Skip to main content

AR-15 silhouette
President Obama is expected to call for a ban on military-style semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 in silhouette above.
It's been clear since last month when President Obama first signaled he was in favor of reinstating the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 that getting it passed by the Senate and House would likely be the most fought over element of any proposals he put forth to deal with gun violence. Today is the day we hear the specifics of those proposals, the most extensive offered since 1968. There has been no change in the assessment of the likelihood that Congress will renew the ban.

Before the hour is out, the president will announce what he plans to achieve by executive action and what he will try to get Congress to enact legislatively in an effort to reduce violence committed by Americans with firearms. The United States has the highest rate of gun murders, suicides and accidental deaths of any developed nation in the world, far and away greater than the others, even those like Canada, Finland and Switzerland, where high percentages of the population own firearms.

Announcement of the proposals comes just over a month since 20 first-graders and six adults were slaughtered by a young, heavily armed mentally disturbed gunman. The massacre has stirred a fierce debate on gun violence that has continued to intensify. Polls have shown strong public support for some new gun restrictions, even among gun owners. But the right-wing leadership of the National Rifle Association, the nation's most powerful gun lobby, other gun advocacy groups and an apparent majority of Republican senators and representatives have made clear that they will fight the new proposals fang and claw.

To succeed in getting new restrictions, Obama will need every ounce of support he can muster from his base and a public aroused by the Newtown murders.

The proposals are expected to include a renewed ban on certain military-style semi-automatic rifles, an accompanying ban on high-capacity magazines for rifles and pistols, universal background checks, tougher controls over straw-man purchases that put guns into the hands of people barred from legally buying firearms, funding for more police to provide armed security in public schools, provisions designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who are dangerously mentally ill, and a call for a Senate vote on a chief for the beleaguered Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has only had interim directors since 2006 because of NRA opposition to filling the post.

Obama will also ask Congress to allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health to conduct research into gun violence. That's something that would seem to be an obvious arena for them to be engaged in already. But the gun lobby is nothing if not thorough. Thanks to its efforts, Congress barred research by the CDC that might "advocate or promote gun control" in 1996. It followed up in 2003 by getting Congress to keep the ATF from providing researchers with data on gun injuries and deaths. Last year, the National Institutes of Health were specifically prohibited from funding gun research.

The president is said to have picked several of the proposals he will enact by executive action from 19 possibilities presented to him by the task force that has been looking at prevention of gun violence for the past month under the guidance of Vice President Joe Biden. Some of those will no doubt be directed at spurring tougher enforcement of existing laws, something even the NRA will have a difficult time objecting to. But Ed Meese, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Iran-contra scandal who was attorney general in the Reagan administration, has said that Obama could be impeached if he goes too far with executive orders on gun control. Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman has also threatened impeachment over the matter.

In Congress, the most ferocious opposition is likely to focus on the assault weapons ban, which many observers are saying is dead on arrival, and the limit on magazine capacity. Even in the Democratically dominated Senate, those proposals will face tough sledding. Majority Leader Harry Reid has strong ties to the NRA, and he opposes the ban. He is not alone on that side of the aisle. “An assault-weapons stand-alone ban on just guns alone, in the political reality we have, will not go anywhere,” Sen. Joe Manchin, the conservative Democrat from West Virginia, told CNN Sunday. Other Democrats, especially in Western states, may also resist the ban. A helpful look at who is who in Congress on the issue of guns can be found at ProPublica.

At a meeting where the president's proposals were discussed Tuesday night:

...some conservative Senate Democrats have indicated an uneasiness with Obama’s proposals as word of them leaked out ahead of the official announcement. Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota each suggested Obama’s far-reaching prohibitions may be going too far. [...]

But [Obama chief of staff Bruce] Reed called the universal background checks for all new gun purchases the most important element of Obama’s entire gun violence proposal. It also calls for a ban on assault weapons and ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds and an anti-trafficking law that the White House hopes will break up gun-trafficking rings, Reed told the group.

Some gun-control groups would like to go a good deal further. Nobody is fantasizing about imposing the kinds of controls that Australia did in 1996 when, after several massacres, it implemented a mandatory buy-back of semi-automatic rifles, ultimately destroying 700,000 of them. Australia has long made it extremely difficult for private citizens to own handguns. Such a move would be politically impossible in the United States, where most of the millions of hunting rifles and shotguns now sold are semi-automatic.

But there are other measures that should be tried, the advocates say, including adding to the categories of people now barred from owning guns to include those convicted of violent misdemeanors and limiting how many guns a person can buy every month. They also want the ban on high-capacity magazines to cover not only sales, but also possession. The expired 1994 ban grandfathered in ownership of such magazines as well as the sale of those already manufactured when the ban was enacted. Estimates are that there were, at the time, 24 million such magazines in private hands.

“If you want to dam the river, you have to address all the channels,” said Josh Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “You’re not going to stop it until you dam the whole river.”

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:17 AM PST.

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

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 many more children must we sacrifice at the (14+ / 0-)

    altar of the NRA Cult before we can take back our Government and pass some sensible firearm regulations like training, licensing, registration and complete criminal background checks on every gun purchase/transfer?

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

    by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:20:02 AM PST

  •  Given that all the gun nuts (4+ / 0-)

    Spent all their Christmas money on high capacity magazines, wiping out the available stock, I sure hope that congress doesn't just grandfather them in.

    •  There will be a black market in them. (4+ / 0-)

      They will go from being $12 and $15 items to $60+ or worse, netting huge profits from trafficking in them.

      Just as people STILL use illegal drugs after 80 years of harshly enforced prohibition, those magazines and all the other banned stuff - flash suppressors, hah - will just quintuple in value.

      Then you'll get to see wars over trafficking routes and 'turf'.

      It's like a law of physics: you can't escape it.

      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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:36:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How many flash suppressors have killed anyone? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xxdr zombiexx
      •  If we do it right (0+ / 0-)

        the price will go far higher than $60 .
        If we had a G Soros type try for a cornering of the market .
        If someone were to try to buy every single one that came on the market ...

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

        by indycam on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:51:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  there are people who are willing to pay (0+ / 0-)

          any price for their toys, even if it runs from $3000 to $6000 on the last auction I watched

          •  If a high capacity magazine sells for (0+ / 0-)

            $3000 to $6000 , the people who are upstanding will not let them go easily , they will be to valuable to misplace .

            Please link me to that auction/s that had magazines selling for $3000 to $6000 .
            Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof .

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

            by indycam on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:07:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was referring to sidearms and long guns (0+ / 0-)

              Check out any Rock Island Auction Company auction

              •  ... (0+ / 0-)
                Given that all the gun nuts
                Spent all their Christmas money on high capacity magazines, wiping out the available stock, I sure hope that congress doesn't just grandfather them in.
                There will be a black market in them.
                They will go from being $12 and $15 items to $60+ or worse, netting huge profits from trafficking in them.
                If we do it right
                the price will go far higher than $60 .
                I was referring to sidearms and long guns

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

                by indycam on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:31:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Reagan was offered ALL of the heroin (0+ / 0-)

          from the Golden Triangle many years ago. Just buy it all and drop it in the ocean.

          He just said no.

          Americans are content to have raging black markets. That's why they don't alter the war on drugs: they are actually happy with it like it is.

          Who cares if it works?

          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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:14:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you outlaw human trafficking (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CwV

            only criminals will bring in girls from the 3rd world ,
            all you are doing is creating a black market ...

            If you outlaw killing for hire
            only criminals will do killings for hire
            all you are doing is creating a black market ...

            If you outlaw tainted medicine and food
            only criminals will sell tainted medicine and food
            all you are doing is creating a black market ...

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

            by indycam on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:22:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Human trafficking IS outlawed (0+ / 0-)

              and yeah it happens a lot.

              Oh... yeah... killing for hire? Illegal already.

              great fodder for rated R movies.

              You are doing YOURSELF no favors willfully ignoring a real, true, and genuine phenomenon. It's totally predictable.

              The anti-gunners risk being LAMPOONED by INSISTING on an unrealistic discourse.

              And again, I imagine you are reasonably OK with a black market if you get the rulings that make you all warm and squishy inside.

              Things that will WORK might not make you as happy as ideals not totally grounded in reality.

              Good luck selling that tainted food.

              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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:02:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So you are in favor of black markets for (0+ / 0-)

                human trafficking , killing for hire and tainted food and medicine ?
                I'm showing your logic falls apart .
                You are doing yourself and everyone else a non favor by claiming "black market".
                If you are against black markets , do so consistently or fail to do so consistently .

                I do so love your YELLING , it helps ever so much .  

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

                by indycam on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:11:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What a STUPID set of questions. (0+ / 0-)

                  Ya hear?

                  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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:14:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You can't answer so you insult and yell . (0+ / 0-)

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

                    by indycam on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:16:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK you massive total super genius who knows more (0+ / 0-)

                      than I ever will about anything and everything:

                      WHY is there a 'black market' in Marijuana?

                      How did it get started?

                      Why is there NO black market for alcohol.

                      What happened to it. I have heard rumors that alcohol was BANNED some time ago. I find this heinous as alcohol couldn't be any safer. Where did the black market go?

                      I await your shining brilliant answers which I am totally unworthy to hear.

                      I cannot understand this nor figure it out without your Awesome Intelligence and Moral superiority.

                      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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:31:51 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You are still not answering my questions . (0+ / 0-)

                        Human trafficking , killing for hire , tainted food and medicine ?
                        If you think black markets are bad , you would make the black markets for human trafficking , killing for hire , tainted food and medicine go away by repealing the laws against ...

                        Your argument re black markets is flawed , seriously flawed , even fatally flawed .

                        Why is there NO black market for alcohol.
                        First off , yelling is just silly , every time you yell you show something about yourself . Secondly , your question is just silly , "NO black market for alcohol" .

                        http://www.havocscope.com/...

                        Alcohol Smuggling in the United States

                        Based upon currently available information, alcohol smuggling in the United States causes losses of $34 Million.

                        Sources:
                        Moonshine in Virginia creates loss of $20 million.

                        $14 million lost to alcohol smuggling in Michigan.

                        http://www.cbc.ca/...
                        Millions in black market alcohol seized
                        Last Updated: Saturday, January 9, 1999
                        LCBO documents on illegal alcohol
                        U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

                        Police in Montreal have seized a huge quantity of contraband alcohol.

                        The anti-gang squad made the seizure on Saturday morning. It is the largest single seizure of illegal alcohol ever made in the greater Montreal region.

                        http://www.nytimes.com/...
                        But to a task force of state and federal agents brought in to fight it, the illicit whiskey of Rocky Mount and the surrounding area is little other than the work of big-time criminals -- a new generation of moonshiners who in many cases have transformed the smoky little woodsmen's stills of legend and song into efficient distilleries, some capable of producing thousands of gallons of liquor a week.

                        The task force, applying the muscle of federal law rather than weaker state anti-moonshine statutes, made its first arrests earlier this month. Three people were charged with illegally distilling alcohol, and many more arrests are expected.

                        .............................................
                        OK you massive total super genius who knows more than I ever will about anything and everything:
                        I await your shining brilliant answers which I am totally unworthy to hear.
                        I cannot understand this nor figure it out without your Awesome Intelligence and Moral superiority.
                        Ok then ...

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

                        by indycam on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:05:45 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  but I thought that all gun owners (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmspringer

        were law-abiding citizens?  Or was that just smoke being blown up my ass?

        Look.  If we ban certain arms or add-ons, and you still have them or buy them, then you are a criminal, and deserve to be treated like one.  Starting with a felony conviction.

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:53:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But if you are a responsible law abider (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          noway2

          you should be penalized?

          I don't own guns - Im just here to try and keep the discussion logical.

          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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:16:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  if you abide by the law... (0+ / 0-)

            you won't be penalized.  If the law changes, and you wish to stay a law-abider, you change your behavior... that applies to all laws.

            In this debate and in others, it is crucial to distinguish punishments from things that adversely affect me---- many people conflate the two out of petty narcissism, but they aren't the same thing, so we should avoid that logical trap.  

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:18:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Last time around ban was a farce (4+ / 0-)

      To be effective the ban has to provide for a buyback and then outlaw possession.  For a reasonable price you could get generally find high-cap magazines throughout the previous "ban" and the true whackos are certainly willing to pay even a premium price.

      The previous assault-weapon ban was also a joke since the definition was trivial to get around and in no way reduced the capability of the post-ban weapons for use in mass-shootings.


      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
      Give 'em hell, Barry—Me

      by KingBolete on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:41:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  there was already a large stock of them (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, fuzzyguy

      dating to pre 1988.  The only effect I can see of the current debate is that gun prices on auction are up by 25% or more from what they were a year ago

  •  Only If (7+ / 0-)
    Broader background checks have best chance in Congress
    The public sits on it's collective asses again and lets the money talk, i.e. the NRA types and Corporate sponsors, while pissing and moaning, in this day and age, to a few thousand, maybe, online!!

    Then collectively piss and moan, again, when nothing or very little is even accomplished!!

    The paranoid, more, still rushing out and forming lines:
    Talk about mental disorders, wanting guns and even more ammunition to add to their arsenals, that have grown within many past any definition of sanity!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:24:24 AM PST

  •  Make the Connection (4+ / 0-)

    Make the connection between the NRA and terorrism. It's easy when they're advertising with threats against the President and his children.

    Yes, it's an uphill fight. Yes, it's a hard fight. But even more NRA members are on our side. Those are the fights you fight. And those are the fights you win.

    Next time I see one of these "woe is us, we can't pass anything" articles on DailyKos, I'm going to respond with a nice cup of STFU.

    http://www.danablankenhorn.com

    by Dana Blankenhorn on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:25:16 AM PST

  •  And if we want to control those so called (12+ / 0-)

    "straw man" purchases, we'd better start calling it what it is: "gun trafficking".

  •  He has to put it all out there (11+ / 0-)

    If he comes out only in favor of universal background checks and high-capacity ammo, it becomes the only thing the NRA has to fight against.

    Put it ALL on the table.  AWB, ATF reform, trafficking, 30-round clips, loopholes.  Then you get to negotiate and make real progress.

    To hell with the optics of it if he ends up having to 'cave' on any one thing.  Children are dying, and something is better than nothing.

    Follow Me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/#!/ZeddRebel

    by TarantinoDork on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:26:46 AM PST

  •  The president's announcement (2+ / 0-)

    will be live on c-span at 10:55 Eastern.

    "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

    by cotterperson on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:28:08 AM PST

  •  Change you can believe in (4+ / 0-)

    The powerful opposition to Health Care reform lost. Those opposing the repeal of DADT lost. Those opposing the restructuring of the US auto industry lost. The powerful lobby opposing the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau lost. The all-powerful Grover Norquist and his tax pledge opposing tax increases on the wealthy also lost. And those opposing immigration reform have already grudgingly accepted defeat. And although they don't know it yet, the NRA and those opposing responsible gun laws are about to lose.

    This is change. Good change. Change you can believe in kind of change.

  •  Magazine Buy Back? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, Deward Hastings, fuzzyguy

    Some of those puppies are expensive - in the $30 range, and many people have a half dozen. Some folks will have 20 or more.

    Point being a lot of law abiding people would be irate if the feds told them they had to destroy several hundred dollars of personal property.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:32:38 AM PST

    •  More than likely (0+ / 0-)

      Older clips would be grandfathered in, under something passed right now.  I don't agree with this policy, as I think a buy-back makes a lot of sense, for clips AND semi-automatic rifles and handguns, but, that's where we are.  

    •  Whoopdy doo. (0+ / 0-)

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:43:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't destroy them. Disable them. Perhaps trade (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask, nominalize

      ... them, at a lower dollar amount, for something else.

      Does the public treasury have to buy back - at full dollar - something someone bought and now cannot lawfully use, because they'd be "irate?" Gun lovers - as opposed to sportsmen - seem to be wildly indignant about everything that would limit their cherished use of weapons that are admittedly dangerous to people and property. "Irate" can't be the standard.

      As a practical matter, to make hi-cap magazines illegal (and semi-automatic registered before today, when the President addresses the nation; no forward profiting from it!), I'd be willing to use some deficit-causing debt-raising public money ... if the GOP thought it helpful to their causes. In fact, I'd like to see 'em advocate for that, perhaps filibuster on the issue.

      Popcorn, please.

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

      by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:46:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  reducing capacity of old mags would be possible (0+ / 0-)

        By means if a couple thin bolts half way down, soldered in place, to limit the travel of the spring.  

        There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

        by bernardpliers on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:24:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And just as easily, (0+ / 0-)

          they can be modified back.
          That's not a solution.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:39:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Soldered In Place (0+ / 0-)

            Ultimately everything is about possession, not what someone might do with it.  With practice, I could probably make a mechanical pencil into a .22 zip gun in 20 minutes, but we don't outlaw pencils for that reason.

            There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

            by bernardpliers on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:46:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Thin bolts and solder - trust these? Verify? (0+ / 0-)

          Compliance would be a mess, like "coming for their guns."

          Certainly, enforcement has to taken into consideration as an important issue. The more self-compliance and self certification, the better.

          It's the non-compliers who will inevitably force the issue, handing us the threat of Waco and Idaho standoffs and shootouts. Face-offs, egged on by zealots or not, must be avoided. Hopefully, the passage of time and public opinion will diminish these kinds of confrontations. If gun owners have to expire with guns in their cold hands (as Mr. Heston so luridly put it), let it be by natural causes.

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

          by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:46:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, Let's Look At A Wingnut Logical Fallacy (0+ / 0-)

            They like to point out that NY has high cigarette taxes, and as a result NY has a lot of cigarettes smuggled in.  Then they compare that to guns to say that gun laws will simply result in gun smuggling etc.

            Where they compare apples and oranges is that the police aren't vigorously arresting people for having a pack of smokes without the tax stamp, but an illegal gun would be taken a lot more seriously.

            If you want to ban possession of something, then ban the possession of it.

            Keep in mind millions of these magazines will continue to be manufactured for government contracts.

            There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

            by bernardpliers on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:59:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good points. (0+ / 0-)

              Confrontation is a problem - as is enforcement, generally.

              Nevertheless, I'm with you on a possession ban. Criminalizing hi-cap magazines that are not disabled, as the NRA will surely argue, makes criminals out of otherwise law abiders, an eminently reasonable cost of limiting the availability of guns and ammo most prevalent in massacres.

              Guns are dangerous. Their owners, their sale and trading, their availability and use can constitutionally be regulated. There's plenty of precedent for criminalizing even possessing them, as in situations that are inherently dangerous (such as carrying one while committing a misdemeanor or felony) or threatening (airplanes).

              Full speed ahead. Let the NRA and its shills take polar extreme positions, and show us all how extremist they really are. They may well turn out to be their own worst enemy.

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

              by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:38:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Back during the ban on such clips (0+ / 0-)

      I have seen them go for $100 on auction

    •  buyback or "trade back" . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask, nominalize

      otherwise it's going to be argued to be an "unlawful taking" anyway.

      I think that "tradeback" is at least plausable . . . turn in what you've got and get a "legal" one (or perhaps even more than one) in return.  Keep what you've got and face confiscation and a substantial fine (or even jail time).  Pay for the whole program with an ammunition tax.

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:53:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So now we have to stop EVERYthing before ... (3+ / 0-)

    ... we can ever hope to limit gun violence: “If you want to dam the river, you have to address all the channels ... [and] dam the whole river.”

    No, Josh, the gun-hugger who uses the banner of stopping gun violence. We don't need to rid the world of action movies and TV, or or violent video games, or sell powerful guns to vigilantes who will police schools.

    As for the diagnosis and outing of mental illness, if psychiatrists were required by law to report anyone they felt had psychotic tendencies and they went on a list to not be able to get access to a gun ... if you fear invading personal privacy and discouraging treatment of mental illness, I cannot think of a more effective way.

    We need to stanch the manufacture, sale and trading and use of dangerous weapons. Guns - by every sportsperson's view I have talked to - are dangerous to life and property and need to be treated that way. Every state in the nation automatically penalizes crimes committed by those who are armed more heavily, even if the weapon is not used! We also need to understand how people get their hands on guns and ammo and what kinds are used to commit crimes. We need to increase enforcement, not shut it down as the gun lobbies have so effectively been doing.

    I, for one, don't need to dam the whole river. Just pick out the best ways to directly address the problem of violence by gun ... begin damming up the guns, not the water.

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

    by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:33:04 AM PST

    •  I too have grave concern over this (4+ / 0-)
      provisions designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who are dangerously mentally ill,
      It may sound good in theory. We should keep guns out of the hands of people that are dangerous. But what exactly is the mechanism to get this done? What is "dangerously mentally ill"? Everyone who has had treatment for depression? Everyone that has shown symptoms of BPD? Everyone who has been diagnosed with an autism spectrum quotient over a certain level? Will there be a national database that all physicians are required to update with their patient data?

      I'm more than leery. Mental illness is not necessarily a permanent condition. Yet do we permanently mark all who have sought treatment as "dangerous". A big D on their permanent records?

      •  Listing ALL the mentally ill is (0+ / 0-)

        the wrong way around.
        Test people who are in the process of buying guns and if they show up as mentally ill, 1) prevent them from buying that gun, and 2) list them for future background checks.
        That way it only effects those that want guns, not broadband, everyone that might need mental health care.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:45:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Test how? (0+ / 0-)

          And who does the test, and who pays for it?

          I'm all for fewer guns. I have no doubt that simple background checks that are done (and sometimes not done) can be improved upon.  I'm just unsure how a mechanism to keep guns away from the "dangerously mentally ill" can actually work.  ATF psych evaluations performed on the spot?

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

          what does "if they show up as mentally ill" mean? Show up where? Who is creating this "mentally ill" database?

          •  I'm not sure how it would be done, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kane in CA

            some kind of psych evaluation has to be possible.
            If the ATF or FBI already has such a DB, how do they get their data?
            HIPPA is supposed to protect the privacy of medical records (I say supposedly because the Bushies blew a hole in it for insurance companies) so collating a list of everyone that receives treatment for psych issues would be very problematic and as noted elsewhere in this string, would discourage many people who need help from seeking it.
            But if you want to buy a weapon, you should be willing to prove that you are fit to own it.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:37:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I hate to say this but to have a list compiled (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kane in CA, TRPChicago, MPociask, fuzzyguy, CwV

      by psychiatrists which would ban a person from ever owning a gun is a bad idea as it would discourage people to ever seek mental health care, denies the efficacy of treatment and places the health professional in a quandary regarding confidentiality issues

    •  a way to do both . . . (0+ / 0-)

      make posession of a firearm during the commission of a crime . . . any crime . . . result in confiscation and a manditory minimum of 10 years, no reduction, no parole, consecutive with whatever sentence is rendered for the qualifing offense.

      Take 'em away and lock 'em up . . .
       

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:59:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  it seems the first step in any discussion is to (3+ / 0-)

    establish parameters for that discussion.  For example, there are those who would ban all clip-type weapons, though this includes a good many hunting rifles and weapons which are not semi-automatic.  However, tube magazine type weapons would be unaffected by such a ban and these weapons frequently have as large or larger capacity than some clips.

    However, it is difficult for any sane person to, for example, to defend making belt fed weapons standard CWP carry (Rambo to the contrary) and personally it is difficult for me to imagine a practical use for a 100 round snail clip.  OTOH I would argue that a 5 round clip, which is standard, does not present any greater danger than the average sidewheeler double action with a five round cylinder.

    This would be a first step but one which has not been taken as each extreme has made its mark in the sand.  It is time for those in the middle to move those marks so we can have some sort of sane legislation  

  •  Has Max Baucus weighed in? (0+ / 0-)

    He's probably waiting for the check to clear first.

    The Aggressively Ignorant Caucus is getting aggressively ignorant again.

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:35:05 AM PST

  •  Do the antigun people think Obama would be safer (0+ / 0-)

    if the Secret Service was unarmed?

    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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:37:46 AM PST

    •  No (0+ / 0-)

      First, who is "antigun"?  There are, of course, a lot of people who are in favor of common sense regulations on the manufacture, sale, and possession of extremely deadly firearms.  The majority of the country, if polls are to be believed.

      Second, who is arguing that police or the secret service should not have guns?  

    •  That's kinda like asking whether the country (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask

      would be safer if CDC researchers didn't have access to anthrax and Ebola samples. . . . .

      •  that question was asked during the anthrax mailing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy

        scare and there were changes in procedures when it became evident there were leaks in the system

        •  That analogy would be relevant if the secret (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MPociask

          service weapons were trickling out of the service into the public.

          Which isn't at all what I was getting at - which is whether tools needed by a highly specialized group of public servants need to be disseminated to anybody who might want them.

          Or banned from use by everybody, as the case may be. . ..

          •  well local cops have sold confiscated (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MPociask, fuzzyguy

            weapons out of their trunk and a local NCO was arrested for selling out of the NG Armory and I think another NCO at Fort Bragg was arrested a few years ago for selling weapons instead of destroying them as ordered

            Even under the most extreme proposal military and police would retain weapons

      •  Just asking. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy

        Some of the 'impassioned anti-gun rhetoric' makes such a question a logical thing.

        Some folks have some very odd ideas about what might actually keep people safe.

        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 Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:10:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  NO, he'd be safer if the lunatics were unarmed. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      myboo, MPociask

      But, the gun nuts are adamant that there be no impediment to everybody obtaining slaughter weapons, so he and his kids are in grave danger, every day.
      As are we all.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:47:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We can defeat the NRA (3+ / 0-)

    If we have learned anything in these past few years it is that the omnipotent false gods in this country can be defeated.  

    If we can defeat Romney/Ryan and the 2%, the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Grover Norquist, the corporate members of ALEC, FreedomWorks, Jim DeMint, the tea party, Wall Street, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove and Fox and all the rest of the GOP establishment, we can defeat the NRA.

    Yes, it will be an uphill battle. But it is a battle worth fighting.

  •  How about background checks on bullets? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, DefendOurConstitution

    Or ammunition magazines?  It's right to require them for guns, but why not the agents and carriers of injury and death?  The more checks the better.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:38:04 AM PST

    •  That's what NY State just did. As far as I know (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      accumbens, myboo, MPociask

      the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about whether those arms that we have a right to bear must have bullets or not (of course the real reason for that is that people made their own bullets back then, but I'd be fine with homemade bullets, at least they are better - really worse - in terms of being less lethal.

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:52:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I glad the President is going with the truth and (3+ / 0-)

    science and other experts recommend instead of what political pundits believe he should.  Scientists have long argued for a comprehensive approach that includes recommendations for parents on what their children should be exposed to, comprehensive gun registration laws, successful approaches used in other countries, improvements in our mental health care system that include integration with law enforcement and school services and an assault weapons ban. Unlike some political cowards he promised he would do the right thing and I'm glad it looks like he's going to do it.    

  •  I'm really tired of the NRA using the Obama kids (4+ / 0-)

    We've all seen those NRA ads alleging the president is being elitist and hypocritical when he doesn't support arming teachers at schools, when his own kids get Secret Service protection.  On blogs and on TV, I've seen a lot of gun fanatics are say Obama's double standard is egregious because he just signed a new law extending Secret Service protection.

    In case anyone hears this, I wanted to post the facts: Since the assassination of JFK, the secret service provided lifetime protection to former presidents. In the mid 1990's, the protection was amended so that former presidents are protected only for 10 years after leaving office.

    The new law was proposed and co-sponsored by two Republican members of the House. It was passed by overwhelming voice vote. There was no significant opposition. You will note that President Bush's 10 years was due to expire in a couple of years.

    Here's a scenario for our Republican friend:  Did anyone expect Pres Obama to look President Bush - or his father - in the face and say, "well I'm vetoing that law that Congress just passed to proect you.  By the way, good luck" ?  

    The new law re-establishes that former presidents and their spouses are granted lifetime protection (the first ladies protection stops if they ever re-marry). The children are NOT given lifetime protection. They are protected while their parent serves as president regardless of age; then until they turn 16 once their parent leaves office. With regard to children, this would apply only to one presidential child (Sasha), and then only for a year or so.

    Unlike the horrible case of Newton, et al, random shootings are not the purpose of Secret Service protection. In fact, assassination is only a part of the objective of protection. Abduction is a huge concern also, particularly for children, since kidnapping a president's child would be extremely problematic for the country.

    The minute we elect a person to be president of the United States, we put a big target on their backs. Anyone who remembers 11/22/63 will recognize that over and above the personal tragedy to the president, this affects our whole country and our government. Anyone who thinks we don't owe these people, Republican or Democratic, protection for their benefit - and for our own - is smoking something.

    And I'd wish they'd stop.  Anyway, if you hear this ridiculous comment from anyone, now you know.

  •  The DOW is down... (4+ / 0-)

    In all likelihood it's because Obama's proposals may have a negative effect on the funeral industry.

  •  Did you just call me "nobody" ? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, MPociask, nominalize
    Nobody is fantasizing about imposing the kinds of controls that Australia did in 1996

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

    by indycam on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:45:28 AM PST

    •  Australia 1996 (0+ / 0-)

      Could have been the polestar of the legislative effort.  But we have Mr. Consensus for President, so, we'll see how it works out.  

      I don't mean that as an indictment of the President, but he has consistently shown he's not the type to try to get as much as possible, and then negotiate down.  Art of the possible, and all that.  

      •  Then again, the Australian effort (0+ / 0-)

        was led by the Conservative government, so it had a Nixon-in-China feel to it.  

        And the Conservatives won the next election as well.  And the next two, while they were at it.

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:04:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  nice graphic (0+ / 0-)

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:46:38 AM PST

  •  There is an old saying that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    entlord, MPociask, fuzzyguy

    the grass is always greenest over the septic tank.  All told, there are 19 provision on the table.  Two of them are extremely controversial in that they are unlikely to pass congress, strongly opposed to by the pro gun rights community because of both infringement and evidence to their lack of effect, due to SCOTUS rulings have a high degree of being declared illegal, and could come at a cost of most other Liberal political item.

    Lets focus on the other 17 proposals instead of risking that the whole thing is predicated on that which is unlikely to pass.

  •  I am just curious (0+ / 0-)

    I don't even know if AIM had weapons at Wounded Knee.  But if they did, would they be "Assault Weapons"?  

    Again, no disrespect, just asking.

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

    by EdMass on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:48:44 AM PST

  •  I am looking forward (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo

    to hearing what President Obama has to say. I am proud of him for putting it all out there, regardless of the freakout.

    I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

    by hulibow on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:48:45 AM PST

  •  Asinine, but probably true: (0+ / 0-)
    “An assault-weapons stand-alone ban on just guns alone, in the political reality we have, will not go anywhere,”
    So what should be paired with it, Joe?

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:49:38 AM PST

  •  Note: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shigeru
    HOUSTON (AP) — In a heavily guarded store just southwest of Houston, twin .50-caliber "Ma Deuce" machine guns rise up side by side from a mount that could be bolted to the deck of a warship or truck bed.

    The guns can fire about 1,200 rounds a minute and take down a plane.

    And they have us walking through E-rays ans emptying toiletries at airports while this is allowed.

    Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

    by DRo on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:02:50 AM PST

  •  Follow The Money Is The Aswer (0+ / 0-)

    Make selling assault weapons harder by regulating the place that they sell the weapons.  The store that they sell the weapons should be like Fort Knox.  Also, the sellers of weapons should be certified in every weapon course there is on assault weapon.  Also, sellers of assault weapons have to have catastrophic gun insurance and be bonded.  Also, the seller of assault weapons have to be listed with the FBI.  Republicans are making it harder for abortion clinics to stay in business, the president and democrats can make it harder for gun sellers to stay in business.  Also the president should do an executive harder that every gun holder takes a certification class be registed in a national gun database and have gun insurance.   Also, gun buyers should be taxed higher.  Fines for having a gun that is not registered should be astronomical.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:03:27 AM PST

    •  Also, States Can Put A Special Tax On Gun (0+ / 0-)

      sales.  Just like state lotterys there can be a tax on gun sales that go to schools for hiring armed certified security guards.

      "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

      by rssrai on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:08:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  most gun shops are like armed camps (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy

      with re-bar reinforced walls and barred doors and windows along with a buzzer system and armed employees, many of whom are either law enforcement or ex military.  FFL holders are already listed by the ATF and the list is public information.  Why an extra list with the FBI?

  •  I'd like to see a ban on all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nominalize

    Military Grade equipment. If it was designed for the military you can't own it, period. And that includes knock offs.

    If we did that the country might be a safer place for my great, great, grand kids.

    •  Unintended consequences... (0+ / 0-)

      Does that ban cover 2-way radios?  GPS?  Jet planes?  LOTS of things were designed for the military...

      Those who support banning cocaine are no better than those who support banning cheeseburgers

      by EthrDemon on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:56:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Outcomes versus issues... (0+ / 0-)

    President Obama today unveils plans for curbing gun violence, and we will once again kick off a process that allows Congress to address a huge national problem, and come up with a half-hearted, pandered, ineffective solution - if one at all (think health care, Wall St reform, drug war, defense spending/wars, etc..)!  We will not have good governance until we enact Campaign Finance Reform to get big money out of politics!!!  It IS the number 1 issue...

  •  "With rights come responsibilities" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, nominalize

    is a blueprint for  the way forward.

    Emphasize responsible citizenship and view gun control as protection.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:16:51 AM PST

    •  Your statement is absolutely correct (0+ / 0-)

      With rights come responsibilities.  And in your statement also lies the problem with the calls for the bans: they calling for restrictions against those who have done no wrong without an alternative.  This puts honest citizens in a position where they have no choice but to oppose the restrictions, join with the NRA, and start hammering on their politicians.

  •  My totally unscientific, unproven take (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, nominalize

    If someone or some group's solution is to do nothing, they've excused themselves from further participation in this discussion. Likewise with anyone or any group that simply decries any proposal as unworkable or ineffective.

    I've heard the same carping all my life, on issues as disparate as racism and auto safety: "Oh, that's just the way things are, it'll never change," or "We can't market our product with an emphasis on safety features, consumers want speed and power!" Heck, I remember people my age (mid-50s) telling me in no uncertain terms that we'd never see a black president in our lifetime.

    I'm unwilling to continue doing nothing. At this point, with our citizens literally dying in the streets and the public square, I'm willing to try just about anything to impose some of that "well-regulated" concept right at the beginning of the Second Amendment to our situation.

  •  Here would be my suggestions (0+ / 0-)

    First would be to limit high capacity clips.  A so called assault weapon is not much different than a deer rifle if the magazine size is limited.

    I would require all magazines over 10 rounds have a serial number and be registered.  There would be a $100 tax on each magazine, and they would have a title just like a car. The person buying them would have to go thru a background check like buying a gun.

    For me this would eliminate the gun grabber label because they would be AVAILABLE, but it would drastically reduce the amount of these magazines in circulation and control them.

    Exsisting magazines would be LEGAL, but if you wanted to sell them you would have to go to your local police station, have them registered and numbered before sale.

    Second I would ban future production or sale of any gun with a folding stock or that is under a certain length.

    Certain so called assault weapons are rifles, but are so short that  they can be easily concealed under an overcoat. Especially those with folding stocks. This would help prevent mass shooters being able to get rifles into public places without being detected.

    Third I would ban advertising of semi auto military guns and ban open display in gunstores. You could still order them but this would cut down on them being purchased on a whim. This would be similar to the ban on advertising cigarettes.

    Fourth I would direct SSA and the VA to be mandated to notify NICS of any person allowed for benefits as being mentally disabled for VA benefits or Social Security disability benefits and then these people would be banned from purchase unless they went thru a process to have their treating physicians say they were not a danger.

    Fifth I would provide 100% government subsidy for purchase of a gun safe, trigger locks or any gun saftey device.

    Sixth I would beef up ATF staff and have them do spot checks at ranges to make sure shooters legally owned their guns and were not prohibited from owning.

    So none if the above would take any guns but they would reduce the amount of mass killing fodder available.

  •  I can live with universal background checks... (0+ / 0-)

    ...especially if private sellers can claim the costs associated with going through an FFL as refundable tax credits.  I can also live with the President's unveiled EOs..

    In my 'best of all possible worlds', a new federal universal background check law would include federal preemption of state gun bans; federal law should be the law of the land in terms of what law-abiding citizens can legally own.  Absent that, I'll continue to fight gun bans on the state level.

    Any gun registration initiatives, further gun bans, or bans on standard capacity magazines are a line in the sand for me.  I've already joined the NRA for the first time (something I never thought I would be driven to do) in response to the fear-mongering and factless 'debate' taking place in progressive circles.

  •  I'm just going to think (0+ / 0-)

    way outside the box. In fact, outside the reality of the box itself.
     How about requiring every person who wants to own a firearm must first register with the Selective Service. They would be subject to call  up to defend our country at any time, no matter what their age or physical condition.
     This in turn would allow our military to curtail or eliminate our standing army with enough savings to end our current predicament with the deficit and put America on sure financial footing for decades to come.
     Remember, our defense budget is almost 1 trillion bucks a year.
     Seriously, what ruler, king, or despot would be sane or insane enough to invade a nation with 300 million armed to the teeth, trigger happy, pissed off citizens?
     Through drones, cruise missiles, and a credible nuclear deterrent in our Boomer Fleet, we just don't need the humongous military machine we now have spanning the damn globe.

    The Job Killing Republican Party is directly responsible for the Great Bush Recession.

    by earthling1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:21:27 AM PST

  •  Wackjobs of America Unite! (0+ / 0-)

    Stop shooting poor people.

    The Job Killing Republican Party is directly responsible for the Great Bush Recession.

    by earthling1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:12:40 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site