General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAn outstanding speech on gun violence
That was absolutely perfect.
To recap, for those who missed it, Obama has just:
1. Signed a series of executive orders strengthening the NICS background check system
2. Called on Congress to pass an assault weapons ban
3. Called on Congress to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
4. Called on Congress to require background checks for every transfer of a firearm
5. Reaffirmed his belief that the 2nd amendment protects a legitimate individual right to own firearms for hunting, sport, protection, and collecting
6. Called on people from areas where the tradition of gun ownership is strong to speak out for these reforms
And he even invoked the Gipper.
If you've read my posts, you know I don't like #2 and you know why, so I won't get into that here. But this was a tremendous speech, was respectful to gun owners, and I suspect will go over well among the sane.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,365 posts)Did he mention each one? Or just make a generalized characterization?
I was making lunch, couldn't give it my full attention.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,365 posts)good info.
still_one
(92,397 posts)the republicans will never accept it
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)PoliticalBiker
(328 posts)common sense and politics are diametrically opposed to one another
Scuba
(53,475 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)What happens to all of the legally purchased "assault weapons" that are out there right now?
I know a couple of people who own these and they believe the government will come to confiscate their precious.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Under Feinstein's proposed ban, they would have to be registered with the ATF within 2 years but would not be taken. This was also what she proposed in 1994, but that got watered down to just grandfathering them in.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)You can't sell them if you have them.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Call it a stimulus package if you want to, but I see no downside to decreasing the number of high-capacity ammunition feeding devices out there.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)I just don't think either of those measures - no matter how successful they are at removing those items from society can actually greatly impact incidence of crime. This is simply because they don't already comprise or enable any significant component of current crime and these two issues generate the most pushback. They might be scary to others and have no meaningful necessity - but there are other factors much more responsible for the american public health gun problem.
I think the four absolute best things we could do are:
1) 100% background checks - just make everyone go through an FFL
2) Tighter NICS checks - Tighten reporting requirements for a more comprehensive database.
3) Actually prosecute incidents where prohibited persons try and buy guns.
4) Mandatory sentencing for violent & domestic crime involving firearms
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I just see the ban on high capacity magazines as politically favorable to us with no particular down side (the upside is just that voters like it).
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Doesn't matter what political topic - I believe that if the government is going to restrict the actions of people, it needs to have a clear quantifiable public impact/benefit. Then again, I'm more of a socially-liberal libertarian...
Cetacea
(7,367 posts)"who are far more likely to be victims of crime". Outstanding.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The whole thing was great. Substantive and fact-based without trying to turn it into another front of the culture war.
It really was. Biden's into. Everything. it was brilliant and moving at the same time.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they are the ones that are implementing a database for people with mental illness that should not buy or possess guns.