Gun controll - Can someone put a bullet in this thing?

[Howdyphillip]

As the last thread was over 400.

Link to the last page of the old thread for continuity sake...

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

OK, that's two. And you actually hurt your own argument with that quote, because if "many" politicians wanted to ban all guns then she should not have had a hard time... you know... banning all guns.

First, I think you are overlooking that some local governments have tried very hard to do that. There were very strong anti-f=gun laws in major cities like NYC, Chicago, and Washington D.C. that actually passed and were in force. Those laws did have the support of a majority of those politicians. On that level alone, the "many politicians" thing is probably correct. Now, if he'd said a majority, that would be a different issue.

Second, this is a very politically charged issue with a very potent lobby -- the NRA -- on one side. For a long time, politicians have talked openly about how the NRA's political power to swing races limits what politicians can do. In other words, just because they don't vote for it doesn't mean they don't want to do it. Red state senators in particular are wary of what being anti-gun will do. Of course, if that political calculus changes, then who knows?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21525/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-is-political-suicide-for-democrats/406719

[RaceBannon42]

I think banning all guns is not a widespread goal of most politicians, but it is a goal of some. I'll grant you that most members of congress have not stated that is their goal. I'd bet that there are some who feel that way who haven't made that a public stance, but thats mere speculation on my part. But if you count state and local levels than saying many isn't wrong. Its not happening now, but it could happen incrementally. Full autos are banned now. Assault rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds next, then what, all hand guns? all semi autos? As a law abiding gun owner I do feel concerned about having my constitutional rights infringed upon.

[Kouran]

Heh Fienstein has to be hopping mad getting told to STFD and STFU by her party head in the Senate has to chafe a bit. Reid isnt dumb at least the AWB was DOA and would cause any legislation tied to it to go down too. Now the push will be to try to sneak some of that stupid shit into what ever bullshit bill they come up with and get it added in reconciliation.

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

I attended a lecture today where the esteemed guest speaker made a joke about Feinstein wanting to prevent all veterans with PTSD from owning guns. Did she say that?

On that angle, from the last time we talked about it, I was doing a little research on Chris Kyle's murder and it would seem that Kyle was not engaging in any "shooting therapy" and (as I suspected) Routh was very likely not suffering from PTSD, but a schizophrenic break.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/shooting-therapy-did-not-kill-navy-seal-chris-kyle/273030/

I was actually planning on trying to publish something on this, but naturally it turns out that Routh was being treated by the VA was released from in-patient hospitalization, against his parents wishes, twice in the week before the shooting, which creates something of a conflict. *sigh*

[RaceBannon42]

I attended a lecture today where the esteemed guest speaker made a joke about Feinstein wanting to prevent all veterans with PTSD from owning guns. Did she say that?

yep

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/mar/8/feinstein-ptsd-veteran-assault-weapons-gun-ban/

“The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transfer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member or veteran and there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.

I think you have to – if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally, don’t have access to this kind of weapon,” the Senator said.

[Sturn]

So, the bill to ban assault weapons is dyring, and sales of firearms are way up. Fail?

Forbes:

Gun sales, as measured by FBI background checks, rose 19% in 2012 to nearly 19.6 million.

http://www.forbes.co...bamas-election/

[TheKitttenGuard]

yep

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/mar/8/feinstein-ptsd-veteran-assault-weapons-gun-ban/

1. How is someone in the military not a Federal employee in a overall sense?

2. Sadly, PTSD is not new, it just a medical definition of a problem that went under other names most famously "shell shock"

It does not make Feinstein look good I will say. On the other hand the author has a clear negative view of Feinstein and is to a audience that shares it.

[Jon Sprunk]

So, the bill to ban assault weapons is dyring, and sales of firearms are way up. Fail?

Or it greases the skids for universal background checks and perhaps some kind of national registry of firearms.

[awesome possum]

First, I think you are overlooking that some local governments have tried very hard to do that. There were very strong anti-f=gun laws in major cities like NYC, Chicago, and Washington D.C. that actually passed and were in force. Those laws did have the support of a majority of those politicians. On that level alone, the "many politicians" thing is probably correct. Now, if he'd said a majority, that would be a different issue.

Again, I think it depends on your definition of many. Those three cities may have passed anti-gun laws, but there are 285 (give or take a couple) cities in the US with a population over 100,000. That's 1% of the nation's cities. I just don't consider that "many."

Second, this is a very politically charged issue with a very potent lobby -- the NRA -- on one side. For a long time, politicians have talked openly about how the NRA's political power to swing races limits what politicians can do. In other words, just because they don't vote for it doesn't mean they don't want to do it. Red state senators in particular are wary of what being anti-gun will do. Of course, if that political calculus changes, then who knows?

http://www.policymic...emocrats/406719

Fair enough, though I'd argue that the same can be said for how politicians feel about going against many of the strong lobbies in the country. For example, the science is getting very close to producing solar power that is cheaper than coal but will enough politicians dump their coal lobbyists to make a push toward solar infrastructure?

The problem, as I see it, is that the extreme polar ends appear to be doing most of the talking in this debate - or are the loudest. It's Tormund's view on one end vs. Lev's view on the other. Nothing will ever get accomplished when the two loudest voices in a debate are for the most extreme measures (in this case, make everything legal vs. make everything illegal).

So, the bill to ban assault weapons is dyring, and sales of firearms are way up. Fail?

Never underestimate the power of successful scare tactics.

[Kouran]

Or it greases the skids for universal background checks and perhaps some kind of national registry of firearms.

Universal checks are no problem. A registry on the other hand is a big problem and will never pass.

[Sturn]

Universal checks are no problem. A registry on the other hand is a big problem and will never pass.

Like.

[Jon Sprunk]

Universal checks are no problem. A registry on the other hand is a big problem and will never pass.

Uh huh. Well, I suppose it's possible that people will stop using guns to commit violent acts and we'll all just forget about sensible gun control.

Yes, I do think that a national registry is part of sensible gun control. It's a big part of what keep guns in the hands of lawful owners and out of the hands of unlawful users.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Again, I think it depends on your definition of many. Those three cities may have passed anti-gun laws, but there are 285 (give or take a couple) cities in the US with a population over 100,000. That's 1% of the nation's cities. I just don't consider that "many."

So NY (metropolitan population of 20 million), Chicago (10 million) and D.C. (capital, and 5 million) aren't significant, and don't themsleves contain "many" politicians? And I never said those were the only laws, either. I just didn't run down every city because I honestly through those cities alone made the point. And of course, just because support for more restrictive laws elsewhere doesn't have majority support doesn't mean there aren't many who support a cause in which they remain (for now) a minority.

The other issue out there is the Constitutionl restriction of Heller. As of now, heavy restrictions like those that existed in a lot of places couldn't pass constitutional muster, so they're not being proposed. That doesn't indicate a lack of support for the concept, but just a political recognition of the legal limitations.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Here's one of the more congent arguments from the anti-gun side. I think the first sentence of the one of the most recent comments kind of says it all.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=eSp2PpmQLC4

[Kouran]

Uh huh. Well, I suppose it's possible that people will stop using guns to commit violent acts and we'll all just forget about sensible gun control.

Yes, I do think that a national registry is part of sensible gun control. It's a big part of what keep guns in the hands of lawful owners and out of the hands of unlawful users.

I suppose sensible people can disagree about what sensible gun control is. I always viewed gun control as being able to hit the target, but you seem to believe its taking away peoples rights, but I guess YMMV.

Cheers

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Yes, I do think that a national registry is part of sensible gun control. It's a big part of what keep guns in the hands of lawful owners and out of the hands of unlawful users.

Actually, I reckon that it's a big part of what leads to massive non-compliance and 50 million + "unlawful users".

[Jon Sprunk]

but you seem to believe its taking away peoples rights, but I guess YMMV.

Wow. You got me there. Yep, I'm a second-amendment-supporting rights-stealer.

Gimme a break. You can disagree with the idea that working towards keeping guns away from the criminal and the dangerous is worth the price of a little extra paperwork, but at least try to make an intelligent argument.

[Jon Sprunk]

Actually, I reckon that it's a big part of what leads to massive non-compliance and 50 million + "unlawful users".

That's a possible outcome. I believe it's improbable, but I don't have a crystal ball. I could just as easily say, "It's a big part of reducing gun deaths in America to zero" and have just as much authority as your statement. None.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's a possible outcome. I believe it's improbable, but I don't have a crystal ball. I could just as easily say, "It's a big part of reducing gun deaths in America to zero" and have just as much authority as your statement. None.

Well, it does seem that the louder the call for greater gun control, the faster people buy up guns and ammo, adding to the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation. Presumably, they're doing it now rather than waiting because they don't want their weapons to be registered, and so are trying to beat that to the punch. It is pretty safe to assume that most of those people have no intention of complying voluntarily with such a law, and we're talking about lawful buyers not complying.