Gun control - Should no longer be considered a "side burner issue"

[Hellataz]

I seriously believe the fanatical right wing gun nuts have lost it.

http://www.morebans.org/
http://www.gunbanobama.com/
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
http://nobamanation.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-backing-1000000-insurance.html

Sites like this, where where they are instructing people how to get around the systems, exploit loopholes, stockpile weapons and ammo and even encouraging others to take up arms against our Government by playing on irrational paranoia and fear. This is all leading to a very dark and scary place for this country.

I've spent some time talking with a friend of mine who is a right wing conservative gun owner. He's a decent guy, though i disagree with him on just about everything political and some social. But when the topic turns to his guns it gets weird. First he really believes that Obama wants to ban all guns, he doesn't have proof, but he believes it based on right wing propaganda he's heard. I listen to him talk about being a gun owner and the issues that bother him, like all the red tape that get's in his way of purchasing a firearm or ammo and the fact that he feels no one should have an account of what guns people have and don't have. That he also feels there shouldn't be restriction on how or where you can buy guns and what kinds because they need to protect themselves from the criminals who have the more advanced weapons.

So apparently in his mind 2 wrongs make a right and not all bullets are created equal so having a regular handgun would be futile if he was ever attacked by a burglar carrying an AK-47.

You could pass a train through the holes in this logic.

But he feels the way he feels and I know he's not the type of guy to go all anarchist and try and over throw the government over this, so we agree to disagree. But then he tells me that he's been trying to purchase ammo for his guns so he can go to the shooting range, but the problem is every time he goes to the store, all the ammo is sold out. He keeps looking for several days with no luck, apparently Ammo is running is short supply.

Now we had already seen the news reports on the increase of gun sales after the election, and it was already a pretty scary thought that we had americans that were either so filled with paranoia and fear or Americans so filled with racist hate that they were both stockpiling weapons. But from what i had read it was just a slight sales increase and it would die down eventually...well it hasn't, in fact It seems as if it's escalated and it's not just about Gun shop owners seeing a good month, but now about them having a hard time keeping their shelves stocked.

My friend tells me the last time he saw an ammo shortage like this was Y2K

The following stories and columns tell a similar tale all across the country:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93483
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/04/02/ammo_shortage.ART_ART_04-02-09_A1_82DEC41.html?sid=101
http://www.dailymail.com/News/200904021317
http://www.times-herald.com/Local/Gun-advocates-feel-rights-are-threatened-706366
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hHN8azPdktiyq5rfkevDE2rauhnwD977SAKG0
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31268


Gun store owners are even playing into the fear to boost sales by hanging pictures of obama up in their windows and signs that read "Guns Guns! Get them while you can!". It's frightening how they don't see the storm cloud that is brewing, or their part in creating it.

I know Obama is on the record stating he wants to renew the assaults weapons ban, and i also know that he has a lot on his plate at the moment and I have been very vocal about being patient and giving him the benefit of the doubt that he will eventually keep all his promises, however, I don't think this issue is just a secondary issue anymore. This country is on the verge of a meltdown, the economy is the fuse but the gun rage will be the spark that blows this whole country up.

We're seeing it now, an increase in shootings and armed robberies, people who didn't need a reason to be mad at Obama being riled up by every right wing talk show host and even the occasional minnesota congresswomen. People talking openly about violent revolutions and assassination attempts. unemployment leading people to feel more desperate then they would and more right wing rhetoric pushing those desperate people to focus their anger and blame at Obama and his supporters. It's slowly developing into a perfect storm and unless Obama turns some of his multitasking focus onto some stronger gun control policies, then I'm truly scared as to what is headed our way, and not from a foreign power, but from inside our own borders.

Call me chicken Little, but I think this is something that shouldn't be put off or ignored.

I am for respecting the 2nd amendment and feel that if an law abiding american wants to own weapons to protect themselves or hunt, it's should be allowed, but I don't think it should be the OPEN "right" that most gun owners demand. It should be a privilege for any american that is deemed law abiding and sane, and there should be huge restrictions on how you purchases a gun and what kinds can be sold. No one needs an AK-47, Uzi or glock to shoot a deer or even protect their home. And there should be attention brought to households that are stockpiling weapons and the term "grandfathering in" should not apply to things that can kill. There should be a federal database that links every gun and even bullet to the person who purchased them. Maybe then people would think long and hard before firing off a weapon. Nothing that can kill with the statistics that guns have so be so openly and irresponsibly available to anyone.

[Political Heretic]

1. I appreciate all the thought in that post, but I believe that I disagree.

For me, as personal opinion, I think this issue has got to be down the list quite a ways below Economic recovery, Labor, Health Care, and Energy.

Also, be careful about buying into the "perception" of a rise in crime. If there is a jump in crime over the next year, it will very likely be mostly connected to the worsening economic conditions and not an increase in fringe lunatics who want to harm the president or supporters.

You may not remember this, but there were the same sort of low level rumblings of whacko stuff from the right wing fringe under Clinton as well. It's just a feature of a certain personality on that side of the isle.

Finally, I'm not confident that we know what kinds of laws have the actually effect of deterring violence gun crime. I have never been particularly concerned with the 2nd amendment like some people. But what I do feel is that we ought to be "pilot testing" our laws. I think our laws should be connected to an evidence-base that supports that they work. You want an assault weapons ban, I want a pilot test in five cities over two years with an appropriate sample size giving me statistically significant findings telling me violent gun crime dropped enough during those years as to suggest a correlation. Then we can talk about a national ban.

I'm sick of laws where no one actually knows if they do what they intend or not. And I wish we had more of a concept of "sunset laws" that were coupled with a requirement for a research component to gather actual data on whether or not laws work.

We might THINK that registering every gun would help, but I want to KNOW that it does. And if it doesn't, then I don't want a law that unnecessarily restricts freedom. We might think that banning so-called "assault" rifles reduces gun crime. Does it? I want to KNOW that it does, and if it does not then I do not want the ban!

I'm sick of faith-based legislation. Let's pass some pilot programs and get some numbers!

[Hellataz]

7. You have a point, there should be some test studies done.

But in order to do those test, temporary laws would have to be put in place to see it's effect on society.
But I do think that common sense, not faith, tells me that if every single gun in America was registered then crime would be reduced simply out of the fear that each crime could get traced back to the gun owner, meaning either the owner wouldn't be so eager to use it, or the owner would make sure his piece was locked up more securely so as to not be stolen.

[X_Digger]

20. Interesting intent.. logistics?

But I do think that common sense, not faith, tells me that if every single gun in America was registered

Here's a lengthy read as to why that would probably never happen (or take 50 years):
http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf

The question becomes, 1) how do you force registration (by some estimates, compliance with Canada's gun registration is as high as 60%, others as low as 25%), 2) how do you prevent folks from fraudulently reporting their guns as stolen, and 3) how do you get criminals to register their guns?

[cabluedem]

2. I agree. We need a new assault weapons ban, Also a ban on bullet proof vests. nt

[ManiacJoe]

29. Why do we need another "assault weapons" ban?

What makes "assault weapons" so special that they need special regulations?

[me b zola]

3. Seems like another wedge issue

Seriously. Not a black and white issue, yet sure to hurt the Dems.

[Hellataz]

11. I think if it saved lives it wold help dems.

You just need to google the words "shooting" and look up the recent news and see the tragic stories that come from just average citizens that take up arms for any number of random reasons, Guns that they were able to obtain way too easily.

[X_Digger]

21. Unless and until you ban all guns..

Criminals, even spree killers, will choose alternate means of exercising their abberant behavior on the rest of us.

eg- The VT shooting- not an 'assault weapon' in sight. He used two handguns, used one to cover himself while he reloaded the other.

In the same vein, a semi-automatic hunting rifle (not covered by the AWB) is just as deadly and could have caused as much damage as the shooter yesterday.

[MrModerate]

4. The danger of economic dislocation -- or even the threat of such dislocation . . .

Is that people panic, and behave in insane ways that the situation doesn't actually call for. Runs on banks; runs on gas; runs on ammo -- very similar phenomena.

And whether things are bad enough to justify the behavior or not, it's still extremely dangerous to the social fabric.

Given that 2nd Amendment zealots trend a little crazy anyway (IMO), this paranoia about Obama as gun-grabber-in-chief gives me the willies. There *has* been a rash of suicide/mass murders recently, whether the trend has gone on long enough to be statistically significant or not. And I agree, it seems to stem from paranoia about guns -- and the economy, and hence the future.

Imagine if the Beltway snipers were out there today . . . it'd kick over the whole Washington-area termite mound and could easily lead to riots. We are living in perilous times and one of these nutso losers could easily be the match that sets off the whole powder magazine.

[Hellataz]

8. But this started not because of the economy, but because of who got elected.

No doubt there is going to be some desperation because of people's lack of options and desire to keep clothes on their back and food in their stomachs, but what worries me is that this isn't about that. Maybe a small percentage, but the majority of the gun grabbing is being done by fringe right wingers all riled up by the NRA that Obama is coming for their rights and they need to be prepared. They talk about revolting, even as public as a united states congresswomen, which just adds to the validity of these nutjubs resolve.

What scares me the most is the rage that has been building toward Obama since the campaign, we were concerned about it then, but it's just gotten worse with the right wing telling everyone that will listen that Obama isn't just trying to take their guns, but he's trying to destroy this country. Maybe most of the right wing base was a bunch of ignorant fanatical troublemakers before, but now it seems that they are all armed and entertaining the idea of abolishing the government. Tea parties and Joe the dumbass plumber and his "lets get rid of the IRS" campaign..it's just the beginning...

[MrModerate]

25. Stupid seemingly has no bottom . . .

But it was fairly easy for the nutsos to just sit on their couches on weekends and spout off, as long as they had a job to go to on Monday. Now that they don't (or are afraid that they'll lose the job they have), then all the other fears (you know, like Obama'll sneak into their daughter's bedroom at night and bang her, and on the way out will take all the household's guns) grow increasingly intense. Given a strict diet of Fux News propaganda, what's an upstanding no-opposable-thumb troglodyte to do? Well, go downtown and blow somebody away, of course!

Under the oft-heard rubric that "guns don't kill people, people, kill people . . ." these are the people who will be doing the killing. Hey! Why live a life of quiet desperation as a no-hope pudknocker when you can go out in a blaze of "glory?"

[cali]

5. If you think gun ownership under the Constitution is a privilege

you don't respect the 2nd Amendment.

[Hellataz]

6. Then Maybe i don't if it means thinking any criminal and psycho has the right to bare arms

If something is a right, then everyone has the same claim to it, but they don't, Many people are not allowed to own guns in this country, less then i would like, but still there are some restrictions to this "right", making it less of a "right" and more of a privilege given to citizens of this country who obey the law.

As for how i view it ideologically, no I don't think someone should have the same right to own a gun as they do the right to live. You don't have to prove that you are worthy to live, and if you abuse your body or use it to harm others, you don't get your life taken from you. This "Right", this guarantee shouldn't be afforded to every tom dick and harry when it comes to things that can kill other people with such ease. There should absolutely be safe guards in this country to keep criminals and unstable people from getting their hands on guns for the simple fact that we need to protect others and themselves. But gun nuts and 2nd amendment advocates bitch and complain about the regulation and it's not even that strict right now! I say if you are worried about the hoops you have to jump through to get a gun then you shouldn't be trying to get one, because there aren't any rules in place to prevent the average sane law abiding american from getting a gun. Anyone worried about the government knowing what kind of arsenal they are building is most likely up to no good.

[rfranklin]

9. But, I really, really need to buy six guns a week...

or maybe every day. I think it is clever on Obama's part to give them all the guns they want while preventing them from having ammunition.

[Hellataz]

10. I really don't understand the need to stockpile weapons, it screams "devious motive"

My friend has like 16 guns, I cannot fathom having that many if you only want them for home security. His answer is he likes to target shoot at the range. JMO but that seems like a dangerous and pointless hobbie.

[cali]

13. I know many folks with multiple guns

In fact, my state is loaded with guns, and we have one of the lowest levels of gun violence in the country- along with some of it's laxest gun laws.

[Hellataz]

15. I'm glad to hear that, it must feel safe for you to live there.

I'm sure if that were the norm, then there wouldn't be an issue, but I honestly don't see the correlation between communities who stockpile weapons and a low crime rate.

[ManiacJoe]

31. It's your money; spend it as you wish.

However, buying firearms in bulk from dealers does introduce more paperwork.

[cali]

12. exactly, criminals and "psychos" don't have the right to bear arms. under the law

they've forfeited that right through their behavior or criminal actions. But no, it is not a privilege to own a gun. Not under the Constitution. Furthermore, rights under the Constitution aren't absolute. Even our most revered right as established under the 1st Amendment, isn't absolute.

Comparing the right to live to the right to bear arms is silly. Do you really want to go down that road? So how about the right to free speech? Isn't "the right to live" more important than that?

Things that kill with ease? Cars. Whatever should we do about that? And there are already laws that ban those that commit a felony from possessing guns. Same goes with those who have been found mentally ill.

I have no problem with reasonable gun control, but by and large, that's what we already have.

[Hellataz]

14. I said "with ease" because i knew "cars" would be brought up

But you only need to search the online news on any given day for shootings to see how common place random shootings have become. These are not criminals that got their guns on the black market, these are citizens that shouldn't have been able to get them with such ease in the first place. There should be stricter safeguards to get guns so it sends a message to people that guns aren't playthings. There should be this nagging voice in your mind that says if you feel you can pick up your gun in anger there is a paper trail leading it right back to you.

You can't compare cars to Guns when the majority of car related deaths are accidents while gun related deaths are on purpose.


And Yes the right to live is a higher priority to free speech, it's life. but if you want to compare free speech and guns, then no contest, free speech can fuel violence, but Guns enact violence.

I'm not advocating banning all guns, but humans are a violent, irrational and passionate species and there needs to be more done to protect those who can't protect themselves. Just look at the 5 children gunned down by their father today or the 14 people in Binghamton. I wouldn't say we have reasonable gun regulations when the man had guns registered under a fake name.

[Possumpoint]

16. There Is No Proof

that requiring the registration of guns would result in the criminals legally registering theirs. If so, how do you get the guns out of criminal hands? On the other hand, registering of firearms has resulted in seizures both in and out of this country. I'm of the opinion that the government has no business wanting to know what guns and ammo I possess. So long as I'm a legal citizen of this country, acting lawfully, it is none of their and your business.

As to your premise of "things that can kill other people with such ease" that logic has a hole big enough to drive a pick up through. Why not include cars, knives, hammers, crow bars, etc., etc. In fact, it has been shown that in countries that ban private gun ownership, knifing increase dramatically.

Both sides of the gun control issue are being driven by fear. One side fears limits to, leading to, lose of constitutional rights. The other side fears what will be done with the guns.

[poboyross]

27. Then TN must be up to no good....

One thing I find interesting is that there are those here who want it both ways when it comes to the gub'ment; 1) They hoot and holler about how 9/11 was an inside job, yet 2)"Anyone worried about the government knowing what kind of arsenal they are building is most likely up to no good."

Those two things seem diametrically opposed when you agree with one, yet think someone is crazy who thinks the other. It seems that one would *support* the other around here, but it doesn't. I find more credence in the government not knowing what I have, because as the founding fathers saw, having weapons in the hands of the populous is a long term insurance policy that the government will always be in fear of those whom it governs and theoretically govern justly. This isn't a right or left wing issue, it's a power issue. Your power to vote is worthless without the power of life and death. That same power is what makes/originally made the rest of our rights available to us and able to be kept by us. To say that a tyrannical regime will *never* be possible is to ignore history, and to ignore what allowed us to be a nation. Look what happens in other countries where the people don't have access to self defense, only the law abiding folks get screwed. In third world countries, that's where the despots take over. You get to have a gun, if you're a part of the "gang". Would I have supported those in the civil rights movement using high power weapons to protect their families from corrupt folks who wanted to do them harm? You're durn right, I would. That phase of civil rights may have passed, but what is the next situation? What if the other side of your political spectrum wanted to do some "cleansing" or imprison you for your beliefs? Even though I disagree with your premise, if some force were to try and round you up and take you off, I'd be there to try and stop it. The military may have more powerful firepower, but what I've got is only one shade away (legal, too) and does the job better than a .22 plinker. Not that I support those dingbat insurgents in Iraq, but look what they did to our forces with their "low" tech.

The simple answer is to ban guns, the better answer is to be more diligent about making sure that mental health records are attached to your court records. Why didn't that Philly psycho's friends ever see red flags that the man was going off his rocker (maybe their a little off, too)? Why didn't his mother report him, whom he still lived with? People are so detached into "minding their own business" that they've lost the sense of paying attention and greater good. Here in TN, your court records are linked to your mental health records. If the state has made note of you being unstable, you don't get to buy a gun. TN also does not retain information of what you bought, or that you bought anything, after the purchase/background check is complete. This isn't because TN wants to secede, or is "up to no good" as you put it; but rather a recognition of power by and to the people.

I do appreciate your discourse, even though we disagree. I'm glad this hasn't degenerated into "Gun guys, F you!" :)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. It's not an absolute right.

Convicted felons and people adjudicated mentally ill are barred from possessing firearms. Just like the 1st Amendment isn't an absolute right.

David

[old mark]

17. If gun ownership is a privilege, then so is free speech. One is as

important and guaranteed as the other.

We nees to seriously overhaul our mental health, education and social services systems to really address the problem.

mark

[MrModerate]

26. Maybe the poster thinks . . . as many of us do . . .

That the 2nd Amendment has been woefully misinterpreted by gun enthusiasts.

[Tim01]

18. Guns will get the democrats thrown out of washington.

I can just about guarantee that.
When Clinton passed the last AWB there was a political backlash. But gun owners hadn't really taken the potential ban seriously.
Now there are LOTS more gun owners, LOTS more gun owning democrats and gun owners are now well organized and prepared for a political fight over guns.
This is a whole new ball game compared to last time. Even Remington has a hunting rifle based on the AR15 platform.
Gun owners won't be playing around this time. There will be communication, money, and votes. It's already started.

It is a choice between the 2nd amendment and Republicans.

[NewMoonTherian]

19. Your post was kind of all over the place.

In the beginning, you said that conservatives and gun owners are working themselves.. er.. ourselves into a fit, giving in to paranoia, but toward the end you expressed a near certainty that there will be a civil war in the near future.

You also pointed out the source of all this tension as the threat of more gun control, but you proposed as a solution the most egregious set of gun control policies that people like me fear. They would be almost universally viewed as an affront to the constitution and it would pour rocket fuel right on top of the situation. Your solution would be the quickest way to bring about exactly the kind of disaster you predict, and it would rally thousands more to the cause who, right now, might not even own guns.

[bossy22]

22. your post is filled with ignorance

'No one needs an AK-47, Uzi or glock to shoot a deer or even protect their home."

well, do you know what a glock is? Cause if you did you wouldnt ever put glock in this sentance. First off Glock is a manufacturer, not a model...there are many different types of glock pistols. Also i cant think of any better 9mm pistol to defend your home with or carry than a Glock- hell its what many major city PD's carry.

and Uzi- well thats just a 9mm rifle....nothing special about it

"And there should be attention brought to households that are stockpiling weapons and the term "grandfathering in" should not apply to things that can kill."
so you support confiscation- or just dont understand what grandfathering actually means. You cant just confiscate lawfully held property- the 4th amendment (and the second amendment in this case) prevents that. Do you support door to door searches?

"There should be a federal database that links every gun and even bullet to the person who purchased them."
How do you do that? people make their own ammo (called reloading). Many of these people are competition shooters that use very specific customized ammo.

"I am for respecting the 2nd amendment and feel that if an law abiding american wants to own weapons to protect themselves or hunt, it's should be allowed, but I don't think it should be the OPEN "right" that most gun owners demand. It should be a privilege"
how can you say that in the same paragraph....if you respect the second amendment you believe that in some form gun ownership is a right, not a privilege


i suggest you get your facts straight...your post is filled with misinformation and ignorance on the issue....not to mention lacking basic firearm knowledge (as seen by the use of "glock")

[aikoaiko]

23. You're a chicken little.

And here is the thing I don't understand about the way you see things.

You openly mock and deride gun buyers and gun sellers for the panic buying of guns and ammo as if these fears are unfounded or the motivation is nefarious.

But then you admit the President Obama has called for the banning of the very guns (and their ammo) that he has proposed banning. And you call for the ban to be enacted. You even call for no grandfathering of perivously bought guns. It is YOU and others who are calling for guns bans who are generating the fear and panic buying. The NRA and gun sellers are merely capitalizing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. So why won't drug dealers and smugglers just switch to guns?

Heroin has been illegal for nearly a century, yet it is quite easy to get nearly pure smack in
all parts of the country. Same for methamphetamine.

Your hypothetical armed rebels certainly wouldn't hesitate to go black market if they consider
their cause just.

[virginia mountainman]

30. Your right.. Not a side burner

It should be considered a "radioactive" one..

[gorfle]

32. Some points.

First he really believes that Obama wants to ban all guns, he doesn't have proof, but he believes it based on right wing propaganda he's heard.

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe that Obama would ban all guns if he could do so and there were no political consequences? I do. As you note, it's published on his web site that he supports an AWB. I have no doubt that if it were possible he would do so.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes" said, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

When you have people like this in senior levels of the government you would be a fool to think that gun bans are not something they would do in an instant if they could get away with it.

I don't see how you can question folks who believe dark days are in store for firearm ownership when these senior politicians have publicly stated their intent to ban at least some firearms.

I am certain it is only fear of a political backlash that is holding these people's anti-firearm agendas at bay, and I'm thankful for it.

I am for respecting the 2nd amendment and feel that if an law abiding american wants to own weapons to protect themselves or hunt, it's should be allowed, but I don't think it should be the OPEN "right" that most gun owners demand. It should be a privilege for any american that is deemed law abiding and sane, and there should be huge restrictions on how you purchases a gun and what kinds can be sold.

Once you start down the road that certain parts of the Constitution are privileges instead of rights, all is lost.

No one needs an AK-47, Uzi or glock to shoot a deer or even protect their home.

The second amendment is not about hunting or home defense. It is about keeping tyranny in check. The AK-47 and similar civilian weapons are the perfect weapon for that task. They put military-grade small arms in the hands of the civilian population, precisely as our founders intended.

And there should be attention brought to households that are stockpiling weapons and the term "grandfathering in" should not apply to things that can kill. There should be a federal database that links every gun and even bullet to the person who purchased them. Maybe then people would think long and hard before firing off a weapon.

Right, because people that set off to kill themselves after killing as many people as they can take with them will be deterred by such federal databases.

Nothing that can kill with the statistics that guns have so be so openly and irresponsibly available to anyone.

You do realize that the statistics show that all rifles, let alone assault rifles, account for fewer than 3% of all homicides annually? This is half the number killed by hands and feet.