The current debate on assault weapons limitations and Brady Bill part 2 is counter productive.
With a homicide rateand homicide by firearmsrate at least 2x greater than any other developed country in the world, the US has a problem that goes beyond assault weapons.
Pelosi’s bill is nothing but a rat hole on the bigger issue. It allows opponents to obfuscate having a real debate on meaningful changes. The Republican party are rubbing their hands with glee (or should be behind closed doors) that a huge amount of political capital that will be expended on this. And the worst case scenario is that some cosmetic changes to “assault style” weapons will be enacted. The net result won’t be any greater than the original Brady Bill in preventing those with enough cash to buy their firearm of choice. Any change won’t put the country on a slippery slope of confiscation of any and all guns any more than the first Brady Bill did.
The NRA is probably secretly ecstatic to have derailed any meaningful debate. Of course, the NRA prefers zero restrictions or changes, but this is the second best outcome they could have ever wished for.
Obama and Biden deserve to also be hoisted on their petard. Biden was one of the architects of the first Brady Bill, and he’s on point for the President for this one. Christ, show some real leadership and balls, and start a real debate on guns, homicides, mental health and the Second Amendment.
Interestingly enough, the Washington Post todayhad an unconfirmed report that the White House will not reinstate the expired assault weapons ban (ala Feinstein’s bill) but instead focus on a broader more comprehensive approach to reducing the US gun violence.
“A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.”
Then the real question is, why should Obama etc dedicate their time and political capital to an issue that that will probably result in a massive fight without progress, when they could instead fight for something that is more likely to pass and create actual change, like the healthcare bill.
They could pass an extended background check law - expanding the requirement for background checks to all transfers, plus put in money to capture better felony and mental illness data. That would be a victory.
If they try to pass a universal firearms registry, that would go down in flames. Too many people would assume a Federal database would be used like New York’s and California’s eventually to track down owners of future-prohibited weapons.
The use of guns near schools is meaningless, and could penalize those who own homes next to a school. Additional penalties for giving a minor a gun later used a crime won’t do much either.
This sort of rubbish is a complete waste of time and political capital. It also gives any opponents of the laws a perfect place to attack it. Does anybody at all seriously believe that having tougher penalties for carrying guns near schools is gong to reduce the number of school shootings?
And if you do believe it, can you explain the mechanism? It seems to rely on one of two possible mechanisms, both utterly ludicrous.
The first is that when someone is planning on killing dozens of school kids, he is going to be so worried about getting a fine for carrying a gun near a school that he will give up on his plan. Mass murder doesn’t worry him, but stiffer penalties for carrying guns near schools will stop him cold.
Or alternatively, there are large numbers of people who leave home with no intention of killing school kids. But if they happen to be driving past a school with their gun, they may decide that, since they have the afternoon free, they will go on a murderous rampage.
I can understand banning guns *in *schools. I an see the logic in the reasoning that where you have guns, you have the chance of them being used nefariously. But I just can’t see how having an additional penalty for carrying guns on the street *outside *the school is going to have any effect at all.
It seems to hinge on the idea that either people who are can’t be stopped from taking a gun *into *school will can somehow be stopped from taking a gun *near *a school. Or alternatively, the idea that merely having a gun near a school will prompt people to go into the school and start shooting.
Sheesh, man, an unsubstantiated Washington Post story. If true, I’d be a little surprised if they have all the details correct. I agree the school thing seems pretty lame, but then again the hardcore gun supporters are still pissed about fully automatic weapons trampling their rights. Those folks will accept zero stronger standards than the current status quo.
I would expect that if the administration really goes after this, then it won’t be stuffed full of tofu for the libruls but the most aggressive standards they think can pass. At least it looks like they won’t waste time getting rat holed on Feinsteins meaningless crap that will still cause a NRA shitstorm.
The extended background check law would certainly be a meaningful victory.
Ed Anger, why not go for *both *healthcare and an extended background check?
