A sensible discussion on Obama's new firearms ideas

[jimpeel]

A two part article on the new firearms debate that Obama has set off, where it could lead, and who the major players will be.

Part I (2 pages)

Part II (4 pages)

[Scott Conklin]

Yes, he'll never pursue the hot potato of gun control if elected.

Well, he'll never pursue it in his first term...

People really seemed to believe that, even in the midst of the "guns and religion" fiasco.

[highvel]

Sensible-Gun Control-Obama

Those three words will NEVER have anything in common!

Obama only states things that will, "in his mind", get voters to vote for him, then as soon as he doesn't need votes, he does whatever he wants to push his agenda!:barf:

I don't think he will push the firearms issue to hard, until after "GOD FORBID" he is given a second term to finish flushing America down the toilet.
If he is allowed another term, we better dig in and fight for our rights like never before, he will be a "lame duck" and wont even pretend to do what's best for our country, and ram all kinds of insane legislation down our throats!

[KLRANGL]

Yes, but the legislators who actually vote on the legislation do need to get reelected.

[kraigwy]

I don't see ANY gun control legislation getting through this congress. They said the couldn't do it with the last House/Senate when his party was in control, it sure as heck ain't gonna happen now.

I see it going the other way if it moves at all.

[Vince44]

When liberals start talking gun control, there won't be any common sense.

[Kreyzhorse]

Mr. Obama might think it's time to push some gun control but I just don't think he'll get any real buying from any one else.

[Al Norris]

The two articles were well written, but they were balanced on the side of gun owners. Is this normal with the Daily Caller? I don't know, as I don't normally read it.

What I do know is that this entire issue is fraught with partisan politics. The only way to keep this thread open is to be civil, and keep as much of the political rhetoric (and the name calling: see invectives) in check as you can.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There are two ways to look at the issue.

1. It is a general attack on gun rights. This is certainly the agenda of some. From sociology and critical criminology, you get the idea of a moral panic - a useful concept.

Some incident ignites a set of folks in government and media to interact and try to use the incident as a vivid cue to push an already existing desired policy program. The country panics and is stampeded towards action. Usually a rational analysis of the action is not part of the debate. Emotion rules. The attack on Iraq by Bush II is an example.

Tucson is a classic case. Outraged politicians and media. The focus on the extended Glock mag as crucial to the problem - not rationally the core of the issue. Banning them would not remove the risk from truly disturbed individuals.

Thus, use the incident to try to promote a true antigun agenda and try to remove guns in general from the public.

2. Did incidents like Tucson or VT for example indicate that there is real problem in NICS reporting that could be fixed and reasonably so. Cho and Loughner certainly gave legit warning signs that debateable could have been in the current system.

Could them being in NICS slow them down or prevent them - no way to know?

However, increased violent potential screening for general firearms purposes might be proposed but has way too many false positives. Current views indicate we have no psych tests that are useful violence predictors. So asking for folks to take psych exams for general firearms ownership (independent of the rights violation, IMHO), wouldn't work. The only predictor is past criminality or threats. So Cho and Loughner might well have been aborted if there were better screening on their overt and threatening behavior.

Such a debate would have to be conducted with experts and not pols, advocates, etc. The latter just throw out emotion and rhetoric.

It is all just posturing. A real look will not occur. IMHO, a combo of truly trying to catch the overt Cho's and Loughner's based on real threatening behavior and a realistic policy of encouraging responsible carry would be in MY report - when I am invited to write for Wayne, Charlie, Larry, and Barrack.

[Tom Servo]

When liberals start talking gun control, there won't be any common sense.

In theory, they had overwhelming control for the first two years of this administration. They couldn't get anything passed. As Kraig points out, the balance has now shifted, and they missed any window of opportunity they might have had.

It's interesting to compare the media's reactions to the Virginia Tech and Tuscon shootings. The calls for gun control following VT were...muted.

In the 1990's, I would have truly been on pins and needles. There would have been calls from liberals for gun control, and moderates would have felt real pressure to go along with it. We didn't see that after VT. There were calls from the left, but they didn't pick up any real steam.

Tuscon showed an even more profound change. Very little of the conversation was about guns. Sure, the usual suspects came out for gun control, but the majority of the mainstream media was more concerned with the mental health issues. Much of the debate was where most of us thought it should have been. When Christina Taylor-Green's father stated that gun control wouldn't have saved anyone, the media listened, and it was broadcast far and wide.

Not only do advocates of gun control lack the political clout, they are losing in the wider arena of public opinion.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let the liberal vs. conservative rhetoric not turn to the main core of the discussion or to insults.

Saying that X or Y has no common sense in a oneliner doesn't contribute.

Just a hint to avoid trouble. Stay with the core of the articles.

[44 AMP]

That day in September really did change a lot of things. Along with all the recognized things, both good and bad, one thing that has been changing in this nation is the attitude of the "middle" about gun control.

The hard liners are still there, and still bleating about how bad guns are, but they don't have near the traction they used to. Funny how a few thousand dead, huge amounts of economic impact, and the wealthy realizing that all their money does not guarantee safety, all of this done without a single gun bein used took a lot of the wind out of gun control's sails. Who would have imagined it?

My biggest worry about gun control coming from the present administration is not what they can get passed into law, its what they can do without bothering to go through Congress. This administration is producing a track record of using administrative controls and regulations to further their agenda when Congress fails to provide them with actual laws they want. And that, to me is the most serious risk we face from them.

Election to a second term may result in the most radical proposals, since a "lame duck" will not be influenced by the need for re-election. As noted, Congress, however, will be. So I don't see them passing more gun control, as the mood of the nation overall doesn't support it like it did, no matter what the usual suspect keep preaching. However, the damage to our rights, and our lives that can be done, and sadly, done legally through regulation changes should not be underestimated.

[jimpeel]

I think a lot of this is driven by fear and the "us vs them" mentality. The same politicians who are fearful of using terms such as "terrorist" or "Islamist" out of fear of retribution from those of whom they speak are the same ones who are fearful of "them" coming after "us".

The AZ shooting showed once again that politicians are vulnerable and those who fear "them" will begin making laws to make it harder for "them" to get "us".

The chances of being assassinated pale by comparison to the number of incidents which have taken the lives of politicians such as air crashes and crashing into trees while skiing.

[Mutatio Nomenis]

Calling for a high capacity magazine ban along the same lines as the AWB is pretty much going to turn into more useless legislation. I'm alright with gun laws that effetively sreve crime-cutting purposes, but I'm not okay with laws that are a grind on guys who just want to go to the range once a week, blow off some steam and shoot off a few mags.

[Patriot86]

In the upcoming 2012 presidential election I really believe that every single American who values the constitution and the second amendment MUST get out and vote with no exceptions. if this guy somehow manages to win a second term I have little doubt he would use every trick in the book to make gun ownership in America as difficult and expensive as possible while remaining even remotely legal.


Growing up in Chicago I cannot think of a single politician produced by the local "Democratic Political Machine" who is even neutral to gun ownership, the vast majority are downright hostile towards the second amendment and private gun ownership for the purposes of self defense. Obama given the chance will prove me right. Lets not give him that chance so remember to get out and vote.

[jimpeel]

If he wins a second term he will have nothing to lose and will try everything in the handbook to achieve his agenda.

[Mutatio Nomenis]

^That is why I am likely to vote for a third party, assumg SPUSA even manages to get a candidate in my state. Otherwise, I may not vote.

[jmortimer]

"This administration is producing a track record of using administrative controls and regulations to further their agenda when Congress fails to provide them with actual laws they want. And that, to me is the most serious risk we face from them"
Exactly what I have been saying. The Potus will regulate or use courts to ban things he hates, guns, oil, "carbon" ... Watch the Saiga 12 go bye bye via regulation. I have no desire to own one but many do. We now have $4.00 gas which will continue to go up - stated goal of POTUS and further regulation imposed by POTUS and could easily cause problems with guns and ammo.