the people who would harm others and why they would do so....not just one weapon they might choose to use.

                        So no, I don't see the 2A as anachronistic; I actually see it as a right that should be protected.  See, guns still have a purpose in today's society for law abiding people and that need is not going away anytime soon.  In time, the 2A and the need to have that right might even become stronger and stronger as no one knows how society will change. If there really is a time in our history when guns are completely unneeded and the people are ready to be disarmed and ready to change the Constitution, it will happen as it did before.  Hence the reason it takes so much to change the Constitution ….so our rights would be protected and deserve as much process as it would take.  Since Progressives and Liberals are minds that seek to preserve and protect the rights of others....sometimes I am at a real loss as to why the 2A is not seen in this light by some.  I certainly see it that way...and I know plenty of others who are just as left as I am politically and yet value the 2A as much as every other part of the Bill of Rights.

                        I ought to make a diary of this comment as I put a lot of thought into it....I know you will disagree with most of it but thanks for listening, I tried to answer the best way I could.

          •  The US Constitution does not... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey2001, FrankRose

            ...discuss drinks (ignoring, of course, the short lived Eighteenth Amendment). Thus, the operative portions of the Constitution are (mostly):

            Amendment IX

            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            Amendment X

            The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

            Hence, the right to purchase a soda of a certain size is a right reserved to the states and/or people. The NYC ban is a state level issue subject to state level legislation (I'm assuming the NY Constitution or its penumbras does not address a right to drink large sodas).

            However, the Second Amendment is clearly a right, including the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, protected from infringement by the Federal government (Heller) and by the States (via application of the incorporation doctrine in McDonald).

            So, the analogy is fatally flawed in the context of this diary.

            •  Have you read Heller? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tytalus

              It's clear that even this radical Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of firearms, including banning certain types, is constitutional within limits.

              The second amendment is silent on such topics. Just because one can buy a particular firearm today, and if a constitutional law is passed banning such purchases tomorrow, doesn't mean a "right" has been infringed.

              Rather, the limits of the "right" have been clarified.

              That was my point.

          •  "No one had a 'right' to buy a 48 oz drink" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey2001

            Geee.....too bad the Right to bear arms isn't in the Bill of Rights or something.

            You really got me there.
            Well played, Matlock

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:36:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you think before your write? (0+ / 0-)

              Or does the bullshit just come out of reflex?

              Please.  Take the time to read and think about what I've written.  Examine the explanations.

              And then check back in when you're ready to have an adult conversation.

              •  "Examine the explanations" (0+ / 0-)

                And your 'explanations' are incorrect.
                The right to keep and bear arms are a right.
                You want to infringe on those constitutional liberties for perceived security.

                But I don't totally disagree with your '48 oz drink' analogy, seeing as how limiting constitutional rights will go over about as well nationally as that idiotic ban would.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:32:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Think a little harder (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tytalus

                  And -- please -- read the Heller decision.

                  What you'll learn is that even this rather extreme (from a pro-gun perspective) court affirmed that limits on gun ownership are appropriate and constitutional.

                  In other words, laws limiting gun ownership do not infringe on constitutional rights.  Got that?  Do not infringe.

                  You can stamp your feet and shake your fists and do whatever you do when you are frustrated, but those are the facts, pal.  

                  And your little bullshit comment about "perceived security" is just another self-delusion on your part.

                  My security is fine.  I'm not concerned.  I'll be fine.  Really.

                  My concern is for those who have to live with, or consort with, idiots who have bought into the whole "guns protect my safety" bullshit.

                  •  I have. I suggest you read a dictionary. (0+ / 0-)

                    "Rights--Noun--. 1) plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract)."
                    You want to infringe on things which are currently 'protected by the government and the courts'; Hence, you want to infringe on rights.

                    "Liberty--NOUN: 1)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                        2) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                        3) A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights."

                    You want to infringe on current liberties.

                    Neither your motive nor your means change the fact that you want to infringe on liberties and rights that innocent Americans currently have.

                    "I'm not concerned"
                    Good. Then try NOT infringing on innocent Americans rights & liberties.

                    ......And I don't have to 'stomp my feet'. I can vote. So can the 47% of households that have a gun in the home. (But where can insulting & marginalizing 47% of the population go wrong, amirite?)

                     How well do you think that taking rights & liberties from innocent Americans is going to work in Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Penn, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Florida?
                    Maybe you should try to put in the 48 oz drink ban while you are at it. Couldn't make it fail more spectacularly.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:10:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      tytalus

                      You want to posture and yell "Liberties!"

                      I get it.

                      You're not serious.

                      You're not willing to accept what even the most gun-friendly court in quite a long time has determined: that the second amendment is not unlimited and that some restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional.

                      Fine.

                      In that choice, you are placing yourself securely into the spot in which many gun owners reside.  In other words, you're deluding yourself.  You're lying to yourself that the second amendment conveys rights that the Supreme Court has determined it does not.

                      And -- even better -- you're still talking about 48-ounce drinks. Please look up the definition of analogy.  I don't have the patience to explain it any further.

                      As for your recalcitrance: I don't know why I bother with you imbeciles.  Your ignorance and resistance to facts and evidence are impressive. I'm reminded of a barnacle. Or lichen. Or a xenolith imbedded into a rock of which it cannot begin to conceive.

                      In other words, if you choose to be this ignorant, I can't help you.

                      But you'd best not believe the lies you're telling yourself. Reality has a way of lapping people who cling to moronic beliefs.

                      •  I most certainly am. (0+ / 0-)

                        I was serious when the right-wing pushed for warrantless wiretaps & I am now.

                        I have voted strait Dem, except for Nader in 2000.
                        But I will not support nor vote for anyone that infringes on any American liberties.

                        "imbecile"
                        Yes, if only I was intelligent enough to use a 48 oz soda ban to really drive my point home.

                        "resistance to facts"
                        So says the person whom is currently doing his damnedest to argue with the dictionary.

                        "Reality has a way of lapping people who cling to moronic beliefs"
                        The race will be on the next election. I have no doubt that there will be 'morons getting lapped'.
                        Be sure to take a sip out of your 47 oz soda when they pass by.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:40:59 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Good grief (0+ / 0-)

                          You're not only stupid; you're somewhat obsessive.

                          Tell you what: you're safe drinking all the 48 or 64 ounce colas you want.  I won't pry them away from your cold hands. I could not care less

                          But those guns over which you salivate?  Fuck 'em. Some of them are done.  Over. Gun ownership can be limited under the Constitution.

                          And it will.

                          It's just a matter of time.

                          And don't look for sympathy for your stupid Nader vote in 2000.  The torture of the 2000s and the invasion of Iraq will forever stain your hands. I don't care if you were in a "safe" state or not.  You contributed if only in spirit. You were an idiot then and you're an idiot now.

                          If you were hoping to ingratiate yourself to me or anyone else, you failed.

                          Just as your flawed understanding of the second amendment has failed.

                          Run along now and misjudge something else. I need to get some sleep so I can work tomorrow.  

                          Without a weapon in sight.  Or out of sight.

                          Amazing, isn't it?

                          You should try it sometime. It's not nearly as scary as you may think.

                          •  Thanks for your reasoned assessment of my (0+ / 0-)

                            intelligence. I will be sure to carefully file it under 'Things I don't give a shit about'.

                            "you're safe drinking all the 48 oz colas you want"
                            No shit. Thanks for this insightful update.

                            "guns over which you salivate"
                            There are no guns I 'salivate' over.
                            There are rights and liberties I 'vote' for.

                            "sympathy for your stupid Nader vote"
                            Yes, sympathy is what I was going for.
                            'Reading comprehension'--Apparently, not your strong point.

                            "torture for the 2000s and the invasion of Iraq will forever stain your hands."
                            1)Perfectly rational response. Not batshit at all. But thanks for letting us know that 'voting' is also a liberty you loathe.
                            2) The votes that will be lost as a result of the policy you are espousing will cost more votes than Nader ever did. Thus, I assume you will take full responsibility for the next decade after the electoral debacle this will cause.

                            "Run along now"
                            I'd rather not. Watching your meltdown is fascinating.

                            "It's not nearly as scary as you may think"
                            The only thing I find 'scary' is Americans willing to give their rights away for perceived security.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:25:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh yes (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          tytalus

                          And this?

                          So says the person whom is currently doing his damnedest to argue with the dictionary.
                          First of all, it's who.

                          Second of all, I'm not arguing with the dictionary. I'm arguing with you.

                          You seem to be espousing the opinion that gun control is both unconstitutional and an infringement of rights.

                          I'm pointing out that both of those views are wrong.  

                          Please read the Heller majority opinion.  Please reflect on how conservative and gun-friendly this Supreme Court is. Keep in mind future Supreme Courts will likely be less so.

                          And even this conservative, gun-friendly court has said the second amendment is not unlimited.  Gun control is most assuredly not unconstitutional.  It is both constitutional and necessary.  The details need to be worked out, but there is no legitimate question about that.

                          If you think otherwise, you're irrational.  

        •  So how come drugs ever got illegal? They did not (0+ / 0-)

          use to be, you know.

          He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

          by Sophie Amrain on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:14:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And that's worked out so well since. (0+ / 0-)

            But why argue?
            "Rights-Noun:. 1) plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract)."

            Word meanings don't change because the implications of what you espouse makes you uncomfortable.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:38:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I may be misremembering, but when I had my (0+ / 0-)

          wisdom teeth out I got a lovely painkiller called "DARVON." When I asked for it after more recent dental work, I was told it wasn't available.

          Is this "infringing on my rights" to be pain-free? Percodan and derivatives make me throw up.

          **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

          by glorificus on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:43:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  FDA ordered Darvon and Darvocet (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus

            Manufacturers to recall these meds as studies proved beyond any doubt their use was associated and contributed to users developing atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm, which can be fatal).  And the FDA had these studies for some years and kept quiet on any action.  Which is why the manufacturers and the FDA are named in lawsuits.  Hope this answers your question.

          •  Well...lets just define the word 'rights' and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey2001

            you make the call.

            "Rights-Noun: 1) plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract)."

            Of course, the Bill of Rights include the right to keep and bear arms....so, the answer as to whether or not gun control is an infringement of rights or not is well beyond your opinion on the matter.

            Words have meanings, they do not change because the implications of your opinions make you uncomfortable.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:44:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Darvon made ME throw up (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus

            the one and only time I was ever prescribed any.

            Individual biochemistry is weird.

            If it's
            Not your body,
            Then it's
            Not your choice
            And it's
            None of your damn business!

            by TheOtherMaven on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:35:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Should my rights be in quotation marks as if they (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy

        don't exist?

         No matter how and where this discussion goes...law abiding gun owners do have rights.....Bill of Rights kind of rights...thus, just as important as our free speech rights, our rights to a judge and jury, our rights to vote, our rights to protest.  Just as important.

    •  There's just nothing to be gained by restricting (3+ / 0-)

      the number of firearms a person can own.

      Restricting the number a person can buy in a given period of time, on the other hand, could help to cut back on the most egregious straw purchasers.

      "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

      by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:29:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do you figure? Similar reasoning applies here (0+ / 0-)

        as for restricting the capacity of magazines: reducing the quantity of firearms available at any given "event" minimizes the amount of death a psychopath can deal out any given moment, just like reducing the capacity of magazines maximizes the time spent not firing off rounds.

        •  Whether someone has 2 or 20 rifles and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DefendOurConstitution

          shotguns has little to nothing to do with how lethal a mass casualty shooting will be.

          "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

          by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:40:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That isn't true at all. If a person has one gun he (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah

            has to reload more often and therefore necessarily is shooting less often. It necessarily increases the opportunity to stop him and decreases the quantity of violence he can dish out.

            •  Seriously think about trying to carry more than 2 (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              liberaldemdave, Womantrust

              long guns in a real world scenario, and about changing from one to another.

              Up to a point, I can see the argument if we're talking about someone with two or three pistols.  I don't see us actually managing to pass laws restricting people to less than that, but I get the point.  

              Changing magazines is almost always going to be quicker than changing weapons, but maybe if someone is carrying multiple revolvers...

              You can't drape yourself in six shotguns and walk into a crowded room and start grabbing weapon after weapon off your back anywhere but a Stallone movie.

              "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

              by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:16:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't have to think about it.... (0+ / 0-)

                A determined individual can carry one such weapon and still tote a carrying device that has ready access to more if he wants to. I'm pretty sure the Columbine kids had exactly that in mind (or actually did it--I don't recall the specific details regarding whether they were able to leverage a 'portable' stash of guns or not).

                •  You're reaching as hard as the "but they can just (0+ / 0-)

                  use something besides guns, like build a bomb" crowd at this point.

                  "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                  by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:55:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Columbine kids bought their guns illegally....just (0+ / 0-)

                  like any determined monster who will side step any restrictions you put on how many guns a law abiding citizen can have.

                    The monsters of this world will get as many as they need to kill.

                •  They had 4 shotguns, a rifle, a handgun (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fuzzyguy

                  one 9mm carbine and one Tech-9.

                  What they actually used on the day of the attack were two of the four shotguns, the 9mm carbine, and the Tech-9.

                  Two weapons each, despite the arsenal they'd amassed.

                  It's generally faster to reload a weapon than to try to dig one out of a duffel bag.

                  "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                  by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:37:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  here's to sensible dialogue (15+ / 0-)

    about what can work and what can be done.

    "Nothing' is an unacceptable answer.

    So says this resident of Newtown, CT.

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:46:49 AM PST

    •  So says twigg too, (9+ / 0-)

      who was about 300 yards from that Aurora movie theatre, and could very easily have been inside it (we were too tired from traveling), when the shots rang out.

      I don't take my kids to the movies to have them die, and I'm not too keen on it myself.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:23:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And any dialogue will have to include an (0+ / 0-)

      attempt to quantify how many gun deaths we have now and how many we are hoping to get to if/when these regulations get passed into laws.

      While I think all of us would love to see the number of annual deaths approach zero, we will have to have realistic expectations (whatever that means for each of us, for example are we aiming to reduce the 32k annual gun deaths by 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, or more?).  In the end we must as a society weigh the value of the inconveniences to gun owners versus lives lost.  

      We also must talk about the 200 plus injured every single day (remember Gabby Giffords?) as those people seem to get lost in many conversations. To that end, insurance or a tax used to compensate survivors would be a great idea.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:01:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Since Assault rifles (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greg Dworkin, fuzzyguy

        count for a tiny fraction of gun deaths in America, we will be looking for a very tiny drop in gun deaths which is another good reason to stop messing with a horrible law like the assault rifle ban.

        Reducing the size of clips available to all rifles and handguns however would be a much smarter approach.

        •  doing both might be on the menu (3+ / 0-)

          and much more, including mental health issues, background checks, etc...

          Your point about expecting assault weapons alone to be the answer is well taken.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:29:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you missed my point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy

            Banning assault rifles is a non starter for me and many hunters.  Just because someone feels a gun looks scary when in fact it has a tiny caliber bullet makes no sense to demand it be banned.  I am 100% against an assault rifle ban.

            I would be for a ban on 30 round magazines however.  They serve no purpose.

            •  no I didn't miss the point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DefendOurConstitution

              1. despite your objections, AWB still might be on the menu. OTOH it may or may not make the final cut.
              2. the rest is serious stuff that must be included.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:14:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  by the way (0+ / 0-)

              good summary of gun polling here. Some things have more support than others.

              AWB is not top of popularity list, though poll by poll you get different results.

              I get you don't like it; it looks like a 50-50 proposition with the public. High capacity magazine ban, background checks are an easier sell.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:22:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Just stick with the easy sell stuff (0+ / 0-)

                and you won't loose us hunters.

                An AR-15 with a 10 round clip is no difference then my granpa's old semi-auto except his was a .30-06 while my AR is a tiny .223.

                The 30 round clip is the biggest issue for AR's currently.

                With that said, we are still discussing a type of gun that is responsible for almost none of the gun violence in this country statistically.  Go for handguns and shotguns if you really want to make a dent in gun violence since they account for most of it.

          •  What would reasonable... (0+ / 0-)

            ...mental health and background checks which don't interfere substantially with the right of the average citizen to keep and bear arms be?

            I can see that private party transfers should include a background check. A free instant check by the seller via the Internet would likely not be too burdensome -- especially if the government kept no record of successful checks beyond an encrypted version that the seller and buyer could subsequently decrypt using their own keys to prove the check was done and that the person passed.

            Pretty much, the types of limitations imposed on voter id laws should apply roughly to checks you speak of. The bar might be higher, but the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms are of equal priority as far as I can see and anything that is very burdensome seems to be a violation of the underlying right.

            As far as I can tell, none of this would have affected Newtown or most other cases as the perpetrators have, at least mostly, not been under treatment for mental health issues.

            I could see the argument, although would disagree with, that perhaps all mental health professionals should be required to report to the Federal government all those under treatment and/or prescribed medication for a range of mental health issues. This could support firearms background checks and other purposes such as identifying possible suspects in a variety of crimes.

            •  I don't know what would have prevented newtown (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tytalus

              but any steps to reduce gun violence are worth considering.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:37:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Let's remember, to date 588 shooting deaths (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution

        since Newtown- in our country!  Time for change people.

        •  Does not even count suicides, action cannot come (0+ / 0-)

          too soon!

          Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

          by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:41:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If that doesn't count suicides... (0+ / 0-)

            ...this must be an anomaly (perhaps seasonal?). Where did this number come from?

            Today is the eighth day of the year (not quite over in fact). There are approximately 365.25 days in a year.

            Data (pg. 42) for the United States shows (data for 2011 is preliminary):

            • Annual deaths via firearms (all causes): 32,163 (2011), 31,672 (2010)
            • Annual suicides via firearms: 19,766 (2011), 19,392 (2010)
            • Computed non suicide deaths via firearms: 12,397 (2011), 12,280 (2010)
            • "Per Day" suicides via firearm: 33.9 (2011), 33.6 (2010)
            • "First Eight Days" of suicide via firearms: 271.5 (2011), 269.0 (2010)

            Thus, if there have been 588 shooting deaths to date in 2013 including (I assume) crimes and accidents but excluding suicides and such events are uniformly distributed, this is over two times the recent historical rate.

            In any event, this number does not seem representative of any long term trend. Surely it's not caused by a sudden proliferation of guns -- about 40 to 50 percent of households had firearms in recent years and surely in the last year that hasn't risen to be 80 to 100 percent.

            •  Correction... (0+ / 0-)

              The last two bullets of my previous post should read:

              • "Per Day" non suicide deaths via firearm: 33.9 (2011), 33.6 (2010)
              • "First Eight Days" of non suicide deaths via firearms: 271.5 (2011), 269.0 (2010)
          •  Ok but will any of these proposed measures stop (0+ / 0-)

            suicides.  How many "assault weapon" suicides are there?  Just curious, cause I don't know the answer.

            Will a national registry stop suicides?

            Will taxes or bullet counts stop suicides?  

            Generally if someone is suicidal, they will use rope, a belt, pills or throw themselves off a building when there is no gun present....hence suicide watch in jail.

  •  it's time for bloomberg (6+ / 0-)

    to put his money where his mouth is, including with massive advertising.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:56:49 AM PST

    •  Gun nuts are having a "protest" on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis

      January-fucking-ninteenth.  Just heard about it on Martin Bashir's show.

      I am hoping beyond hope that NO ONE shows up to their little gun party to counteract.  Let them scream and no one gives a shit.

      David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

      by PsychoSavannah on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:46:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The NRA on gun laws (11+ / 0-)

     • oppose closing "terror gap" - people on terror watch list may purchase weapons
     • oppose closing gun show loop hole - no background checks
     • support the tiahrt amendment - makes it harder to track guns that were specifically used to commit crimes
     • support allowing guns in national parks & on Amtrak
     • support 'stand your ground law'
     • support workplace guns
     • support guns in bars
     • support the firearms protection act (1986) McClure/Volkmer Act
    ..............................................

    All the task force parameters outlined so far (in the diary above) sound very reasonable to me.

    This time though it would be so much better if it wasn't assumed* that the NRA owns a seat at the table.

     With this list of their wants (NRA platform)  it seems like a time to get down to business on what is needed without interference from the NRA. They'll do what they do - Let them. On their own time, imo

    Like this..

    To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association
    ..only leave them (not the gun owners themselves, but the leadership/corporate sales part of the NRA - LaPierre) and their input out of all negotiations until the gun control effort has established their complete package of legislation and methods un-watered down or worse by the NRA.

    *PS: I'm bringing this up because Chuck Todd this morning talking with Andrea Mitchell used the words NRA in almost every single sentence during this mornings converstation - no kidding it was all about the NRA and what THEY would except.
    Such deference to the NRA has got to stop imo.

    •  correx: what the NRA would accept.. (5+ / 0-)

      ..not except

      it was all about the NRA and what THEY would except accept.
       Such deference to the NRA has got to stop
    •  Terror watch list... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson

      ...is secret,

      ...if you are on it, the reasons you are on it is secret

      How can we condition a constitutional right on not being on that list? That reminds me of some throwback to Hoover's FBI.

      Maybe those on the terror watch list bear a little more "watching" if they purchase an excessive number of firearms or ammunition (in spite of the fact that we don't see terrorists using firearms in terrorist attacks in the US -- such attacks just don't have enough potential to kill a lot of people or create much "terror"). If they need to be deprived of any of their Constitutional rights, get a court order and/or try and convict them.

      Of course, by banning firearm purchases by those on the list, one could at least figure out if they were on the list (assuming they were not felons or had some other disqualifying attribute which would otherwise get their purchase denied). I guess that might be a feature.

  •  Video Games? WTF? (2+ / 0-)
    And First Amendment obstacles may prevent anything other than jawboning when it comes to the content of video games.
    I'm with you on everything but this ridiculous statement. Name one credible study or insight that shows absolutely any relationship to video games and violence.

    [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

    by rabel on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:51:27 PM PST

    •  The video game and movie crap always (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, glorificus, rabel

      annoys me. That's just a NRA distraction. Kids in Japan have all the video games our kids have and more. Yet we don't see gun violence there that is on any par with the US. It's not the pretend guns that are killing people.

      "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

      by aggressiveprogressive on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:03:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How many more children must die before we do (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus, Womantrust

    something serious about this?

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:02:52 PM PST

  •  Firearms Deaths in Japan Last Year: 8 (3+ / 0-)

    They have very strict laws about possessing guns.  Funny thing though, no one is advocating sanctions on Japan for their violation of fundamental human rights.

    Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

    by journeyman on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:47:59 PM PST

    •  We'd be very lucky to have twice that many (every (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DSPS owl, glorificus, Womantrust

      single day), seeing as we are approaching 100 firearm deaths per day.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:58:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is it in their Constitution? Has it ever been? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy
      •  We wrote them a new Constitution after WW2, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        journeyman

        didn't we?

        **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

        by glorificus on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:46:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, we did. (0+ / 0-)

          Funny thing though, it seems the Occupation wasn't so concerned with making sure Japanese had the right to keep and bear arms?

          Free expression.  In there.

          Freedom of religion.  Check.

          Judicial review.  Yes.

          Right to bear arms?  Nope.

          Must have slipped their minds.

          Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

          by journeyman on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:54:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Umm... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus

            ....they lost the war.

            We (with the help of the French) won the Revolutionary War.

            Often, winners withhold some rights from the losers (esp. losers that attacked them without cause).

            I'm not sure what your point is.

            Just as Felons can't necessarily own firearms, another country that attacks and loses would expect that they would be subject to sanctions.

    •  Don't lose sight of the fact... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy

      ...that about 61% of the firearm related deaths in the United States are self inflicted suicides and that only 52% of the suicides are committed via firearms in the United States.

      It's obviously open to debate how many of the suicides would occur w/o ready civilian access to firearms (much the situation in Japan), however it's unrealistic to believe that many of those will not occur via another method, either at that time or in the future. (Something, IMHO, should be completely legal and should be something that others can help you with once your intent is clear and it's not coerced -- but that's another issue).

      Note that 48% of the people reported having firearms on their property in 2012. The actual number may be higher due to unwillingness to report ownership of a firearm to a stranger calling on the phone (such as because ownership is restricted in some areas and/or people are not sure what the details of the laws are). It's intriguing that the percent of people who report having firearms in their home coincides closely with the percentage of suicide via firearms -- and, conversely, that the 53% that report there is no firearm on their property coincides closely with the percentage of suicides performed by means other than firearms.

      Note that Japan, with virtually no civilian access to guns (at least compared to the United States) has a suicide rate among the highest in the industrialized world (23.8 per 100,000 in 2011) and almost twice that of the United States (12.0 per 100,000 in 2009).

      Therefore, clearly suicide is a distinct problem (if one views it a such) which does not require firearms and, seems, not to be highly correlated to firearm access yet it accounts for the majority of firearms deaths in the United States.

      IMHO, lumping intentional self inflicted deaths via firearms, as is often done, with non-self inflicted deaths is disingenuous.

      •  Interesting...I see this often (0+ / 0-)
        It's obviously open to debate how many of the suicides would occur w/o ready civilian access to firearms (much the situation in Japan), however it's unrealistic to believe that many of those will not occur via another method, either at that time or in the future.
        This belief in the inevitability of suicide has been studied, and the data doesn't seem to back up this claim. Instead, it seems to show that more guns lead to more suicide.
        Our finding that the magnitude of association between household firearm ownership and suicide is particularly high for children is consistent with previous empirical work,10,19,23,53 and with the hypothesis that suicide acts by youth are more likely to be impulsive and therefore more likely to be affected by the means at hand.54,55
        I've also seen cases made by the military, trying to cut down on soldiers committing suicide -- they also seem to understand that the impulse to commit suicide paired with the particular effectiveness of guns results in more suicides. Unfortunately, gun enthusiasts like the NRA work to stop them from restricting the availability of guns.
        Consistent with our findings, a recent systematic review of all suicide prevention studies published between 1966 and 200559 concluded that restricting access to lethal means is one of only two suicide prevention strategies shown to prevent suicide. This conclusion, however, is at odds with the view held by many Americans—that restricting access to highly lethal means is unlikely to save many lives.60
        While looking for something like this, I also found a volume of citations involving a net installed on the Golden Gate Bridge to deter suicide. The conventional wisdom suggests they shouldn't have bothered, I suppose.
        Key points

            Consistent with previous cross sectional case control and ecologic studies, this time series analysis finds a significant relation between household firearm ownership and rates of suicide overall and by firearms.
            Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children.
            These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth.

        There is nothing so ridiculous that some philosopher has not said it. -- Cicero

        by tytalus on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:45:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Very very pessimistic that anything substantial (2+ / 0-)

    ... and positive will come of this. But I'm a pessimist.

    And if the evil soothsayers keep spinning hate rhetoric to the contingents of psychotic, pissed off tea baggers toting assault weapons- truly believing that their warped since of liberty is threatened....
    we could have some real shit come down.

    Get money involved as a counterweight to the gun lobby:
    Mandatory liability insurance. Let the gun lobby and ins lobby and aba battle it out. Pay a cut off the top to the states, locals, municipalities- entice those tea bag jerk offs

    Sadly, we're deeply embedded in 'show me the money' culture.
    We manipulate it to our favor, or just express outrage and add it to our shit list of disillusionment.

    People who say they don't care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don't care what people think. -George Carlin

    by downtownLALife on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:49:41 PM PST

  •  Why no "common-sense solution to fix the flawed" (0+ / 0-)

    2nd amendment?

    Baby, where I come from...

    by ThatSinger on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:53:56 PM PST

    •  The 2nd amendment isn't the problem. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liberaldemdave, glorificus

      An extremist Right Wing court seeking to achieve political ends is the problem.

      Removing the 2nd won't make Scalia honest or make Thomas stop listening to the men who write his wifes paychecks.

      "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

      by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:02:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rhetorical question, primarily... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glorificus, Womantrust

        secondarily, just wondering why the 2nd amendment isn't a candidate for adaptation to modern times... surely the FF's intent was not that we'd have classrooms full of 1st graders slaughtered periodically as the "price we pay for Liberty"...

        Baby, where I come from...

        by ThatSinger on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:12:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll take "anchor babies" over "dead babies" any (0+ / 0-)

          day...

          Baby, where I come from...

          by ThatSinger on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:13:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Well regulated". It was written to be adapted (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          liberaldemdave

          to modern times from the start.

          The Founders didn't have magic powers to see the future, but I have not the slightest doubt that they understood that we would see "well regulated" differently at different points in history.

          "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

          by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:14:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  ThatSinger - it's a candidate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ThatSinger

          but there is no political will to fight that battle. The Second Amendment may have the largest single issue voter coalition, exceeding even abortion. Any attempt to amend the 2nd that is viewed as diminishing gun ownership rights will be fought with intensity.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:30:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  By eliciting fear in the People, (0+ / 0-)

    and exploiting that Fear for its own ideological, political, and financial ends, we might contemplate hanging the mantle of "terrorist" on the NRA.  That alone should bring them to heel --- and right quickly, too.

    Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

    by Liberal Panzer on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:57:19 PM PST

  •  So much for fact checking what you report. (0+ / 0-)

    ". . . . by a young gunman armed with a rapid-fire semi-automatic rifle . . ."
    He left the rifle in his car.  Four (4) hand guns were found in the school following the shooting and his suicide.

    •  Looks like you're commenting about Adam Lanza (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1, Eric Nelson

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered at the school, along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Adam Lanza: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, a 10mm Glock 20 SF handgun and a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun.[4][5][6][66] A shotgun was found in the car Lanza had driven to the school.[6] At home, Lanza had access to three more firearms: a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle.[14][67][68] Lanza used the .22 Marlin rifle to kill his mother, but did not take that weapon to the school.[69]
      http://www.cbsnews.com/...
      A law enforcement source told CBS News that Adam Lanza had three weapons with him during the attack: Two handguns (a Sig Sauer and a Glock), and a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle; spent shells were found in the school. Those three weapons were registered to his mother.

      There was also a fourth weapon (a long gun) found in the car he drove to the school.

      When offering snarky derision, documentation helps.  :)

      There is nothing so ridiculous that some philosopher has not said it. -- Cicero

      by tytalus on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:15:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think many of the proposals will be acceptable (0+ / 0-)

    to the broader group of gun owners.  I won't parse the proposals at this point because we don't have firm proposals.

    I am a little concerned on implementation of any "mental evaluation" criteria.  More information is necessary.

    As to universal background checks:  The time has come.  Agree.

    The 2004 assault weapons ban was not effective.  There were a number of exclusions any of which were readily available and would not have stopped or even slowed down Newtown or Aurora.  It might be a feel good proposal, but that's about it.  If it is to be effective, it needs to be much more definitive with a ban on an entire group of magazine fed rifles.  It also needs to take into account newer technologies developed subsequent to the ban (the Kriss, for example).  

    I'm not necessarily in favor of an "assault weapons" ban, but if it is to be imposed, it needs to be effective or dropped completely.

  •  Re-enstating the Assault Rifle Ban (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus

    At this point, putting the old, largely ineffective assault rifle law back in place is like putting a plank where the barn doors used to be.

    If we want to start somewhere, start with an honest discussion about what might actually work. Grandfathering in millions of assault rifles and extended magazines might as well remove all the teeth from the law. Returning to the easily avoided assault rifle criteria won't help, either.

    I wish we could get this task force to break out of the mold a little bit. A full-on ban (with exceptions by permit) of extended magazines - with buy-back and eventual criminal penalties - seems like the least we could do to at least reduce the casualty count. Licenses certifying your capability to safely fire and store guns seem like a simple and sane idea.

    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

    by Phoenix Rising on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:12:26 PM PST

  •  They need to make it illegal to own these types of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, glorificus

    guns, IMHO. I know  a wealthy person here in S. TX who, upon hearing of the massacre in Newtown, proceeded to buy 30 Bushmasters over the internet because he knew he could resell them at a profit if they're banned.  Two points:

    How did this not raise any red flags? 30 semi automatics in one purchase!

    Who thinks this way? It's disgusting. My first thought was of the lives of the babies, their lives cut short, then the families and the teachers. It sickened me to the point that I will, most likely,  never be able to be in the same room with him.

    I hope they make them illegal to own and he loses his ass in the deal.

  •  I don't understand why (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    one of these bright fellas can't come up with the idea that "assault weapons" should be classified as WMD.  Same with 30 round clips.  

    Then,  they are no longer 'arms' but WMD.  And not Constitutionally protected.

    ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

    by NevDem on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:19:02 PM PST

    •  NevDem - because they are NOT WMDs (0+ / 0-)

      The term WMD has a specific meaning which includes chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. A semi-automatic rifle is not a WMD, but I do favor the term Weapons of Mass Murder or WMMs.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:35:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ah, another corporate sellout? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib
    ...the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses.
    Hopefully there's nothing that would benefit Wal-Mart that would allow/motivate the government to infringe on any other rights.

    Perhaps buying permits to speak in a public forum and such licenses are only available from authorized dealers (such as Wal-Mart) who adhere to very expensive standards and send monitors to record all the speech disseminated under the permit? After all, the speech could be illegal (perhaps treasonous) so it's important to track it.

    Yes, I know, the other side does it too and all politicians are for sale...

  •  Let the private sector register guns (0+ / 0-)

    By changing commercial law to make the legal owner of a gun liable for all harm it causes, it will insure that the manufacturer, importer, retailer and reseller of guns will keep receipts showing that they passed off legal ownership to someone else.  Even theft will be covered since the thief does not get legal ownership through his theft, because the owner still retains legal ownership if not possession.  Only by making gun owners responsible will America be able to break the back of the NRA's irresponsible slogan about guns not being responsible for the reign of terror they cause.  

  •  Liability insurance would be very effective (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    Proof of liability insurance would curtail concealed carry considerably. For some reason, the insurance companies can ask about your medical history, medications you take criminal background --- anything. Government background checks cannot do this under current law.  I have a few guns, and a small rider on my homeowners policy would not matter much, but imagine the bump in premium to cover concealed carry or in the car --- and of course, the insurance company can spell out how and where the insured gun can be carried and stored.

    Kill them with kindness. If that fails, just kill them.

    by JesusQ on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:43:19 PM PST

  •  I don't get this one (0+ / 0-)
    • Legislating tough penalties for carrying firearms near schools.
    What is this supposed to do?  It seems like an unnecessary, ineffectual rule.  I can see people with no nefarious purpose getting snared in this rule without really accomplishing anything.

    There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

    by slothlax on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:17:05 PM PST

  •  Just ban this stuff (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    Get no quarrels from me if these assault weapons are banned outright.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:14:14 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site