Skip to main content

various gun issue polling

August CNN/ORC poll via Ezra Klein

Paul Krugman at The New York Times says Japan's new approach for emerging from stagnant growth may provide an example for the United States in Japan Steps Out:

And there’s another lesson in Japan’s experience: While getting out of a prolonged slump turns out to be very difficult, that’s mainly because it’s hard getting policy makers to accept the need for bold action. That is, the problem is mainly political and intellectual, rather than strictly economic. For the risks of action are much smaller than the Very Serious People want you to believe.

Consider, in particular, the alleged dangers of debt and deficits. Here in America, we are constantly warned that we must slash spending now now now or we’ll turn into Greece, Greece I tell you. But Greece, a country without a currency, doesn’t look much like the United States; surely Japan offers a more relevant model. And while doomsayers keep predicting a fiscal crisis in Japan, hyping each uptick in interest rates as a sign of the imminent apocalypse, it keeps not happening: Japan’s government can still borrow long term at a rate of less than 1 percent.

E. J. Dionne Jr. writes at the  Washington Post that America is not in decline or retreat:
Like many Democrats, he saw the war in Afghanistan as justified by the events of Sept. 11, 2001, in a way Iraq was not. But time and conditions on the ground have convinced him that there are limits to what the United States can accomplish there. He’s trying to extract our troops in a careful but expeditious way. He has been reluctant to commit to large-scale public action in Syria on the grounds of prudence: The calculus of costs and benefits is not at all clear to him or to his advisers.

In the meantime, he is reorienting our foreign policy toward a surging Asia and concentrating on rebuilding the American economy. (We also should be paying more attention to Latin America, but that’s another story.) The appointments of Hagel and of John Kerry as secretary of state could have the additional benefit of strengthening our ties to Europe. The personal histories of both, as Financial Times columnist Philip Stevens observed last week, show they have “Atlanticism in their blood.”

None of this is about retreat, decline or isolationism. It’s an approach rooted in realism about the true sources of American power and the urgency of getting our domestic and economic act together.

John McWhorter at the New York Daily News says we should Call it gun murder, not ‘gun violence’ :
“Gun violence,” the current term of art, sounds euphemistic and even bureaucratic, like one more thing sitting in the in-box as always. Those are hardly the associations we need when addressing in a real way, at last, the epidemic of senseless mass murders in this nation.
Harry J Enten, who blogs about political and electoral statistics at Margin of Error, writes at the Guardian in How far can President Obama go with an executive order on gun control?
The common view is that any legislation that is at all controversial would have a difficult time getting passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Now, Biden has raised the possibility of getting gun control measures by executive order.

My advice for the president as someone who reads polls: go for it, if it's what you want to do. There is much discussion that acting by executive order would be seen as a "totalitarian" action and provoke a backlash. Nonsense, so long as the order is supporting a measure the public favors.

Carl Hiassen at the Miami Herald laments in :
It’s only fitting that the NRA’s biggest tool in Florida is a funeral director.

He is Rep. Dennis Baxley, an Ocala Republican who does whatever the gun lobby wants.

Three days after the slaughter of first-graders in Newtown, Conn., Baxley made national headlines by suggesting that weapons should be carried by employees at public schools.

Frank J. Fleming at The Patriot Post writes Pretend Gun Control:
The main fallacy of gun control theory is in not realizing that criminals, by definition, don't follow laws -- they're wily that way. Yet most gun control laws are aimed at this mythical criminal who thinks nothing of murdering people but would never dream of jaywalking. Still, people insist that we have to do something about criminals' easy access to guns, but in a country where we have over 300 million civilian-owned firearms, that's a bit like saying the American settlers shouldn't have taken this land from the Indians -- you might have a point, but that ship sailed long ago.
The Editorial Board of The Independent states in The unaffordable cost of climate change delay:
If there were any remaining doubts as to the need for concerted and swift action, however, the latest draft US National Climate Assessment, published on Friday, puts paid to them. The Washington-commissioned analysis makes clear that America is already feeling the impact of global warm- ing; infrastructure, water supplies, crops and coastal geographies are being noticeably affected, it says, while heatwaves, downpours, floods and droughts are all both more common and more extreme. The 240-strong panel of experts also explicitly state, contrary to Republican lore, that rising temperatures are "due primarily to human activities." [...]

As economic malaise leaves the case for environmental policies harder to make, and international efforts lose their gloss, climate change is slipping off the agenda. We cannot afford for it to do so. As the US report says: "Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present." There is, then, no more time to waste.

Tom Engelhardt at the Los Angeles Times opines in The CIA's greatest hits that there are movies galore to be made from the agency's decades of tortures and coups.

Doyle McManus at the Los Angeles Times writes in The White House may use Chuck Hagel's confirmation hearing to emphasize a tougher stance toward Tehran:

In a 2008 book, Hagel suggested that the United States might be able to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, just as it learned to live with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union. [...]

But that was the old Hagel, before he was nominated for secretary of Defense. Last week, as he prepared for his confirmation hearings, Hagel took pains to reassure senators that he is falling fully in line with Obama's tougher position on Iran.

"He strongly supports the president's position on Iran," one official told me after speaking with Hagel at the Pentagon. "He agrees that military action should be on the table."

In a conversation with Dennis Ross, Obama's former advisor on Iran, Hagel went a step further into the hawkish camp.

"He was very clear that he believes we can't live with an Iran that has nuclear-weapons capability," Ross told me.

Rick Perlstein at The Nation writes Remembering Aaron Swartz:
I had other plans for how to spend my Saturday. I had other plans for my next blog post here at The Nation. Then I learned my friend Aaron Swartz had committed suicide, facing a baseless, bullying federal indictment that might have sent him to jail for decades, and fate demanded this be a day to remember. [...]

I remember always thinking that he always seemed too sensitive for this world we happen to live in, and I remember him working so mightily, so heroically, to try to bend the world into a place more hospitable to people like him, which also means hospitable to people like us. I like what the blogger Lambert Strether wrote on my Facebook page (in Aaron’s memory, friend me!): “Our society should be selecting for the Aaron Swartz’s of this world. Instead, generous and ethical behavior, especially when combined with technical brilliance, turns out to be maladaptive, indeed lethal. If Swartz had been Wall Street’s youngest investment banker, he would be alive today.”

David Sirota writes at In These Times in Four in five Americans believe in global warming–but nearly half of local weather reporters don’t:
[A] recent Rolling Stone magazine assessment of the local news scene found that “there's a shockingly high chance that your friendly TV weatherman is a full-blown climate denier.” The report cited a 2010 survey finding that in the vast wasteland of Ron Burgundys, only half of all local weather forecasters believe climate change is even happening, and fewer than a third acknowledge the scientific evidence proving that it is “caused mostly by human activities.” Not surprisingly, their forecasts often omit any discussion of climate change's effect on the weather systems, thus forfeiting a chance to properly contextualize severe weather events.

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

  •  "NRA’s biggest tool" (13+ / 0-)

    Carl Hiassen makes with the  Double entendre

    As the Elites Come Together to Rise Above to Find a Third Way to do Rude things to the 99%

    by JML9999 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:37:00 AM PST

  •  Colin Powell admits his party is a trainwreck..... (10+ / 0-)

    and now for the inevitable backlash.....Get 'em Rush.

  •  Anything (9+ / 0-)

    The President can do anything he wants with gun control
    why... ill tell you why
    No matter what he does, the conservative and gun nuts will lose their cookies. They will call him everything from the anti-christ to hitler, Stalin and Mao. Throw in poopy head I'm sure they will believe it.
    If he does nothing it will be the same reation.

    I think Jesus meant christian as a verb not a noun

    by rageagnstmach on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:45:19 AM PST

  •  Aaron Swartz (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, skohayes, koNko

    While it certainly is a tragedy, I think all of these opinion pieces coming out basically saying the feds killed him is a big hyperbolic. He had a history of depression and years ago apparently wrote a blog about dieing. Saying that this only happened because the feds were prosecuting him for a crime that he admitted to committing but maintained was not guilty of is to completely ignore his obvious mental illness and other causes that would lead a young man to suicide.

  •  Rant... (7+ / 0-)

    This term 'believe in global warming' requires some discussion. The implication that there is a belief, as in a religious belief is misleading and incorrect.

    The evidence for climate changing is very persusasive. Oceans are warming up and the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is very high. These are scientific facts, reliably measurable and verifyable. There is no belief system associated with this condition. Scientific inquiry does not involve faith, dieties, word-of-mouth assertion, idolatry, assotred zealots, or any other thiestic characteristics.

    It's just measurement, inductive and deductive reasoning, hypothesis testing, and the applied human intellect.

    Let's stop calling the science of climate change...a 'belief'.

    I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member--Groucho Marx.

    by DaveS002 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:53:32 AM PST

  •  The prospect of armed police officers in all (9+ / 0-)

    schools is one of those "I need to re-evaluate alot of things" moments.  While it is far better than NRA brown-shirts in all the schools, I just think back to all of the stupid stuff that went on when I was in school, all the petty rivalries, all of the teachers who just didn't take a liking to so-and-so, all the pissy parents.

    Now add an officer with cuffs and a gun.  Every kid being a jerk in the heat of a moment could lead to an arrest.  Every stupid moment that is usually forgotten within a week can now end up in court.  Yes, it already does happen, but that is hardly any consolation and the thought of it becoming an everyday threat - I'm sorry but I just don't need that.

    To any wingnut: If you pay my taxes I'll give you a job.

    by ban48 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:58:28 AM PST

    •  If they're going to go nuts with security... (7+ / 0-)

      -- and I still think the odds of it stopping anything are so remote as to be almost zero -- they can do more with conventional access control and surveillance technologies than with armed guards.

      The armed guards thing is just a way to sell more guns.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:09:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And, how do you learn conflict resolution (5+ / 0-)

        if you are always under surveillance?  Welcome to High School, welcome to the Surveillance and Police State...???  Is this really the best our society has to offer?

        To any wingnut: If you pay my taxes I'll give you a job.

        by ban48 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:16:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you're going to put security in a school.... (4+ / 0-)

          ..... you need to see what's going on.

          Otherwise, you got a situation like Columbine, where kids are shooting up the place while the armed security guy is cleaning his ear with his gun and buying Little Debbies out of the vending machine.

          (And, I repeat again, I don't think a major security effort would be justified in most schools. I'm just comparing the cost benefits of readily available technology vs. armed guards and saying there are much better and safer ways to do it than armed guards.)

          "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

          by Bush Bites on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:21:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I should add that most "active shooter policies".. (0+ / 0-)

          ....I've seen involved surveillance and lockdown.

          Maybe you've seen different ones.

          "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

          by Bush Bites on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:26:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Big surprise: Half of weather reporters are idiots (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, JML9999, skohayes, Ohkwai, Laconic Lib

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:00:00 AM PST

  •  Petition-Please sign! (0+ / 0-)

    Enact legislation that will provide mental health assessments for people currently owning guns who may be having mental health issues. While background checks need to be mandatory for all purchasers we need a mechanism to address the problem of current gun owners or people residing with them who may have slipped into mental illness.

    There should be a way for family, law enforcement, neighbors, and other concerned citizens to request an evaluation. If the person is found to be mentally ill by a competent mental health professional, a legal hearing should commence to adjudicate the removal of the guns and that name be placed on the registry to prevent further purchases.

    If you don't want to control the guns you can control a mentally ill person's access to weapons they could use on themselves or others.  We have mechanisms to limit the freedom of a person who falls into this category now, we just need to expand it.  Felons with guns is just one of the problems we have that causes gun violence.

    Sign this petition on https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/...

    •  No thank you (7+ / 0-)

      Neighbors calling the police to take you to a hospital for a mental evaluation?
      Are you aware of how that could be abused by civilians and law enforcement alike?
      The mentally ill account for less than 10% of violent crimes comitted. Let's stop making them the scapegoats here.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:19:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is better try than to do nothing! (0+ / 0-)

        So the neighbor calls the police if they think you are doing something you shouldn't now.  They then decide how to proceed.  

        "Doing nothing is not an option"- Barack Obama

        •  Neither your neighbors nor the police (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib, WakeUpNeo

          are qualified to decide whether a person needs a mental health evaluation or not. The police have some jurisdiction if they believe the person is a threat to themselves or others, but normal civilians have no business making those kinds of decisions for people they don't know.

          “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

          by skohayes on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:41:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Re (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541, nextstep
    Consider, in particular, the alleged dangers of debt and deficits. Here in America, we are constantly warned that we must slash spending now now now or we’ll turn into Greece, Greece I tell you. But Greece, a country without a currency, doesn’t look much like the United States; surely Japan offers a more relevant model. And while doomsayers keep predicting a fiscal crisis in Japan, hyping each uptick in interest rates as a sign of the imminent apocalypse, it keeps not happening: Japan’s government can still borrow long term at a rate of less than 1 percent.
    Yeah, things keep working until they don't anymore.

    A tiny increase in interest rates will destroy Japan.

    Do we want the US in that precarious position?

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:02:35 AM PST

  •  Pretend Gun Control Limits (6+ / 0-)

    Frank Fleming shows why they're called "Republican'ts":

    The main fallacy of gun control theory is in not realizing that criminals, by definition, don't follow laws -- they're wily that way. Yet most gun control laws are aimed at this mythical criminal who thinks nothing of murdering people but would never dream of jaywalking.

    Oh, that's the fallacy all right - but the typically Republican bizarro world where they blame their enemy for their own fatal flaw. Republicans are so tribal that they think of "criminals" as who people are, not what they do - and government as "just a piece of paper", not a lot of people who work jobs with extraordinary power every day. If we enforced jaywalking laws more than we enforce gun control, hits and runs would plummet.

    If we jailed gun sellers (including gun makers) who sell guns to people who don't satisfy control measures stricter than we require for keeping and bearing vehicles, gun attacks would drop. 5 year gun licenses requiring proficiency in use, maintenance and security, annual gun registration and inspection, mandatory insurance priced at the risk - including rare but catastrophic (and paying civil fines and court budgets, but not criminal fines), and regular fees reminding people the cost of their hobby. Frequent police inspections at gun ranges and of registered gun owners. Mandatory gun locks, possibly including fingerprint or other owner-only controls. Revoking the insane liability exemptions gun makers (and others in the gun ecosystem) enjoy on their lethal and often dangerously designed products.

    Making the laws invade the private culture of gun fetishists would change it. Instead of the Wild West, it would be more like the California freeways. And maybe it might shake gun fetishists' tribal perversion that they're the "good guys", and "the criminals" are the undefinable but always inferior/threatening other guy.

    Still, people insist that we have to do something about criminals' easy access to guns, but in a country where we have over 300 million civilian-owned firearms, that's a bit like saying the American settlers shouldn't have taken this land from the Indians -- you might have a point, but that ship sailed long ago.

    And there's the Republican't culture war: we stole it fair and square, and since we've got you outgunned there's nothing you can do about it. As if there aren't any Indians now, or that they aren't frequently finally getting some justice. As if justice and reason have no power in the face of centuries of grotesque abuse.

    The culture war is designed to internalize on all sides the limits to change. But America's power has always been driven by "Yes We Can", not "no we can't". Even when we were doing wrong, "Yes We Can genocide a continent" defied history and probability. "Yes We Can arm millions of fools" was a uniquely American triumph. "Yes We Can control guns and their violence" is another arrogant stand against conventional odds that America can do.

    Or else we've run out of Indians, and we'll spend the rest of our limited history massacring each other. That's the Republican't tunnel vision. Not the Real America's.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:04:19 AM PST

    •  My thought exactly. What this kind of pro-gun (6+ / 0-)

      absolutist refuses to acknowledge is the fact that people aren't criminals unless they commit a criminal act, & that access to a gun--even a legally acquired, background-checked, mentally intact, drug-free access--can turn a law-abiding, productive member of society into someone facing a second degree murder charge when he unexpectedly finds himself in a bad situation & makes a bad choice.  

      I don't think that can be eliminated, but it can & must be addressed.  Those who persist in deflecting all criticism of their pet issue by maintaining an imaginary social division between a Law Abiding Us & a Criminal Them do far more damage than preventing sensible gun regulations, by upholding the calamitous Army-Of-One Me Society in its entirety (gun-enabled individualism being just one aspect).

       

      Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

      by Leftcandid on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:13:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And if one does find themselves in a bad (0+ / 0-)

        situation and make bad choices, they can expect to pay the price accordingly.  Most legitimate gun owners understand the rules regarding use of lethal force and recognize that it is a tool of last resort to be used only in the gravest of extremes; when faced with the imminent and otherwise unavoidable threat of grave bodily harm, sexual assault, or death.  To go around doing things like waving a gun because your angry at traffic is a serious crime and has serious penalties.  If someone who has a carry permit were to do these things and get caught, suffice it to say they would not have a carry permit anymore.  Of course the common street thug doesn't care about a permit, nor do they have reservations about things like brandishing for intimidation, nor will they abide by any other regulation.  The answer is to properly enforce the existing laws.

      •  That's what I was going to comment on too. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Leftcandid

        As though there is this easily definable category called "criminal", and they're the only people who ever commit crimes.

        It also rather blatantly ignores the number of accidental deaths from legally owned firearms ... presumably all caused by perfectly law-abiding citizens.

    •  In response to the following paragraph (0+ / 0-)
      If we jailed gun sellers (including gun makers) who sell guns to people who don't satisfy control measures stricter than we require for keeping and bearing vehicles, gun attacks would drop. (snip)
      Much of what you propose is already covered by most states concealed carry permit program.  While there is some variance, in order to obtain a permit one has to pass a clean background check (no felony, no assault, no DUI, no drug use, no domestic violence, no mental illness) and yes, the background check includes fingerprinting.  This process is redone every few years, typically four to seven and the costs are not insignificant.  In most states one also has to take classes and demonstrate proficiency.  Every gun purchased from a dealer already comes with locks.

      What a lot of data is showing is that when criminals are using guns that were legally purchased, that they were purchased by someone with a clean record as a straw man and yes, this activity which is already illegal, needs better enforcement.

      One thing I am curious about is, what would you hope to gain by requiring registration?  I speak in terms of registration of a gun, not of the individual as a person with a carry permit is already registered and real data absolutely shows that THESE individuals have a crime commission rate significantly below the general populace.  Also, what are you trying to gain by inspection?  

      More importantly, if we assume  that the criminal element will ignore these laws as much as they ignore the ones against murder and other violence crime (which to me is an intuitively obvious assertion), how will they reduce murder and violence?

      •  "Proficiency" requirement in Colorado ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib, WakeUpNeo

        ...for a concealed carry permit is one hour and does not require firing the gun to be carried. In fact, it does not require that the permit holder has EVER fired ANY gun.

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

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:50:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so what? (0+ / 0-)

          concealed carriers whose weapons go off accidentally are a real problem, they should get training to deal with that.

          concealed carriers who accidentally shoot the wrong person are a nonexistent problem.  In spite of all their training, cops are more likely to shoot innocent people than private citizens are.

          "The Taibbi article is a defense of status quo" -- citizen k

          by happymisanthropy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:29:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So what? Sheesh. The claim that we're safer... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WakeUpNeo, DocGonzo

            ...for having all those CCLs out there is belied by lax certification rules in states like Colorado, not to mention states that have none. The notion that if theaters in Colorado weren't off-limits to firearms some CCLs could have ended the slaughter in Aurora is also belied. Granting a CCL to someone without knowing if they even know how to fire their weapon constitutes a form of state-sanctioned reckless endangerment. I don't want somebody who doesn't understand the basics carrying anywhere near me or those I love. They are a danger to us, their families and friends, and themselves.

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

            by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:10:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Safety training should be required (0+ / 0-)

              excellent marksmanship should not, unless you can show that poor marksmanship among CCW permittees is creating real problems.

              "The Taibbi article is a defense of status quo" -- citizen k

              by happymisanthropy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:23:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am not arguing that CCLs must be... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WakeUpNeo

                ...crack shots, just that they actually know how to shoot.

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

                by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 10:24:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well Regulated Militia (0+ / 0-)

                The only basis for having such unfettered access to guns is that they're implied to be necessary to "a well regulated milita" that's necessary to protect freedom in a state.

                If you can't shoot it, you're not in any way useful to any militia that's necessary to protect freedom. You're at worst a menace, and at best a fetishist. Even the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your having a gun.

                "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                by DocGonzo on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:56:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Except (0+ / 0-)

                  individual rights do not exist for the purposes of government.  Governments are allowed to exist to protect individual rights.

                  "The Taibbi article is a defense of status quo" -- citizen k

                  by happymisanthropy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:13:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

                    That is why government is prohibited from interfering with what's necessary to arm a militia that's necessary to protect the state's freedom.

                    The argument against infringing an individual's right to have a gun they can't shoot isn't supported by the 2nd Amendment, so it fails to prevent such infringement.

                    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                    by DocGonzo on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:01:19 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Require Registration, License, Insurance, Patrols (0+ / 0-)

          What I said:

          If we jailed gun sellers (including gun makers) who sell guns to people who don't satisfy control measures stricter than we require for keeping and bearing vehicles, gun attacks would drop.

          It's the cars standard that really matters. Require the license to be renewed every 5 years, including a "road test" for competence. Target, still and moving, for at least 50%ile accuracy. And tests with blanks on conflict scenarios, to see if they shoot themself, a bystander, a cop, etc.

          And registration renewal, and inspection, every year. Inspection includes some surprise home inspections, random samples, to ensure the guns are kept safely locked etc, as well as in good (functioning) repair.

          Insurance that costs what the collective risks cost, per gunholder, dependent on their risk factors. And pays not just damages to victims, but also the government administrative cost of the whole indulgence.

          And patrols. The random checks at home. Extra random checks at shooting ranges and elsewhere. Random checks on the street of people with carry permits, and hunters in the field.

          Points on the license for revocation and insurance increases.

          Just like cars. At the very least as tight as the governance on cars. These things are far more dangerous, and far less necessary - they should be more tightly regulated, and indeed are in places like NYC.

          And perhaps most closely to the point, all these regulations would be more in support of the actual 2nd Amendment. It says that an uninfringed right to have guns is necessary to protect the freedom of the state by a well regulated militia. If people can't meet these requirements, they're not a well regulated militia. They don't protect the freedom of the state. They tyrannize all of us, and push the state into ever more tyrannical control of us with militarized police just to be ready for the occasional criminal armed to the teeth.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:44:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Disarming criminals isn't that hard... (0+ / 0-)

        Will it happen quickly?  No.  Will it be perfect?  No.  But so what, start now and in 10 years there are a lot fewer guns in criminal hands.  News flash:  Criminals tend to get caught, fairly frequently.  Confiscate their weapons, while turning off the spigot from the manufacturers, and after a while there are a lot fewer guns floating around in criminal hands.  

        Assuming that we only succeed in cutting the gun murder rate in half (which would still be far higher than most of the world), that saves 5000 lives per year.  Seems worth doing to me.

        I don't know what's been trickling down, but it hasn't been pleasant---N. Pelosi

        by Russycle on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 12:45:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Registration and Inspection (0+ / 0-)

        Which state requires annual registration renewals and inspections, or lose the gun? Where's the mandatory insurance, priced at the indivual's risk class? That's what cars require, and nobody sane says that's tyranny. While guns are more risky and less necessary than cars - but cars are more regulated.

        Registering the gun's barrel marks to trace bullets to them, including requiring those marks to be made on bullets as we require VIN and registrations to be displayed on cars, makes unlawful use not just illegal, but auditable when a crime is committed with one.

        What we gain is many points of control, many chances for the public to have its agents intervene and stop someone from using the dangerous machine in a way that harms the public.

        Inspections at least to ensure the gun is in proper (not defective) working order, and really some random sampling to check it's being stored safely (locked, etc), which is one of the biggest risks.

        That's how gun control should work: as control. Like we do with cars. Not just "suggestions to the criminal element" (whoever that means), but actual laws. Unless you're going to claim that laws can't protect us because criminals ignore laws, which is an argument that I've only ever seen gun proponets take seriously.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:53:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  NRA confident they can defeat a gun-control bill (8+ / 0-)

    NRA says Congress won't ban assault weapons.

    The head of the National Rifle Assn. expressed confidence Sunday that the current Congress will not pass a new ban on assault weapons, a major aim of gun-control proponents in the wake of last month’s killing of 20 schoolchildren in Connecticut.

    “I would say that the likelihood is that they are not going to be able to get assault weapons ban through this Congress,” NRA President David Keene said on CNN’s “State Of The Union.”

    Reading the article I come away with the feeling the lobby believes their money can buy them all the "nay" votes they need.  I personally believe that the NRA is "misreading" the public's feelings on this as badly as Karl Rove "misread" all the polls last election.  

    As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

    by JaxDem on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:08:53 AM PST

  •  Another remembrance of Aaron Swartz (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JaxDem

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:08:56 AM PST

  •  Nearly 10% want guns for criminals and the insane. (10+ / 0-)

    Look at that part of the bar chart, and let it sink in that there is a good chunk of America whose opinion you should ALWAYS ignore.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:14:08 AM PST

  •  The real truth about climate skeptics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

    by JaxDem on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:14:15 AM PST

  •  Well, now we know (4+ / 0-)

    besides Scott we have the Tea party and NRA running Florida.   An Ocala Funeral director.   His living depends on deaths... That figures about his legislation in Florida.
    Hey Ocala man, since you served on Children services board, why don't you do something about THE VINES in your city and apply yourself with a tad bit of sanity.

    I guess your funeral home handles the deaths that come from that place so therefore, it is against your interests to protect the mentally challenged and children.

    Nearer my glock to thee must be your anthem.  i assure you, it will also be your defeat if we dems have anything to do with changing the politics of Florida.

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:21:28 AM PST

  •  E J writes . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    "None of this is about retreat, decline or isolationism."

    Damned shame. So much the worse for us all.

    "It’s an approach rooted in realism about the true sources of American power and the urgency of getting our domestic and economic act together."

    Phooey.

    Isolationism is realism with a reality-based appreciation of the limits of American interests and American power, as well as that the actual results of intervention are almost never those hoped for and almost always no better than the results of leaving things alone.

  •  It may be we have to wait for the next (0+ / 0-)

    mass gun slaughter for something to pass. The martyrs are already marked for death; they just don't know it.

  •  Americans still morons on guns. Check the graphs. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wonderful world

    More oppose gun limits per individual? How could ANYONE require more than two guns? (To cite William Daniels' chiding his child in The President's Analyst):

    Delenda est filibuster!

    by TofG on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:25:18 AM PST

  •  Sometimes Krugman just blows it out his nethers (0+ / 0-)

    Krugman's a smart guy, but you need to keep many grains of salt handy when reading his columns.

    The interesting thing about his use of Japan as an example, is that Japan's national debt as percentage of GDP is about twice that of the US.  By Krugman's reasoning, their economy should be booming, but Japan is Krugman's favorite example of a stagnant economy.  On the other hand, Germany, which may be the world's most vital non-Asian economy, has controlled it's debt more tightly than we have.

    So --  yeah, maybe Japan gives hope that we can tolerate a little more debt without disastrous results, but it also warns that more spending may not lead to more vitality.

    Maybe it's harder than that.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 05:48:09 AM PST

  •  Local weather readers are a wholly owned (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo

    subsidiary of global mega corp.  Do you really expect them to bite the hand that writes their pay checks?

  •  I have a question. (0+ / 0-)

    The graph displayed appears to show that data the the polling on the public opinion for banning "assault weapons" (ie the first polling done) compared to the newer data that gave an opposite result for the banning of the ownership, distribution, or manufacture of semi-automatic rifles.

    The legend states "semi-automatics".  I would like to know which data set these polling numbers came from and if the actual poll question used the terminology 'assault weapons' or 'semi-automatic rifles'.

    •  CNN-ORC poll: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WakeUpNeo

      Question was a list of things:

      Please tell me whether you would generally favor or oppose each of the following proposals which some people have made to reduce the amount of gun violence:

      One of those was:

      A ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47

      Link

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

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:53:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you, Meteor (0+ / 0-)

        They phrased it as "semi-automatic assault guns" and go on to use a reference gun (the AK-47) that is mainly associated with the automatic assault rifle used by the majority of the world's armed forces (though semi-automatic AK-47s are manufactured for civilian use).

        In my opinion, any use of 'assault' when describing a firearm will give a negative impression and result in a slight majority of individuals agreeing with a ban.  I believe this was the difference in responses between the KOS poll and the one that came right after it and believe that the wording of this poll also may have contributed to the resulting numbers.

        The problem is that 'assault gun' is a grey area in terms of actual definitions, whereas 'semi-automatic' is definitive.  Had the poll question used 'semi-automatic rifles' and also 'semi-automatic hand guns', I feel the data would be more compelling (if it still showed a majority of public support for the bans).

  •  why no question about safer funs? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    Sounds like a contradiction, but the truth is that many guns are unsafe for the owner.  They are tactical designs, not consumer designs.

    Case in point:  The Glock pistols.

    Glock's have no external safety lever and no way to decock the firing pin.  Sure, if you drop it or throw it against a wall it is unlikely to fire, but it will always fire if an object, small finger, or idiot pulls the trigger.

    It is designed to be quickly fired no matter what.  Great for cops and the military, not so good for uncle bobby.

    There are untold numbers of accidental firings (many with self inflicted wounds) with these guns.

    We can't rely on all the bubbas handling these things properly, so why should they be allowed to carry them (LEO and military exceptions permitted)?

    •  You are jumping to several conclusions here (0+ / 0-)

      One is your assumption that "consumer designs" would make things safer.  For example, a thumb safety, or a magazine inserted safety. The only real safety is the one between your ears.

      Yes, they will fire if the trigger is pulled.  This is what they are designed to do.  When faced with a deadly situation, where seconds really do absolutely count, one does not need extras to get in the way.

      When handling any gun the four basic rules of safety apply, and if applied prevent a lot of bad things:
      1- always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction
      2 - always treat a gun as if it is loaded
      3 - only point a gun at something you are willing to destroy
      4 - know what your gun is pointed at and what is behind it.

      A good 5th rule would be to keep your booger hook off the bang switch until your gun is on target and you are ready to fire.

      You also assume that cops are more proficient at handling guns than civilians.  This is not necessarily true.  There are many cops whose experience amounts to the annual qualification and aside from this don't handle their gun.  There have also been plenty of occurrences of cops engaging in dreadful handling and demonstrating terrible safety discipline, especially when trying to unload a weapon that they are not familiar with.

      •  Every couple of weeks before I moved ... (4+ / 0-)

        ...last year, I used to go to the range in Los Angeles that is within a few blocks of the LAPD HQ. The place draws lots of cops practicing for their certification. Many, many are very poor shots and show very poor safety handling technique. I watched one cop trying to teach a teenager who I took to be his son pointing the gun casually at his son's abdomen as he explained gun safety.

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

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:57:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  the problem with that is that idiots own tactical (0+ / 0-)

        weapons.

        It's fine to say that the best safety is between your ears, but from a consumer product safety standpoint that is often a very bad assumption.

        The function of a gun is to kill an opponent, not the person holding it, and not some small child picking it up, and not your holster as you insert or withdraw it.

        We require safety guards on all kinds of lethal tools and machinery.  The purpose is to prevent unintended damage by an untrained or careless individual.

        Guns should be treated no differently.

        A safety wouldn't prevent a single massacre, but it will prevent accidental discharges, some of which are fatal.

        I do understand the need to have reduced safety for a tactical weapon.  I do.  But there should be a distinction that restricts tactical weapons to LEO's and active military.  That includes assault weapons and pistols with the design of a glock.

        Bubba can't be trusted to use one.  There isn't enough grey matter between his ears, and the alcohol doesn't help.

        Sorry.  But the NRA is wrong on that one.

  •  firearms insurance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wintergreen8694

    Why isn't that required?Could be based on number you own,your city,your age,etc.The insurance companies could make a lot of $$ off of this requirement.

    •  What do you mean by firearms insurance? (0+ / 0-)

      Please explain?  

      If someone commits an unlawful act is is a crime.  If someone commits an unlawful act with a gun, it is a serious crime.  If someone justifiably uses a gun in self defense, in most states they are exempted from any sort of civil liability, as they should be.

      Besides, do you think the common gang member, druggie, or street thug is going to bother with insurance?  They sure drive cars and I doubt many of them bother with insurance for that either.

  •  TV weathermen: another related question should (0+ / 0-)

    be,"Are you a Republican?"
    Also,"Did your boss tell you what to believe about climate change?"

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:55:27 AM PST

  •  I have a solution to gun crime.. (0+ / 0-)

    ..keep the charge of 'murder' for killing an unarmed person, but set the upper limit to 'justifiable homicide' if they have an open-carry license and were shot from the front.

    Just like the mythical 'Wild West' they imagine.

    When extra-terrestrial beings make their first appearance on our planet, and ask for representatives of our species to best exemplify humanity, I'm sending a nurse, a librarian, and a firefighter.

    by Wayward Son on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 07:51:38 AM PST

  •  If you call it "gun murder" instead of "violence" (0+ / 0-)

    you don't get to include suicides.

    "The Taibbi article is a defense of status quo" -- citizen k

    by happymisanthropy on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:15:34 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site