Lindsey Graham, widely expected to face a challenge next year from right out of the 1830s, has responded to President Obama’s gun proposals today with words that place him safely in NRA territory:
Graham Expresses Opposition to President Obama’s Gun Control Proposal
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement in opposition to President Obama’s gun control proposal.
“The recent tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School is heartbreaking and beyond words. However, the gun control plans brought forward by President Obama fail to address the real issues and I’m confident there will be bipartisan opposition to his proposal.
“One bullet in the hands of a homicidal maniac is one too many. But in the case of a young mother defending her children against a home invader — a real-life event which recently occurred near Atlanta — six bullets may not be enough. Criminals aren’t going to follow legislation limiting magazine capacity. However, a limit could put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage when confronting a criminal.
“As for reinstating the assault weapons ban, it has already been tried and failed.
“Finally, when it comes to protecting our schools, I believe the best way to confront a homicidal maniac who enters a school is for them to be met by armed resistance from a trained professional.”
But take heart, gun control advocates: At least he doesn’t want to arm teachers, right? Not unless that’s what he means by “trained professional.” I initially took it to mean “cop,” but can we be sure?
Do you mean “Take heed, gun control advocates:”?
Nah. “Take heart.” Fixed it. Thanks!
So do you think he means what he says or is he just playing primary season word games?
I think he’s just using this to prop up his sagging conservative image.
I find it interesting that the pro-gun folks keep citing this incident of the mother who successfully defended her home (in GA) by using a type of weapon (a handgun with a 10 round magazine) that absolutely no one is proposing that we outlaw. Seems to me that incident makes the point of the gun control folks.
He wants to put armed guards in schools? Remember how well that worked at Columbine? Or is he proposing lots of armed guards at each school? If so, how does he propose to pay for this? Is he willing to increase the debt limit? In the past I’ve been a Lindsay supporter, but I think I’ve had enough. He’s become a political whore, and we already had plenty of those.
We already have them in Richland 2. It’s not a bad thing to have that type of presence on site. On the other hand, the Columbine hysteria resulted in significant overspending on fences around schools and technology to track visitors which only serves to be a hassle for people who visit the school and does nothing to deter anyone with bad intentions. I’ve had to scan my drivers license numerous times to visit someone but could just as easily walk on by any time there are crowds between classes.
Clinton got the weapons ban through by packaging it with a bunch of items in the conservative wish list.
Would you trade an assault weapons ban for entitlement reforms? What about money for a resource officer for every school?
Obama is taking us back to the tyranny of Reagan era gun laws.
What awful, facist days
Everybody should be armed, 24 hours a day, with fingers twitching on the trigger, because, you know, freedom.
Enjoyed the backstory. Appreciate you sharing it.
Wow, that’s some crackpot history there, Burl. Good find.
While I was working out on Monday evening, I happened to see a video snippet promoting “Gun Appreciation Day” this coming Saturday. The promoter (I think he was a minister) asserted that promoting gun rights as vigorously as we do nowadays would have enabled the slaves to arm themselves against slavery. Go figure.
I liked the name Professor Bogus as well.
There were trained professionals surrounding President Reagan on March 30, 1981. The only things that saved him was close proximity to a top notch hospital and modern medicine. I lived in DC at the time and off-duty (i’m a retired RN). Scary time.
(Working as a nurse in a large metropolitan area for 20 yrs, it was so sad to see so many patients admitted w/gun shot wounds. I moved to SC 12 yrs ago)
The only thing that saved more lives the day Rep Gifford was that the shooter had to reload.
(I was born and raised in rural America and knew the value of gun ownership. But – IMO, the NRA and their bought politicians are off the charts.)
History of the 2nd Amendment
(scroll to “IV. The Politics of the Founding Fathers”}
Written by David Vandercoy
What a well regulated militia is
What is so depressing is that Graham had been setting an admirable course, being willing to compromise and work across party lines, exhibiting characteristics of being a statesman.
But it seems that he has determined this state needs another Jim Deminted, the best US senator South Carolina never had. So he has joined himself at the hip with John McCain, who was rejected by the people when he put his candidacy to the people. And now, he is quarrelsome and meddlesome, and just a complete jerk.
I was more than willing to support, defend and encourage the previous Lindsey Graham. This new version won’t work out.
The shame is that if Lindsey had the stayed the course, he would have been elected in a landslide.
It’s a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”
Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state . . . .” In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization.
Pennsylvania and Vermont.
For contrast, here’s Jim Clyburn’s response to the president’s proposals:
Pretty measured response.
It really appears that the left is trying to keep a very even tone. I hear alot of appeals to a bipartisan nature. I think they are ready to deal if someone will come to the table.
This issue is important to me. I want to see some action. The left missed their window though for a wide spread push. I think they will get something but i think the left kinda missed there chance at a assault weapon ban.
Probably going to fall short on a 10+ magazine ban as well unless they are willing to give away a lot for a few votes in the house.
As far as the SC reps are concerned they aren’t going to give on this issue. In Tea Party country they would just open themselves up to get a primary challenge. You might see some movement in the more moderate states though.
I wonder what percentage of Clyburn’s constituency are gun owners (legal and illegal)?
I posted a blog story of my own from a moderate perspective.
Here’s a thought: In 86% of violent crimes that involve a gun, the gun involved is a handgun.
I still find it interesting that as a country we can still find ways to regulate, control, segregate, monitor, track, condition, proscribe, etc every other right inumerated under the Constitution and its Amendments – but yet we are supposed to kowtow to the fringe ideal that no such limitations shall be placed upon the Second Amendment?
This of course totally ignores the point that in 1934, 1968 and other times as well, restrictions were put in place – and they have held. We are a nation of accommodation and moderation.
For the same reasons I think it foolish to waste political capital trying to ban “assault weapons”. They are just modern firearms, semi-automatic guns. Limiting magazine size makes all the sense in the world, on the other hand. So does requiring (effetive and efficiant) universal background checks and regulating ammunition types.
Arming “professionals” in school seems so stagecoachish to me. I.e., it is deploying resources in the least effective manner just because it feels safer than nothing – even though effective safety was, and is, only achievable through law and order. Why we look to the wild west for civilizing solutions is beyond me. It is like the right eing thinking in the 1980’s that tne solution to the country’s problems was simply to build more prisons. That didn’t work out either. We need to be smarter and more thoughtful as we react to this intolerable situation or fear, paranoia, and contempt of our democratic process and American progress.
Shotgun! I called it…
“Arming “professionals” in school seems so stagecoachish to me. I.e., it is deploying resources in the least effective manner just because it feels safer than nothing – even though effective safety was, and is, only achievable through law and order. Why we look to the wild west for civilizing solutions is beyond me. It is like the right eing thinking in the 1980′s that tne solution to the country’s problems was simply to build more prisons. That didn’t work out either. We need to be smarter and more thoughtful as we react to this intolerable situation or fear, paranoia, and contempt of our democratic process and American progress.”
But would you accept this as part of a wider plan. You get assault weapon & high capacity magazine ban the right gets police officers in prison.
No one is really happy with it. Its a good compromise though and a deal I would take.
What limitations on the freedom of religion have been “regulated, controlled, segregated, monitored, tracked, conditioned, proscribed”?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Owning a gun is a right. Using a gun to commit a crime is not. That is why we have laws in place to deal with that.
Well, we have separation of church and state for one. We also have IRS regulations governing church-related incomes and expenditures. Then we have zoning ordinances about where churches may build. And we enforce building and fire codes on churches.
We also require churches to run background checks on people who work with children. And we give broad latitude to people to sue churches for liability.
Anything in that short list of relevance to the question of setting reasonable requirements on gun-related issues and activities? I certainly think so.
None of those items you listed infringe on an individual’s right to practice religion. Your list describes regulations completely unrelated to the PRACTICE of religion. Building codes apply to all buildings. Background checks are not related to religion, they are related to working with children. If it were up to me, there would be no laws giving tax breaks to anything related to religion including deductions for donations.
Owning a gun in and of itself causes no harm to anyone.
I’m sorry, I do not follow your reasoning.
Peyote , Polygamy, etc.
A good many religious practices are simply not allowed and will get a ticket to jail.
Go on. .. you named two… and in both cases, I would suggest that there shouldn’t be laws against either one. What consenting adults choose to do should be left to consenting adults.
@Silence said “Here’s a thought: In 86% of violent crimes that involve a gun, the gun involved is a handgun”
“It’s a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”
Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state . . . .” In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization.”
Don’t muddle this issue by throwing handguns in there.
Handguns are CLEARLY protected by Heller vs. DC which was written by Justice Scalia a very conservative judge. You have to go past the 2nd amendment as written to its interpretation that the supreme court has given it.
” D.C.’s ban on handgun possession violates the Second Amendment. (56-64) The “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.” (56) The handgun is considered by the American people to be the “quintessential self-defense weapon.” (57)”
Assault Weapons are different
” The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned”
The NRA and a lot of good meaning people are trying to confuse the public by saying Obama is going to take their side arms. It is not true as they are CLEARLY protected.
You can have an argument on the merits of if a ban on assault rifles/ high capacity magazines is going to be effective and good law. Just don’t turn this into a constitutional issue by saying Obama is going to take your colt.
OK. Courtesy of CNN, here are the President’s specific proposals. While I grant that some may not help the situation I think we all want to ameliorate, someone please explain to me which of these proposals so tramples on the Second Amendment as not to be possible to at least explore:
1. “Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.”
2. “Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.”
3. “Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.”
4. “Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”
5. “Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”
6. “Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”
7. “Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.”
8. “Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).”
9. “Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.”
10. “Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.”
11. “Nominate an ATF director.”
12. “Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.”
13. “Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.”
14. “Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”
15. “Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.”
16. “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”
17. “Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.”
18. “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.”
19. “Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.”
20. “Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.”
21. “Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.”
22. “Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.”
23. “Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.”
I just don’t see how these proposals warrant the stridency of opponents.
It is always helpful to start with the facts. Thanks for posting.
I think those are just the executive orders he issued. Still nothing to warrant impeachment over.
Most people are upset about the proposed assault weapons ban and ban on high capacity magazines. Though I agree with the ban on high capacity magazines I can see why many people do not agree.
You know what? I don’t. See why people don’t agree, that is.
I don’t see why limiting magazine size is an imposition on anyone’s right to hunt or defend his home. Unless we’re talking Tony Montana in “Scarface,” and there’s an army of cartel thugs invading the villa. In which case you’ll also need a grenade launcher.
So that they can say hello to your leetle friend.
There are no absolutes in life.
I want to here the other sides argument. I may learn something from it. I want to show respect for those I disagree with. I may lose them on gun control but its about establishing relationships and encouraging dialogue. Then I may have an ally on another issue.
Tavis has the right idea here. To carry that to the next step, what would my more liberal friends be willing to offer me to get my support for a magazine capacity limit? Would you be willing to cut some other federal spending, quit pushing climate change stuff, etc?
You want me to support magazine capacity restrictions? Fine. Make me an offer.
“I don’t see why limiting magazine size is an imposition on anyone’s right to hunt or defend his home. ”
It’s probably not an unreasonable 2nd Amendment infringement to cap magazine capacity at 10. I think if that law was passed, and then challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds, the government would win that case. Easily, probably.
However, my disagreement (which you say you cannot understand) is not over the constitutionality of the proposal. On the contrary, my disagreement is over the wisdom and effectiveness of that proposal.
As opposed to the wisdom and efficacy of allowing magazines with capacities greater than 10?
Mrs. Silence likes the idea of a high capacity magazine ban, I disagree and think that we should be able to own whatever we want, without restriction. However, I realize that is unrealistic.
They may just be freaking out because there are 23 of them.
“They’re charging us all at once! Switch to full auto!”…
I actually don’t have any real objection to the 23 items on that list. It’s basically the president telling people to “Do their job”. My favorite is “Nominate an ATF Director”. Isn’t the President basically telling himself to do his own job?
From the Washington Post:
“For the past six years, the Senate has not confirmed the nominees for ATF director by Obama or President George W. Bush. In the first case, individual Republican senators have placed a hold on the nomination. Obama’s first nomination was never acted upon.
“The lack of a director was simply the most obvious manifestation of an effort to make sure that the ATF lacked the staffing, equipment and powers to police the gun industry, according to gun-control advocates.”
It is fascinating that free speech has a myriad of restrictions that have been put in place over time, but people still believe the 2nd ammendment is absolute. Amazing.
There are people on the left that think the First amendment should be read as broadly as possible.
Yeah, if you take away my right to photograph a crucifix in a pail of urine and present it as art, society will crumble.
I don’t think the “right” to do that was ever in question, was it? Wasn’t it whether we the taxpayers should have to pay to support it?
But then the government shouldn’t be funding arts anyway.
People on the right think that too. Who doesn’t think that the first amendment should be interpreted as broadly as possible?
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I would think there are just as many First Amendment fans on the right as on the left. Although they may emphasize different portions of it. For instance, with regard to religion, the left wants no establishment most, while the right worries more about the free exercise thereof. To oversimplify…
Other than not yelling fire in a crowded theatre, and only belonging to BATF approved churches, what restrictions are there on the first amendment?
Profanity is not a protected form of speech. So can fine and levy for that.
you also cant be disruptive. For example you cant just start screaming in a public meeting and expect to get away with it. They can slap you in irons for that too.
Libel and slander aren’t protected either.
Also can get arrested for releasing on secret information. For example the wikileaks thing.
Hate crime prosecutions… for one.
Who says the second amendment is absolute? Where is that written?
Based on the information I’ve heard and reposted above, that 85% of gun crimes involve a handgun – doesn’t wasting time on banning long guns with certain cosmetic features make little or no sense? Here’s the Silence plan:
1) Require that pistols owners be licensed – that is, have a CWP. This would involve some degree of cost, training including range time and safety instruction. For existing (legal) owners , pick up the cost of their permitting & training initially, just to get people in compliance. After the initial permitting, require a short refresher/requalification on the range every five years.
2) Raise the age to own firearms from 18 to 21 for long-guns. It’s already 21 for pistols, I think everywhere.
3) Require the equivalent of a hunter’s safety/firearm safety course for people buying/owning long arms.
4) Universal background checks, even for private party sales. Make them quick and free or very cheap.
This is where it might get a little dicey for some folks:
5) Consider each legal firearm owner to be part of the “well regulated militia”.
6) Treat minors in posession of a firearm as adults for judicial purposes. Make unlawful posession of a firearm a serious adult felony for them.
7) Make armed robbery a capital crime – give prosecutors the option to seek the death penalty, life in prison or long prison terms. Same for other violent or potentially violent crimes.
8) Restrict firearm ownership to upstanding citizens. No felons or former felons need apply. Also nobody with a history of substance abuse, certain mental health issues, bankruptcies, that sort of thing.
8A) If you are the recipient of SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, etc. you obviously cannot afford to own a firearm, so first get off of the public teat and then you can own one.
I’d counter that high ammunition capacity without reloading and the ability to fire at a rate of better than one round a second constitute more than “cosmetic features” but I’m certainly willing to discuss that particular assertion. As for wasting time, we’ve been doing that for a very long period, so wasting a bit more to consider the “cosmetic feature” viewpoint doesn’t bother me.
Your proposals 1-4 are certainly worth exploring further. But your “dicey” suggestions are at or past the fringe of what I would support at this point. But I will sit with all of them to see if I can offer constructive alternatives before simply dismissing them out of hand.
I applaud Tavis’ comment about showing respect for those I disagree with (even him on some points!) and hope I am doing so here. I, too, want to encourage dialogue.
Okay, you’ve got rules set for law abiding citizens. What do you have in place for those who say screw the rules? If someone wants a weapon, they don’t have to buy it legally, stealing one is so much easier. I don’t see gang members getting too worried about any new gun laws. All it’s going to do is punish those who play by the rules.
Not one of these rules stated would have kept the guns out of the hands of the guy who shot up the school.
Exactly. Bad guys will steal guns. Which is why I always say that the real problem is that so many guns EXIST out there, period. There are just too many of them for the stealing…
Which is why I remain pessimistic about the efficacy of most gun-control measures…
Although, to contradict myself, don’t most of these mass-shooting guys obtain their guns legally?
So forget what I said…
How many un-mass shootings have there been in Chicago (Obama’s home town) this year? Aren’t they on track for an all-time murder record? Obama wants to control guns in this country, he can’t even get control of guns in his hometown.
Actually, I’d go the other way on 8A. If you’re on public assistance, and you want a rifle: If you can show proficiency with a rifle at 100 yards, you get a Rack Grade M1 Garand with a few clips (looks at Brad) and some ammo.
Taking new shooters to the rifle range is great. I’ve taken probably 50-60 people to a range and done their first shooting. Nothing like your first time.
Offer to all BradWarthen Commenters: If you’ve never shot a pistol, shotgun, or rifle, and want to try, let me know. For the cost of the ammo, I’ll take you to the range and you’ll come back home with a big smile on your face.
It’s fun – I guarantee it.
If you go with Kathryn or bud, will you videotape it?
This reminds me…
Remember the conversation we had awhile back, about the time I went out target shooting with my cousin’s carbine-sized .30-06 rifle? This was six or seven years ago. (Here’s a blog post I wrote about it at the time, “Why don’t we just surrender, Sarge?“) Anyway, the thing was WAY too light to shoot that ammunition, and kicked so wildly it was hard to hit anything with it.
Well, I saw my cousin (by the way, he’s the one who is a recently minted Episcopal priest) at services for my Aunt Jo Monday, and asked him about that rifle. He said he still has it, but hasn’t fired it since that day, for the very problem I described.
Oh, one other thing. He also remembered that I was the only one who actually hit the target with the rifle that day. It was about a six-inch-diameter circular paper target, which we had nailed to a tree about 30 paces away. And I only grazed the outside corner of it.
Yeah, I’d have some problems with those last few, except for the “upstanding citizens” one.
My problem with 5 and 6 is that they are not logical. A minor is a minor. Saying he isn’t is like the proclamation of revolutionary leader in “Bananas” who goes nuts when he gets power: “Furthermore, all children under 16 years old are now… 16 years old!” (And yes, I’m saying there’s a logical inconsistency now when minors are tried as adults. It would make more sense to have harsher penalties for aggravating circumstances when minors commit crimes, rather than saying they’re adults when they aren’t. But then, the law isn’t always rational.)
Ditto with the militia. There’s just no logical way that everyone with a gun, legal or otherwise, is part of a “well-regulated” anything. Especially given that there’s a large overlap between the set of people who want to own guns, and the set of people who are into radical individualism. You can say it’s so (as a lot of gun advocates already do), but it would bear no relation to reality.
Brad, as far as treating minors as adults – I’m no expert on the juvenile justice system, but a juvenile with a firearm can do as much damage as an adult. I realize that juveniles may not be fully cognizant of all the ramifications of their actions, which is why we treat them differently than adults, but that doesn’t put the life back in the corpse. Murder is murder, etc. If it makes you feel better, we’ll hear their cases in juvenile court, and then they can serve time in juvenile jail until they turn 18 and then we’ll let them serve out their sentence in adult prison.
Then again — doing an about-face to sort of agree with you — we don’t want killers in juvenile institutions with status offenders. That argues FOR trying them as adults, so they can go to adult prison. But there’s still something inherently contradictory in it…
We no longer are allowed to incarcerate status offenders, if I am not mistaken. A status offense is one that is only an offense because a minor did it, basically runaway and incorrigible.
How about we make a deal. We repeal the 2nd Amendment, but we ALSO repeal the commerce clause of the 10th amendment and the 16th Amendment (income tax) as well. I’d take that deal.
“Based on the information I’ve heard and reposted above, that 85% of gun crimes involve a handgun – doesn’t wasting time on banning long guns with certain cosmetic features make little or no sense?”
From what I’m hearing on MSNBC Harry Reed isn’t even going to propose an assault weapons ban since it has 0 chance of passing in the house. It would be an anchor to any legislation that DOES pass.
Honestly I think that’s a pretty fair and accurate assessment. I agree that assault weapon ban is more of a feel good thing and does little to solve the problem. I would only take it as part of a larger plan that conservatives get a crap ton for. It would cost ALOT of political capital.
“8A) If you are the recipient of SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, etc. you obviously cannot afford to own a firearm, so first get off of the public teat and then you can own one.”
Bleh don’t make this a social injustice issue. Bashing on the poor isn’t going to solve anything here. Makers vs Takers argument is just such a loser on the national stage. Gun control and entitlements are separate issues entirely.
Sorry to enter the conversation late. I was surprised by the list Dave posted. At least half of the orders don’t relate to anything I ever thought of as “gun control.” Instead, they just look like policy recommendations for information sharing that frankly I thought was already happening. Are we really not running CPSC checks on something as basic as gun lock safety? Seriously, they check up on what I should or shouldn’t put in my toaster but they aren’t looking at the safety of products that have hurting/intimidating people as part of their designed purpose? The DOJ is NOT sharing information about stolen/lost guns? The CDC ISN’T doing research on guns and health?
Is there a gun owner out there who can explain why these recommendations are so terrible? To me they look good. They certainly don’t look like they threaten the second amendment.
I still don’t understand why we are not strengthening gun accountability. These guns are not magically appearing in the hands of robbers/murderers. They come from somewhere. If a child gets a gun, why is the adult owner of that gun not responsible? If it’s stolen why didn’t he report it? Did he not check to make sure the gun he needs for home defense is actually there?
Obama recommended upping the penalties for straw purchasers. A straw purchaser is someone who buy a gun legally with his clean background then sells it to someone else.
How many guns are already in the hands of criminals? Are you going to ask and expect them to fill out paperwork too?
If you own something that the government doesn’t know about, are you going to volunteer that you have a gun? How many guns were sold in this country before the government even started keeping track? Millions.
Karen is right. The issue is not about the right to possess firearms, the issue is accountability for one’s guns – including gun dealers – and also having in place a system to track firearms .
I would like to see a reduction in the vast quantity out there, but realize that unless the gov’t is willing to buy-back firearms nothing is really going to happen on this front. Still, there is no reason not to hold people accountable for their weapons – and what their weapons do.
Five seconds of Googling:
Oh, I did that. I looked him up. He’s a real guy. (I guess i should have mentioned that.) That didn’t keep me from enjoying reading “Professor Bogus.” Yes, he’s real. But the poor guy’s name and title together sound like a Groucho Marx character.
“How about we make a deal. We repeal the 2nd Amendment, but we ALSO repeal the commerce clause of the 10th amendment and the 16th Amendment (income tax) as well. I’d take that deal.”
Demagogue all you want. Horse trades have always been a part of politics.
Giving on one issue such as Universal Background checks/ High Capacity Magazine is not the same as kicking in the door and rounding up all weapons but slingshots.
As much as it pains me, I probably need to accept the argument that an “assault weapons ban” did not materially change things when it was in effect and probably wouldn’t change anything to be reinstated. I cede that point. And the magazine capacity limit may also just be a ‘feel good’ solution that could block substantive change. *sigh* So be it.
But, like John, I was surprised by how many of the President’s proposals really don’t have anything to what I would have thought the ‘gun control’ argument involved. My further exploration of the NRA’s involvement in effectively castrating the ATF through constraints in its enforcement powers by support of insertion of provisions into unrelated legislation and its ongoing support of efforts to keep the appointment of a permanent director are distressing. The CPSC’s lack of involvement in the pure safety issues surrounding gun ownership is equally upsetting. Who’s not in favor of refereed research into the relationship between guns and health? And the impediments to mental health standards for gun ownership and sharing of that information, if they exist, need to be explored.
So, it seems that we largely come down to a debate over the notion of universal background checks for all gun purchases and the free flow of information among enforcement agencies to impede (probably never coming close to ending) the access to guns by folks who really don’t need to get to them and greater accountability for their use by those who DO get access being the only reasonable courses of action. No, they won’t keep criminals from getting guns and that is another conversation entirely. But the folks responsible for most of the recent mass killings weren’t criminals from what I read — they were troubled individuals — and that is the thrust of the current conversation.
Nothing seems to support the critics’ assertion that the Administration or anyone else is out to ban gun ownership or take guns away from anyone legitimately possessing them now. None of the proposals are threats to the Second Amendment, as far as I can see.
I, for one, still will never have a gun in my house. That’s my choice based on nearly 60 years of life. If I ever change my mind (and it is possible), I’m willing to jump through the necessary hoops to do so.
“If a child gets a gun, why is the adult owner of that gun not responsible? If it’s stolen why didn’t he report it? Did he not check to make sure the gun he needs for home defense is actually there?”
It might not be ‘stolen.” If an adult has a gun, and his teenager figures out how to unlock the gun safe (which teens have a habit of doing in some cases), the adult isn’t going to know – and isn’t going to report that to the police. Ideally, the teen would never be able to do that. In the real world, things can happen- and quite frequently do.
I have two pistols in a safe near my bed. I don’t check them every day to make sure they are there. I travel on business frequently. I spend quite a few nights out of state. It’s hard to check my safe each night when I am 300 miles away. My kids don’t know how to open it. They are young. But if my son is 16, if he really wants that gun – a safe isn’t going to stop him unless it’s a $20,000 industrial size, world class piece =and that’s not likely to be in most homes.
” But if my son is 16, if he really wants that gun – a safe isn’t going to stop him ”
Right there, a good argument for not having guns. If I can’t feel confident that some 16-year-old can’t get to them, then they don’t belong in my house. 16-year-olds do stupid things that they regret later — and guns make it too easy for small stupidities to result in tragedy.
Leon Lott (not exactly a Conservative Republican – but an experienced law enforcement official) – of all people- said tonight on the news that he didn’t think a magazine limit would really do anything. ( I don’t either because anyone with any experience can change out a magazine in a split second. Heck, I can do it and I don’t consider myself an expert- even though I do regularly shoot my pistols). It’s just a feel good proposal.
He said the same thing about the assualt rifle ban – but added he didn’t think most people needed one. He believes the threat of banning them has caused a lot of people to go out and buy one- and those people likely do not know how to use them – and he’s right about that. I know people that have bought them in the last month- that aren’t experienced with that type of weapon at all.
He did agree with universal background checks and a trained, armed officer in every school – if it’s paid for permanently and not just periodically.
I didn’t say anything about liability for guns stolen while you were away, as long as you checked, and reported it missing when you got back. Accountability is responsibility. If a person is unwilling to account for a gun, perhaps that person is not responsible enought to own the gun.
This post must be approaching a record for total comments.
Nah, sometimes we top 100. Back in the days before I moderated comments, we exceeded 300 once or twice.
Back in the good ol’ days.
“Leon Lott (not exactly a Conservative Republican – but an experienced law enforcement official) – of all people- said tonight on the news that he didn’t think a magazine limit would really do anything. ( I don’t either because anyone with any experience can change out a magazine in a split second. Heck, I can do it and I don’t consider myself an expert- even though I do regularly shoot my pistols). It’s just a feel good proposal. ”
reloading 3 times to shoot 30 shots and just pulling the trigger is significant.
There are a ton of magazines/weapons out there and it will take time for the effect to filter in. Its also going to be hard to quantify any benefits from them. Under no circumstances does anyone need to order the surrender of anything they already have. It will appear to confirm all the NRA and the rights feelings that Obama is gonna take their guns. Just regulate new items.
Heat of battle and range are different things. To be honest you can mitigate this through practice and drilling but you cant replicate the reaction of actually going into combat. We ran drills constantly on subs. Occasionally real stuff happened though. Some people froze and some ran at it. The less you have to think about it the more likely it is to happen.
There is a clear difference between the Navy and the Army though. In the Navy it was all faceless. Tracking an ally for training and a Real life adversary looked exactly the same. I can tell you when you go on alert to shoot real weapons and potentially kill real people there IS a difference though. I couldn’t imagine how that would feel to be looking small children in the eyes and do that evil.
Were the people who froze of a mindset that they intended to kill as many people as possible? That might affect the ability to reload.
I got your well-regulated militia right here:
“Were the people who froze of a mindset that they intended to kill as many people as possible? That might affect the ability to reload.”
The freezing part was not really in combat situations. It was more during plant or ship casualties such as fires, seawater leaks and what not.
Seawater coming into a sub is super bad. The deeper you are the more pressure you have. So even if you blow a small seal leak on a Seawater pump a LOT of water comes in and is scary as crap. Had nothing to do with combat it was us against the sea.
– As for killing lots of folks thats a fact of life on a warship. If you want to put the military in the same basket as a deranged serial killer go ahead.
All I can tell you is during real life when you are about to launch a tomahawk you have no idea where its going. You are only a small cog in the machine, it takes about 20 or so people to directly fire a missile. It is a very impersonal almost clinical feeling on a sub and everyone just does their job. I’m sure its different for ground pounders since they see who they engage. Never underestimate the a team and training. Your trained to follow orders. The guy next to you does it and you do your job because your part of a team. So you just react.