Obama wants gun control talks to resume.

[Tom Servo]

The anti gunners in congress and the administration want it both ways. They want to impede or prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns while at the same time refusing to prosecute those felons who attempt to buy guns.

You're missing the main idea. It's very important among many politicians to be seen as doing something. Whether or not it's practical, whether or not it's legal, whether or not it has any chance of working...those things don't matter. What matters is that a politician's peers see him as doing something.

It's gotta play well on the 6:00 news.

Most gun control laws aren't about fixing problems. They're about the person proposing and pushing them getting his 15 minutes on the news for doing something. Once that 15 minutes is up, they could care less, until next election, when they can use it as a resume builder.

Loughner isn't a gun problem; but rather a mental health problem

When I heard about the Tuscon shooting, my knee-jerk response was, "oh ____, here it comes." Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to see 99% of the media agree with you. The Loughner conversation wasn't about gun control, it was about our society's failure to identify and treat mental illness. Apparently, the President missed that whole thing.

That's what it comes down to now. Americans, for the most part, don't want a conversation about gun control. I don't think we're in a position to lose anything by not bothering to participate in this particular "conversation."

Heck, I don't think the President wants a "conversation." He just wants to be seen as doing something.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

LaPierre isn't interested. Personally, I would go and fight the fight rather than give the antis ammo (so to speak) that we are not rational.

And then listen to all the Internet warriors scream about the NRA "selling out" by talking with the antis. :barf:

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .LaPierre isn't interested. Personally, I would go and fight the fight rather than give the antis ammo (so to speak) that we are not rational. Yes, I see the point that they might be trying to co-opt etc. but I'd go for it and whup them.

I agree. Even if the NRA doesn't plan to give an inch, I think we (gun owners) need someone at the table, if only to hear the discussion & take notes.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not listening to Internet rants is a sign of integrity.

 

[Tom Servo]

Personally, I would go and fight the fight rather than give the antis ammo (so to speak) that we are not rational.

The whole point is that we don't have to participate in this "conversation." We've got nothing to lose. No "common sense" measure proposed will stand a chance in the House.

 

[thallub]

The whole point is that we don't have to participate in this "conversation." We've got nothing to lose. No "common sense" measure proposed will stand a chance in the House.

+1
Pro gun organizations have nothing to gain by attending a conference with the antis. The antis want another chance to accuse the NRA of stonewalling on "common sense" gun control measures like a ban on high capacity magazines, an "assault weapons" ban, and closure of the non-existent "gunshow loophole".

Guys, it's going our way and the antis can't stand it. Let them stew in their own sweat.

 

[Tom Servo]

Guys, it's going our way and the antis can't stand it. Let them stew in their own sweat.

The greatest insult an enemy can suffer is to be ignored.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

They won't see it that way. I think that one should always take the opportunity to make your case in a rational manner on the public record.

One should not leave the field to your opponent under such circumstances.

Dr. Gratia-Hupp looked Schumer in the eye and her presentation is a classic. Did it convince that 'bad word insert here' - no. But it shows his gas bagginess (if that is the word).

LaPierre isn't the nimblest speaker but he can be effective. He just looks petulant IMHO.

I would be there, if I had the opportunity, to put on the record arguments against their positions.

One could make McCarthy look incorrect in her analysis given facts, logic with a sympathic presentation that points out that she is misguided.

I regard this as an opportunity missed, an implied agreement that your position is weak and not worthy. Sorry, Wayne.

 

[Evan Thomas]

They won't see it that way. I think that one should always take the opportunity to make your case in a rational manner on the public record.
<snip>
One could make McCarthy look incorrect in her analysis given facts, logic with a sympathic presentation that points out that she is misguided.

This.

I cringe a bit when people start talking as if everyone who isn't outspoken in support of the Second Amendment is an "enemy."

The reality is that, yes, there are plenty of anti-gun folks out there, but there are also a lot of people who've, oh, sort of inherited the position as part of an overall political stance but haven't thought about it much... or who are more non-gun than anti-gun, and just don't see a reason to care.

We do "need someone at the table" who can make that sympathetic presentation... it's too good an opportunity to reach non-gun, as opposed to anti-gun, people, and make our case to them.

I hate to see a chance like this wasted.

 

[Buzzcook]

Heck, I don't think the President wants a "conversation." He just wants to be seen as doing something.

That about says it all. Obama is throwing a bone to some of his supporters. He's missing the mark there.
What may surprise most posters here is that it is a minority of liberals that include gun control in the top ten or even 20 concerns they want government to address.

Since I first heard Obama, I've said that his real intended audience is not the people and certainly not liberals. His target audience has always been the political media.

The inside the beltway media has pretty much stopped being journalists. They are all to a greater or lesser degree "outrage merchants"
Gun crimes are something they can wag their collective fingers at. Gun control is a bandage solution that doesn't require them to work to hard. So calls for gun control are soothing to their ears and egos, as long as they don't have to worry about specifics.

Once specific legislation is offered, the media gets bored and looks for the next shark attack story. The legislation stops being about policy and simply becomes another football in the kabuki theater of politics.

This is pretty much true of any issue not just gun control.

So the media will pat Obama on the back for being brave and addressing gun control. Liberals will mostly ignore this or be upset that he's not addressing more important issues, and conservatives will run up the red flag and get more support because of the "proof" that Obama is a gun grabber.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

One could make McCarthy look incorrect in her analysis given facts, logic with a sympathic presentation that points out that she is misguided.

Would playing this video in a continuous loop during the debate make the point adequately or too subtle?

It's always heartening to see a politician say we need to ban something when they don't even understand what it is they are banning.

 

[Spats McGee]

BR, that's PRICELESS!

 

[hogdogs]

Got it...
Brent

 

[USAFNoDak]

liberty -r death

He is has also made statements to the effect that more gun control efforts will be difficult because the 2nd amendment is so entrenched in American culture. (doesn't mean he won't try)

Not to mention it's entrenched in the United States Constitution as the 2nd Amendment (not the 9th or 10) in our Bill of Rights.

 

[USAFNoDak]

thallub

In 2008 there were 78,906 NICS denials: There were 39,526 NICS denials for felons attempting to buy guns. In 2008 a whopping 147 cases were referred for prosecution.

The anti gunners in congress and the administration want it both ways. They want to impede or prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns while at the same time refusing to prosecute those felons who attempt to buy guns.

It does not matter which party owns the white house, prosecuting felons who attempt to buy guns is not a priority.

The first year after they passed the "Brady Bill", Clinton and Reno were out bragging about how many felons they had stopped from purchasing firearms. I don't recall the number, but it was at least in the 10's of thousands. How many did they prosecute? Less than a dozen. The song remains the same.

I have a theory. For people who are into gun control laws, if the law looks like it did what it was designed to do, that's good enough for them. If a background check stops a felon from buying a gun from a licensed dealer, then the Brady Bill did its job in their minds. They stop thinking about it at that point. Never mind that the guy probably lied on his 4473 which is another felony. Never mind that when he walks out of the gun dealers shop, he can go get a gun from one of his criminal buddies out there. Never mind that he can steal a gun. Never mind that he can still kill or severely wound with some other weapon which he is not forbidden to purchase. That's the problem with liberals dusting off their hands and remarking how successful their gun control is when it "initially" stops a criminal from purchasing a gun ONLY via the legal channels.

 

[thallub]

The first year after they passed the "Brady Bill", Clinton and Reno were out bragging about how many felons they had stopped from purchasing firearms. I don't recall the number, but it was at least in the 10's of thousands. How many did they prosecute? Less than a dozen. The song remains the same.

i remember that very well.

Prior to the passage of the so called "AWB" and Brady a police courier in DC peddled several hundred guns that were seized from crime scenes, criminals, suspects, etc. He sold those guns on the streets to support his dope habit. Prosecutors were forced to drop scores of criminal cases.

Reno refused to prosecute the gun peddler because "he is a victim of drugs".

 

[Briarhop1]

I just heard on the tv news that Wayne LaPierre has
also stated that he will NOT be meeting at the WH
with the Brady Bunch for a pow-wow on firearms
legislation. (Havent seen this in print yet but I'm
sure it will be out there shortly)

 

[Wildalaska]

Much ado about nothing and this whole issue is a waste of our intellectual energy. The reason is political so I shall go no further.

WildheywaitwhydidiwasteenergyAlaska ™©2002-2011

 

[thallub]

A meeting on gun control at the white house; with the Brady bunch no less. How quaint. Its like having fruitful discussion on missing livestock in the wolfs den with a pack of coyotes present.

The Brady bunch used to tell their debaters to call the pro-gunner a racist if they were losing the debate.

 

[Spats McGee]

I think that the NRA should at least come to the table. As has been pointed out, it's a chance to make the pro-rights argument in public and on the record.

Several items in the article bother me, and here are two in particular.

First,

. . . .Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. . . . .

I don't care for the nuance here. This may seem very picky, but I think it's important to look at the way he has framed the issue. He says that antigunners will object on the basis that some "capitulation" is going on. Pro-rights groups, on the other hand, "will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns." Seems to me that this makes the antigunners more reasonable than the pro-gun groups. Objecting to capitulation, as opposed to believing in wild-eyed schemes.

Second,

. . . we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data . . . .

Reward states that provide the best data? Data about what? Are we talking registration here?