If the reports I’ve read from gun shop owners on a couple of gun forums can be believed, it’s already starting. They’re having record sales this weekend. Of course, it could just be Christmas shopping, but I somehow doubt it.
It’s not gullibility, but rather “better safe than sorry.” Firearms and ammunition don’t spoil, so stockpiling (particularly ammo) doesn’t have any serious drawbacks.
And those doing the stockpiling aren’t just on the political right.
No, it’s definitely gullibility. They’ve been fed nonsense about how Obama is going to “steal their guns” and they buy it completely just like they buy every other right wing lie Fox and so forth feeds them.
:rolleyes:
But of course you offer the completely unbiased and unvarnished truth, for yea verily Der Trihs knows the one true way.
And I’m still waiting on that cite. Or a retraction.
I agree they aren’t just right.
I vote nothing. The Dems don’t have the votes to even get a new AWB passed, let alone anything stronger. And by doing so, they will have awakened the NRA which has been kept at bay in the past 6 years because they have nothing to fight against. They have won on all fronts.
For Obama to start a serious push for more gun control measures would not only cause GOP coffers to start filling, these measures wouldn’t pass anyways.
This. The truth is that there really isn’t much Obama can do right now. Even if he were to propose some radical measure, it’d get shot down in the GOP-controlled House.
And if the Republicans were even inclined to let such a measure reach the floor for a vote, it’d be only to give themselves fodder for the next election - so they can run campaign ads about how so-and-so who voted for the measure is an enemy of responsible law abiding gun owners.
Is it gullibility that people (like- well, you for instance) are screaming that the availability of guns is what made this massacre possible, and that “enough is enough”?
That’s a silly comparison. Are there lots of guns? Yes. Are people killed by them in large numbers? Yes. Has Obama confiscated large numbers of guns? No.
Nothing until after the mid term elections at a minimum.
And I hope nothing after that, either. I don’t want to see a Republican president elected in 2016.
You’re taking this way too personally. Nobody attacked you. If you’re a responsible gun owner as you say, a debate on gun control doesn’t besmirch your character any more than speed limits reflect on your personal driving habits, so let’s drop the persecution act.
Twenty children just got shot to death and you’re whining about being attacked. You poor, suffering soul.
My prediction is the old assault weapons ban, which is truly sad. The assault weapons ban mostly banned “scary” weapons and had no impact on crime or anything at all, really.
What I’d instead like to see is Obama start us down the path to a licensing scheme like you see in Germany or the Nordic countries, where you can mostly buy all of the same guns as you can here in America but the individual gun owner has to go through bureaucracy and licensing and approvals.
I think even small steps in that direction are the way to go, because I think it will reduce total gun ownership. I view that as good, I don’t want people owning guns who do not take the responsibility seriously, since there is no licensing system outside of a select number of states too many people who aren’t really interested in properly owning firearms can buy a few here and there just because. It’ll take a long time to get a licensing system in place, it’d have to happen incrementally. But where it could lead is a world where only serious gun owners will bother with owning guns, which helps to make guns ever less available to people that shouldn’t have them.
With the large amount of guns present in America, it certainly won’t make it that hard for criminals to keep getting guns, not at first. But over time, it would.
I vote for nothing from Obama. He is really stingy with political capital, and frankly kinda dumb about seeing which way the tide is going. Right now, polling indicates that Americans are moving left at a very rapid rate. Witness gay marriage and pot legalization. But Obama does not see it.
It’s a funny situation, like most of American politics.
Like abortion, the fiscal situation, and other major issues there’s really nothing that enough of the public WANTS done badly enough to get it done.
If you look at recent polling on this issue if the questions is something like “Should gun laws be more restrictive” the numbers come up resoundingly NO.
But if you put out specific proposals several of them achieve a majority YES.
It’s a similar trend to the healthcare law. Overall, when phrased vaguely, people are against it, but many of the specifics they’re for.
That’s a recipe for political paralysis. Remember, only about one politician in 1,000 is a leader. The rest are followers. They follow the past of least resistance to their own reelection.
For me? While I see that Feinstein is going to reintroduce the AWB (and may have done so, at this time) it’s a meaningless bit of fluff designed to earn some points and accomplish nothing.
I’d try something like this:
-
Open access to firearms, that is, an American citizen has a positive right to possess weapons (even as a lefty I’ve always thought the 2nd Amendment was clear)
-
A citizen may lose the right to own firearms if
A) they are convicted of a felony - one can lose the right to vote
this way and, frankly, that’s a far more important right than
gun ownership
B) a gun they have legally purchased is later used in a crime
without it having been reported stolen - the owner is responsible
for the maintenance and control of his or her weapon. The loss,
without reporting, of a weapon becomes close to a tacit admission
of irresponsibility
C) an owner reports an inordinate amount of stolen weapons - just to
prevent an owner from becoming and ‘informal’ weapons distributor
D) they are judged by a court to be incompetent - I’d be astonished if
anyone argued with this one…but someone probably would. -
Eliminate concealed carry. Approve open carry. You have a right to
possess a weapon. Others have the right to know you have it. -
Any use of a weapon unlawfully leads to the forfeiture of the right to
possess a weapon for life
I’m a registration guy. I believe that weapons should be available, but tracked. I know some people will object to that, but I believe that’s just the politicization of the issue coming out. Knowing that firearm X, serial number Y, is owned by person Z is a helpful thing. But I know for a fact that there are guns sold, and not on the secondary market, that are not registered.
Still, good luck to me.
I’d love to see a registration and licensing scheme, perhaps with mandatory psych evaluations, but it’s much more likely we’ll see a re-heated AWB and a lot of gnashing of teeth. Or, perhaps more likely still, nothing at all.
There really is not quick and easy solution here, nor even just one problem to attack. Hell, I’ve heard just as many people claim this shooting makes them more eager to own a gun (for protection from crazy people) than less eager to have one.
Like a previous poster said, we’re still a good 100 dead children away from any significant call to change our laws, IMO.
Feinstein jumps the gun:
Yeah, that’s gonna work.
Don’t her and Schumer introduce this bill EVERY year anyways? No way will Obama/Reid allow it to be brought to the Senate floor. If they do, it won’t have 60 votes to survive a filibuster. If it does, Boehner won’t allow it to be brought to the House floor. If he does, there won’t be enough votes.
But do any of this and the NRA will have to hire new staff to count all of the money flowing in…
Is that a rapid move to the left, or to liberty? I could see “own all the guns you want” as being like “marry who you want” and “smoke what you want”.
Are you saying “own all the guns you want” and “marry who you want” are in the same camp?