President's Gun Control Proposals

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...the-great-gun-control-fizzle-89628.html?hp=l4


Pretty good analysis of the impotent attempt to pass new gun laws at the Federal level. Why they are useless - having no real effect - political incompetence and why the American people just didn't jump on the bandwagon despite the surface appeal of background checks.


The overreach of the Schumers, Feinsteins and Bloomberg demonstrating that 'reasonable gun control' wasn't the goal - it was total gun control as an end state.

--


Glenn
 

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/?hpid=z1

Demonstrates:

1. No overwhelming anger.
2. Bills were rightly seen as not a compromise but a first step on a gun control agenda.
3. The 90 % polling was unsophisticated surface analysis of views.

Tough luck, Joe Scarborough - your true conservative ship has sunk underneath you. You are either duplicitous, told by your boss what to say or last not really that clever. Or all three.
 

Evan Thomas

New member
This may also be of interest: from 538 (Nate Silver's blog), an analysis of how senators voted in relation to the percentage of gun owners in their states, and whether they're up for reelection in 2014.

The correlation is almost perfect for those up for reelection in the next cycle; and still strong for those who are not.

One might almost believe that they actually care what their constituents think...
 
Last edited:

MLeake

New member
Glenn, the piece you linked drew a somewhat different conclusion: that voters thought more generally about gun regulations, rather than about the specifics of the proposed legislation; and that if they had only been willing to focus on specifics they would have agreed with the Obama administration and the bipartisan-supported bills.

I don't agree with them, but that was their summation.
 

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
That's the problem, M - the specifics might have been passed as a limited action but today there is a general thought that it was a first step, etc. Thus, the specifics didn't carry the day - as it was a step for an overreach.
 

lcpiper

New member
Pretty good analysis of the impotent attempt to pass new gun laws at the Federal level. Why they are useless - having no real effect - political incompetence and why the American people just didn't jump on the bandwagon despite the surface appeal of background checks.

This President has appeal, an unmistakable charisma. He has support in many areas, and his party is still strong in Congress. But he fails, he fails repeatedly and the reason he fails is because he is not a true statesman. Looking good and playing to emotional subjects, playing sympathy games using people like the kids and families of Newtown is showmanship, not statecraft. It looks great on the tube, but it won't sell Senators and State Reps and that is something he just doesn't know how to do.
 

MLeake

New member
lcpiper, I understood Bill Clinton's charisma. I don't understand Barack Obama's. So, while I know what you mean by unmistakable charisma, I don't personally see it.

What I see, personally, is a lot of people who want to see charisma, where what I see is a guy who acted like an 8th grader during debates (making faces, looking at his watch, etc) and who generally acts as though he believes he is smarter than anybody with whom he comes in contact.

I guess some might actually find that charismatic; I do not. But I suspect more are projecting the traits they wanted to see in what they viewed as an historic first.
 
playing sympathy games using people like the kids and families of Newtown is showmanship, not statecraft.
Very good point.

However, we're veering into straight politics, which is something we don't do here. Let's stick to the subject of the proposals, not the man.
 

lcpiper

New member
Well they have failed Federally on new gun control laws but they have gained several victories at the State level, all bad, no good the way I tally it.

Furthermore, as we all saw it coming, they haven't paused a heartbeat before launching into new attacks. They are using Gabby Giffords to go after Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell and Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte ...
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/24/gabby-giffords-group-goes-after-senators-who-voted-against-gun-control-measures/) so they will try to use the exact same tactics to remove those who oppose their plans.

We didn't win anything guys and the only good that can come of this that the divide between gun laws in different states is getting so wide that soon it should be undeniable which states suffer the most from the wrong approach to gun control.

It doesn't mean it will stop the antis or get them to stop lying to get their way. But maybe their lies will loose some of their charm as facts start proving them wrong to people who care enough to find out.
 

Chaz88

New member
But maybe their lies will loose some of their charm as facts start proving them wrong to people who care enough to find out.

I would like to think enough people care about the facts for this to happen. Based on may of my resent conversations I doubt it though. Many people, on both ends of the conversation, are resolutely uninterested in the facts or reality. Some to the point that they will no longer talk to me because they could not refute my facts with the the unthinking sound bites of the talking heads. I would like to count that as a sign that the truth will win out, but I am not so sure.
 

Axelwik

New member
In the end, despite all the fuss, the only gun legislation the President signed into law (so far) was allowing concealed carry in national parks, and allowing guns in luggage on Amtrak trains.

If actions speak louder than words it appears to me that he's a pro-gun president.
 

boltomatic

New member
I don't need to tell you all that the whole gun control movmeent is little more than grandstanding, but I have a few points to share.

One thing I like to point out is that even if a lot of strict gun control were to pass, it would likely to little to stop criminals from getting guns, and to illustrate that I point out drugs. Drugs (like heroin, cocaine, the illegals) have been completely banned since the 1970's. That said, ever since they were completely banned, drug use and its associated problems have increased significantly. On top of that, we spend BILLIONS of dollars every year enforcing drug laws and incarcerating non-violent offenders. What makes it even worse is that many researchers have concluded that current US drug policy is actually making the drug problem worse, they say that we woudl have less drug problems (including related crimes and medical problems) if we simply got rid of drug laws.

So, if a complete ban on drugs for the past 40 years has not kept drugs out of the country, how will I gun ban do so? The more we restrict guns, the bigger the opportunity for the black market. Its supply and demand, criminals will always want guns so they will always get guns. Right now, they are able to get them through quasi-legal means like straw purchases, but if we were to pass laws that ended straw purchases, the black market would quickly compensate for the loss.

That said, if we hope to do anything about gun violence, we need to target the offenders, not their tools. Premeditated crimes committed with firearms need to have harsh mandatory sentencing guidelines. I don't see any reason why someone who robs a store with a gun should not go to prison for 25-life. Same thing with gang members and drug dealers, if these people are caught with a gun they should be locked away for at least 25 years. I think a lot of criminals would think twice about robbing a convience store with a gun if they knew they would face a mandatory 25 years in prison for getting caugtht, stores would still be robbed but at least less innocent store oeners would be killed in the process.

We also need to step up law enforcement in high crime areas. Currently, police tend to avoid areas with a lot of violent crime, only responding to 911 calls. We need to create special task forces within police department to patrol and enforce the law in these dangerous areas. We need something between your standard patrolman and a SWAT team to patrol these high crime areas regularly. I remember when I ran EMS in Camden, NJ we would roll in there with bulletproof vests and the cops were nowhere to be found, if we needed police we had to call the state troopers directly and wait 20 minutes for them to get there.

End rant.
 

MTT TL

New member
In the end, despite all the fuss, the only gun legislation the President signed into law (so far) was allowing concealed carry in national parks, and allowing guns in luggage on Amtrak trains.

And let us not forget that all manufactures, wholesalers and most retailers made profit like never before. Like crazy money.

According to his plan he did the following that helped curb gun violence:

- Got a confirmed ATF director
- Sent Federal money to pay for active shooter training for Law Enforcement
- Clarified that Federal Law does not prohibit medical professionals from warning law enforcement about potential violent actors (the HIPPA EO)
- Launched responsible gun ownership campaign (a joke really given funding)
- Provided Federal model for school emergency plans and other guidance

These were all part of the master plan that they were able to do.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf
 

barnbwt

New member
He also just ended imports of Saiga rifles, but not Stolichnaya --very telling about how much the move is about punishing Russia.

TCB
 

captneil19

New member
predisdents gun control

Well the buck doesn't stop there,since the V.A. Hospitals are under the federal control the president thinks he is slick.He is going to try and use them as a tool to take away the weapons from the veterans.The doctors are asking the vets if they own any weapons and are the safely stored.I'm I'm talking the doc that deal with the ptsd patients.Well if the president says vets with ptsd can't have weapons the s as me goes for policemen .They will have to fire 90per cent of the force,because every one of them has some type of ptsd.You can bet your last dollar he is up to no good with this.
 

zztinker

New member
Fear

For seven years we've been hearing that Obama is taking away our guns, which has made the gun manufactures very rich. The fact is that nobody is going to take away our guns, so relax and enjoy your hobby, I am.
 

kilimanjaro

New member
You need to wake up and smell the gun oil. "They", meaning the leftist politicians, and the media, are certainly going to take your guns if they are allowed to. You may have missed it, but a big step down the confiscation road was taken just last week when the President decided he could write laws that Congress has considered and not enacted. So much for representative government, eh?

Not to berate you, but if you honestly believe gun confiscation is not the end goal of all that is going on in the gun control front, you are a fool.

If you don't believe for partisan political reasons, you are an even bigger fool.

Relax, and you will have no hobby. Perhaps it's just a hobby with you, if so, you can always take up snowboarding or stamp collecting. For many of us, it's about freedom, responsibility, and rights.
 

Penn25

New member
For seven years we've been hearing that Obama is taking away our guns, which has made the gun manufactures very rich. The fact is that nobody is going to take away our guns, so relax and enjoy your hobby, I am.
IMO the time to stand down is when we are sure "they" aren't going to take them away and honestly that would be never. Be ever vigilant!

Aloha
 

rebs

New member
Has anyone realized why the democrats feel so strong about disarming the American citizen ? Their entire agenda is to remove guns from every law abiding citizen, why is that ? They are doing nothing to prevent crime or mass shootings.
 
Top