Obama's Opening Salvo Against Guns

[JohnRich 4]

From his web site:

Address Gun Violence in Cities

"Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

Source: http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

The Tiahrt Amendment:

He would allow law enforcement to misuse gun trace data to attack gun shops that sold guns legally. Their theory is that if a lot of crime guns are traced back to a gun shop, then the gun shop must be doing something wrong and it should be shut down. The problem with this is that guns sometimes fall into criminal hands, even though the gun shop did everything right. And the high-volume gun shops will have more traces come back to them than low-volume shops - that doesn't mean they are complicit in selling to criminals. This is the wrong way to fight crime, and even the BATF has a public statement against this because the data is invalid.

The "gun show loophole":

He would ban the private sale of firearms, requiring each and every transaction to go through a gun dealer and a background check. No more sales between buddies or family members. And of course, the gun dealers charge a fee of $25 and up for this service, increasing the price of the transaction. This would also likely spell an end to most gun shows in America.

"Childproof guns":

This is unproven technology which requires batteries, electronics and or radio waves to ensure that a gun can only be fired by someone who owns it. It's unreliable and makes a gun less likely to function properly in a self defense situation. There are other ways to keep guns away from kids than to make all guns less reliable. In fact, with this technology, parents would be MORE likely to leave their guns laying around in the open, thinking that their children would be safe.

"Assault Weapons":

Yeah, that one's already been tried for 10 years under Clinton, and it was a proven failure. This is just a irrational emotional response to guns that "look scary". It ignores the fact that AR15's are the most popular rifle of all in target shooting competitions. But under Obama, they would be banned.

This is how Obama "respects the 2nd Amendment".

And the public is not gullible enough to buy his forked-tongue rhetoric, and is responding by going to gun shops in droves and clearing the shelves now, so that they won't be stuck with some namby-pamby unreliable politically-correct gun later.

You better go get yours too.

[marks2065 0]

Obama knows that he can't "just ban guns" so he will chip maway at them 1 or 2 at a time. people are usually stupid enough to let this happen.

[futuredivot 0]

If he's that anti self defense, will he disarm the Secret Service?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[The111 1]

Quote

This would also likely spell an end to most gun shows in America.

Well shi-it... how am I gonna spend my weekends now?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[The111 1]

Still waitin'...

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[quade 4]

Quote

The Tiahrt Amendment

If the general line of reasoning is that guns does cause crime, people do, then I think it's fairly reasonable that once it has been established that a gun HAS been used in a crime it, like the people that commit them, lose certain rights to privacy. I see this as being no different than say, a car being used as a get away vehicle and later abandoned being traced back to it's owner. It doesn't mean the owner or anyone along the line actually committed the crime, but it is a place to go during the investigation of the crime.

While gun advocates may see this as being a "big deal" I really don't think the other 90% of the population is going to care all that much. It doesn't take away anyone's right to own a gun at all.

Quote

The "gun show loophole"

Ya know why they call it a loophole? Because it was something the original lawmakers didn't think of and has been exploited. Again, while some people make this into a big deal, it does not really take away anyone's right to own a gun. Again, I seriously doubt 90% of the population would really care at all if gun shows went away entirely.

Quote

"Childproof guns"

Until technologically reliable in all situations, I agree this might be a legitimate issue. I do like the idea of a gun ONLY being able to be fired by its rightful owner/operator but, it absolutely has to work at least as reliably as guns do today. The last thing that needs to happen is for the gun to be needed in a self defense situation is for it not to work.

Honestly, I seriously doubt anything could get pushed through unless it meet that kind of standard. It's a bit like Kennedy saying he wants to go to the Moon. He can say it all he wants and people can want to do it, but until the technology catches up, it's just not going to happen.

Quote

"Assault Weapons"

One of the major complaints the NRA et al have had about the assault weapon ban was that the term was ill defined. Rather than fight against the ban, I would think that the NRA could move to define the term better. I realize that some people see this as an inch/mile kind of deal, but if you don't like the term, then define it better and suggest a better approach.

The NRA seems to automatically take the opposition point of view. It seems to me that if they got in front of the issue and proposed a better solution they could end up with something they could live with rather than have to constantly fight against. They could be seen as experts and leaders rather than simply opposition. It boggles my mind why they don't do this.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One of the major complaints the NRA et al have had about the assault weapon ban was that the term was ill defined. Rather than fight against the ban, I would think that the NRA could move to define the term better. I realize that some people see this as an inch/mile kind of deal, but if you don't like the term, then define it better and suggest a better approach.

the current use of the word is "scary shit." How can the NRA improve upon it? Though the Mythbusters proved otherwise, you really can't polish a turd.

[kelpdiver 2]

John,

other than copying his policy platform onto the web page, what has he actually done this week as an opening salvo?

In other words, is there any reason to think that he's not just going to leave these politically unpopular issues sitting idle?

[SpeedRacer 1]

and there's no need for the Assault Weapons Ban, since fully automatic weapons are already illegal.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[normiss 806]

But those 2 extra bullets in my semi-auto handgun is the real issue there.

[JackC 0]

I've got to wonder with all you gun fans, if some politician pledged to scrap every weapon related law on the books, absolutely all of them, and had the will and the clout to do it, would you vote for them?

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

One of the major complaints the NRA et al have had about the assault weapon ban was that the term was ill defined. Rather than fight against the ban, I would think that the NRA could move to define the term better. I realize that some people see this as an inch/mile kind of deal, but if you don't like the term, then define it better and suggest a better approach.

the current use of the word is "scary shit." How can the NRA improve upon it? Though the Mythbusters proved otherwise, you really can't polish a turd.

And you're missing the point. Go ahead and call the current definition a "turd" if you want, but without a better definition that may be all you're going to end up with. My guess is the next Administration and Congress has the votes for the "turd" version. If that's what you're willing to end up with, then do nothing but complain about it. If you want a better version, then redefine it.

Redefining it as "assault weapons can't be defined" doesn't appear to be an option. Figure out some sort of reasonable definition based on, maybe, the amount of kinetic energy deliverable over the course of 30 seconds or something.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[livendive 8]

Quote

I've got to wonder with all you gun fans, if some politician pledged to scrap every weapon related law on the books, absolutely all of them, and had the will and the clout to do it, would you vote for them?

It would depend on much more than that single issue. In this last election, I voted for a guy with whom I disagree on gun issues. Such is life when no perfect candidate emerges.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I've got to wonder with all you gun fans, if some politician pledged to scrap every weapon related law on the books, absolutely all of them, and had the will and the clout to do it, would you vote for them?

Sure if they were electable, could actually pull it off, and there wasn't anything more important going on in current events (like the Great Depression 2).

With both of the electable parties in the United States being about big government and limited personal freedoms I might as well accept the situation and vote for people who are most accepting of my hobbies (cheap gas for airplanes, fewer restrictions on the sorts of guns I can play with, lower taxes to have more left after retirement savings to spend on said hobbies).

[JackC 0]

OK, so suppose you need a tie breaker? Would a pledge to have no gun laws at all be enough to swing it in his favour?

[normiss 806]

I'm unaware of any current laws that restrict my gun ownership desires in any way.

I can own as many as I want, I don't have to register them, I don't have to have any proof of purchase or ownership, I don't have a cooling off period, I can carry concealed.

Nope, I'm good where it's at.

More laws are not going to provide any increase in safety from ILLEGALLY POSSESSED WEAPONS.
It will simply add technical hurdles or limits to legal ownership.

[livendive 8]

Quote

OK, so suppose you need a tie breaker? Would a pledge to have no gun laws at all be enough to swing it in his favour?

Most likely it would. I'd much rather have too few gun laws than too many.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[joedirt 0]

I see he already chopped off the last sentence that said assault weapons belong in foreign countries, not here. Did you notice that?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

One of the major complaints the NRA et al have had about the assault weapon ban was that the term was ill defined. Rather than fight against the ban, I would think that the NRA could move to define the term better. I realize that some people see this as an inch/mile kind of deal, but if you don't like the term, then define it better and suggest a better approach.

the current use of the word is "scary shit." How can the NRA improve upon it? Though the Mythbusters proved otherwise, you really can't polish a turd.

And you're missing the point. Go ahead and call the current definition a "turd" if you want, but without a better definition that may be all you're going to end up with. My guess is the next Administration and Congress has the votes for the "turd" version. If that's what you're willing to end up with, then do nothing but complain about it. If you want a better version, then redefine it.

Redefining it as "assault weapons can't be defined" doesn't appear to be an option. Figure out some sort of reasonable definition based on, maybe, the amount of kinetic energy deliverable over the course of 30 seconds or something.

Actually, you're missing (well, ignoring) the point.

The AWB was an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. The true goal, of course, is to ban guns incrementally. The stated goal was to stop crime, but these aren't the most common used in crime (handguns are), and even more obvious, it's not the type of guns that cause crime. Criminals will do just about the same carnage with a 12ga shotgun or a hunting rifle as with anything else.

It's hardly a surprise that crime didn't change with the coming and passing of the AWB. It was wasted time, time that the government needs to spend on real issues.

Could Obama get it passed? Maybe, but it would cost him political capital, and it might cost him in the midterm election. So it's rather unlikely he'll bother, as he has bigger problems, and I'd venture a desire to accomplish meaningful change, and the AWB isn't that.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Again, I seriously doubt 90% of the population would really care at all if gun shows went away entirely.

Except those 10% who enjoy gun shows. I doubt 90% of the population would care if skydiving went away. Doesn't mean it's ok.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I'm unaware of any current laws that restrict my gun ownership desires in any way.

A lack of national firearms pre-emption means that may change radically if you move for work.

Half my guns and nearly all the magazines are in other states because they're illegal under California law, the handguns are all registered, the local police don't have to give me a permit to cary even if I commute by bicycle through the city whcih once had the highest murder rate in the country (now down to a relatively modest 19 per 100,000).

With a repeal of "all" gun laws including national pre-emption since the worst laws are all local I'd be all over that.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Again, I seriously doubt 90% of the population would really care at all if gun shows went away entirely.

Except those 10% who enjoy gun shows. I doubt 90% of the population would care if skydiving went away. Doesn't mean it's ok.

I'm sure that a way can be found to run a gun show and at the same time reduce the likelihood of criminal activity. All it will take is a little effort instead of a lot of whining.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[The111 1]

Quote

Quote

Again, I seriously doubt 90% of the population would really care at all if gun shows went away entirely.

Except those 10% who enjoy gun shows. I doubt 90% of the population would care if skydiving went away. Doesn't mean it's ok.

I'm more amused by the comment that if the "gunshow loophole" was eliminated, gun shows would cease to exist.

If that were true, then it would suggest that gun shows only exist to enable easy access to purchasing guns through said loophole. Which would make "gun show" a bit of a misnomer. Surely gun deals can still be transacted at a gun show in the same manner they occur at a licensed gun dealer?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Brains 2]

Quote

Surely gun deals can still be transacted at a gun show in the same manner they occur at a licensed gun dealer?

At the shows here in San Antonio, most of the tables at the shows ARE ffl licensed dealers, you have a few who are not. There are also people walking around selling stuff from their "private collection" I don't think gun shows would cease to exist, but it would end the private sale at them.

Never look down on someone, unless they are going down on you.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I'm unaware of any current laws that restrict my gun ownership desires in any way.

I can own as many as I want, I don't have to register them, I don't have to have any proof of purchase or ownership, I don't have a cooling off period, I can carry concealed.

Nope, I'm good where it's at.

More laws are not going to provide any increase in safety from ILLEGALLY POSSESSED WEAPONS.
It will simply add technical hurdles or limits to legal ownership.

The V.Tech massacre was with legally bought weapons. The problem was that the perp, who was clearly unsuited to be a gun owner, WAS able to buy them legally because the laws and checks were so flawed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.