Obama wants gun control talks to resume.

[thallub]

Come to the table for what? It's all going our way and we should not give one inch. What is there to discuss? The Obama administration, the Brady bunch and the anti-gun media could care less about your "persuasive" pro-gun arguments that will never make the news.

 

[Spats McGee]

I didn't say we should give an inch. But if you don't put the pro-rights arguments out there in the public eye, they certainly won't make the news. If you let the Brady Bunch and Obama get together and have a conference without us, theirs are the only voices that will be heard.

I am very leery of taking the position that things are going so well on the 2A front that X, Y, or Z [insert particular gun-control legislation here] "will never happen." Those sound like Famous Last Words to me.

 

[Mutatio Nomenis]

Common-Sense gun laws:

Grabbers
_____

* Only Police and Military can have guns.
* No pistols.
* Background check and waiting period.
* Must show sporting need; self-defense doesn't count.
* Any gun which is scary is called an assault weapon, so it is magically deadlier.

Holders
_____
* No guns to felons or nutcases
* Carry permits
* No guns to the undocumented.
* Mandated training classes.
* You know what you're after.

P.S.: Do tone down the 'Liberals all want us to be defenseless rhetoric'; I'm a strong Liberal who believes that the right to guns is absolutely essential for a people who can hope to be free and secure.

 

[alloy]

I hate to quote this particular website, but maybe the NRA feels that they aren't dealing with any type of reality based opposition, so why play at all.
Sounds like an administration with it's mind made up, similar to the drilling moratorium....but still asking so that in the future they can state...."we asked politely".

WASHINGTON -- Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.
The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House's options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments -- on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.
Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “The purpose of these discussions is to be a productive exchange of good ideas from folks across the spectrum,” one official said. “We think that’s a good place to start.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html

 

[markj]

Then you have people that belive this stuff cause it was on TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHsX7STHqNg&feature=related

You can be shot by an empty unloaded gun.......

 

[Bamashooter]

Those pesky and dangerous barrel shrouds. I hate it when they go on the shoulder and flip up. If we dont ban anything, we must ban those shrouds.

 

[Don P]

Yes the NRA has sent emails stating that Hillary is looking to get on the band wagon with the U.N. for a small arms treaty and where do think that will lead to. More gun control. Wish I would have saved the email to post it.

 

[jimpeel]

The most common way to be shot with an "unloaded" firearm:

Jack the slide.

Drop the magazine.

The firearms is unloaded, right? Wrong. You chambered a round when you jacked the slide.

In handling automatic firearms there is an order to the universe. That order is:

Drop the magazine.

Jack the slide several times and inspect the chamber.

Doing otherwise can get someone shot with the "unloaded" firearm.

 

[jimpeel]

Isn't there a drive by shrouding reported almost daily somewhere in America?

And if you think those are bad, how about those funereal shrouds. There is always a death whenever one of those is involved.

 

[raimius]

When someone who stated they thought DC should win the Heller case says they want to talk about reasonable laws on guns, I don't believe "reasonable" means the same to them as it does to me...

When someone who said more concealed carry would be a bad thing takes credit for CCW in national parks, I become VERY suspicious of what they are trying to sell.

Call me paranoid that I get suspicious when someone who has a strong voting and speech record against 2nd Amendment rights says they are not after more restrictive guns control, but wants to talk about gun laws. Look at the record for yourself. http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

 

[markj]

Yes the NRA has sent emails stating that Hillary is looking to get on the band wagon with the U.N. for a small arms treaty and where do think that will lead to.

She said yesturday she wasnt running again and was giving up politics?

 

[HuntAndFish]

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

The data they are seeking from the States are medical histories that would show people have been adjudicated to a mental hospital. Many States are not sending in that data for various reasons (money, privacy, etc). This is information they want to include in the NICS check.

I think Wayne said it all in his statement. He gave his reasons for not talking to them. I think he is correct on all counts.

EDIT: The law that asks the States to send in that information has already been passed. However, it's a unfunded mandate on the States to send it.

 

[Tom Servo]

Call me paranoid that I get suspicious when someone who has a strong voting and speech record against 2nd Amendment rights says they are not after more restrictive guns control, but wants to talk about gun laws.

That's not paranoid at all.

However, I'm not worried at this juncture. The other side can talk all they want--nothing will come of it. So let them reminisce for the good old days of the 1990's and lament their current situation.

We are winning. We are winning better than Charlie Sheen. We are winning to such an extent that we don't have to negotiate anything with them.

Frankly, this is a last-ditch, half-hearted attempt by a lame-duck administration to appear relevant to its base. In the absence of any significant support from the legislature, it's all just hot air.

 

[Webleymkv]

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.

I think I can probably explain it without getting political enough to break the rules (just an objective analysis).

I think Obama is simply trying to appease the far left and garner some political support. Gun control hasn't been a winning issue for the Democratic Party for sixteen years and I think everyone including the President knows it. No new gun control legislation was passed, or even got out of comittee for the first two years of the administration even though the Democrats had the White House and both houses of Congress. The reason is that outside of a few far-left characters like Feinstein, Schumer, and McCarthy, no one really wants to do anything with gun control because they know it's political suicide. With two fairly recent pro-gun decisions from the Supreme Court as well as the loss of the House and a smaller majority in the Senate, I don't think we're going to see any new gun control legislation get any further than it did in the last two years.

The President's comments were, I believe, intentionally vauge so as to afford him plausible deniability on both sides. The President's popularity with the far-left has been waning as of late due to a feeling that he's not done enough to push a liberal agenda. 2012 isn't all that far away anymore and I think he's beginning to feel the heat of his falling popularity. I suspect that he's beginning to attempt to rally his base in preparation for the next election cycle. By making such vauge comments, I think he will try to avoid the more pointed accusations from the pro-RKBA crowd while at the same time telling the anti's that he tried to do something but was hamstrung by the Republicans and the "gun lobby". I don't think that Obama has much intention of really "doing" anything other than paying lip service to the Brady's and the like because he knows that is all he can really do at this point.

 

[Edward429451]

Seems to me that somewhere I heard that Obama will not seek a 2nd term. If that is the case he has little to lose by stabbing America in the back a couple times on his way out.

 

[Webleymkv]

Seems to me that somewhere I heard that Obama will not seek a 2nd term. If that is the case he has little to lose by stabbing America in the back a couple times on his way out.

I've heard some speculation that Obama might not try for a second term, but nothing substantial enough to make me think there's a good chance he won't. Regardless though, even if he did want to pass some sort of sweeping gun control legislation and didn't think he had anything to lose, I don't think he could get Congress or the Supreme Court to go along with it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ok, if we start to discuss Obama's re-election strategy we are going political and that's no-no.

Can we stay on discussing the content and process of this meeting and stay away from Obama's motives? I know that is hard and I have to keep myself from being political.

We shall see. Give it a try.

Thanks

 

[Webleymkv]

Can we stay on discussing the content and process of this meeting and stay away from Obama's motives? I know that is hard and I have to keep myself from being political.

Sorry Glenn, I knew I was "riding the line" so to speak with my comments, but it's hard to express such an analysis without doing so.

As to the topic at hand, I have somewhat mixed feelings about the NRA or any other pro-RKBA organization attending a meeting about gun control laws with the administration. On the one hand, I have a sneaking feeling that such a meeting may be nothing more than a political trap to get the NRA into a "gotcha" moment or at best just a waste of time. On the other hand, however, if anyone's going, I'd rather it be the NRA because I think they're probably more adept at navigating such a political minefield than some of the other, shall we say more "agressive", pro-RKBA organizations.

As to what can be done to prevent another Virginia Tech or Tuscon incident, well I think that's a fine line to ride. As I remember the details (VT in particular is a bit rusty to me at the moment) there were a lot of failures to recognize some pretty glaring warning signs with both individuals at the local level. I oppose sweeping measures such as mandatory psychological evaluations in order to own a gun because, from what I remember from Psych 101, the field of psychology by its nature can be rather subjective depending on who is doing an evaluation and what school of thought they subscribe to (my impression was that the field of psychology was as broad as it is long). I don't, however, think it would necessarily be a bad idea to require that certain very specific incidents and circumstances be reported to to NICS. If memory serves, the Tuscon shooter had previously made death threats and the VT shooter had been stalking other students and had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution though for only a short time. Incidents such as those are clearly definable and would transcend most people's definition of "harmless eccentircity" or "kind of creepy".

At the end of the day, however, you simply cannot prevent every act of violence. People do occasionally just snap and even people who cannot legally obtain a firearm get them anyway fairly regularly. The goal of gun control legislation, in my opinion, should not be to prevent every act of violence (an impossible goal) but rather to prevent the people who are most likely to cause it such as violent felons and the dangerously mentally disturbed from easily obtaining a firearm (you simply can't prevent every badguy who wants a firearm from getting one no matter how restrictive your laws are).

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Good post. That's the problem, IMHO. At a hypothetical meeting:

1. Is it really just a ban the guns PR show? If so, should Wayne fight the good fight or look petulant. I'm all for the fight.

2. Will it really be about a scholarly and realistic attempt to see if Cho and Loughner types should have been reported given their behavior to NICS?

If that's the case, then the meeting shouldn't have Brady, McCarthy, Josh, Wayne, Pratt, etc. - it should be made up of legal and mental health professionals rather than bloviating lay people with PR antigun agendas vs. some progun folks.

3. As a psychologist, the violence prediction without critical incidents already - like Cho and Loughner committed, is impossible because of the false positives. So can we tighten up to catch folks like them - who threatened folks, been involved with the mental health system or college / or other law?

That would be the center of a serious conference. This probably won't be that.

Given the crap in the world now - I doubt - we will see any antigun legislation.

 

[hogdogs]

Man I am so proud of me!!! I woulda never thunk that lil' ol' me could start a thread and L&CR and it go so long remaining open! I thought it would be lucky to go 10-15 posts before it got locked up...

Brent