I wonder why you left out the part about marijuana. That said, doesn’t libertarianism okay both “own all the guns you want” and “marry who you want” by putting both of 'em in the same camp as freedom of religion and freedom of speech?
I am not so much interested in the specifics of an AWB - I want to watch the exploding heads on FOX as they report on Rupert’s efforts to advance US gun control 
Whether or not people can smoke marijuana is an issue because it’s classified as a narcotic, i.e., somebody put it on a list back in the 70’s. Whether or not people can own guns or marry the same sex is an issue because of the way we’re interpreting the constitution and its amendments. They both require complex and convoluted processes to change the status quo, and they are different processes.
My question was based on my personal experience, that most of my conservative friends and relatives are pro-gun (and anti-SSM) and most of my liberal friends and relatives are anti-gun (and pro-SSM). If that’s not where the numbers lie nationwide, then I guess I have a weird set of family and friends.
The democrats are going full retard.
The republicans have finally gone crazy enough that we’re looking at a serious long term democratic return to control if the republicans don’t change massively, or the democrats don’t massively misstep and throw them a lifeline.
This is throwing them that lifeline. Good job, democrats, once again you are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Enjoy president batshit in 2016.
If nothing can be done to change the availability and accessibility of firearms in the US, we need to manage the consequences more adequately. We need to provide security at all public facilities. We need to provide all citizens with kevlar vests and helmets. We nneed to provide free medical care for all victims of firearms.
These costs will be heavy, but they are what we will need to do so that we can enjoy our unfettered access to firearms. The costs for these necessary steps will have to be paid for through taxes on gun manufacturers and buyers. It is only fair.
Yeah, the Dems would have no chance at all in our lifetimes of taking Oklahoma.
You’re wrong to assume that gun rights are a purely left/right issue, and you’re not going to alienate anyone on your own side. You put a lot of money and motivation into right wing pacs, sure, but you also hurt the enthusiasm for a whole lot of democrats too.
Its’ to the left, because most Americans think the rich should be taxed at higher rates and that wealth inequality is a big problem in this country. “Get rich any way you can,” is apparently not part of the mix. Sorry, libertarians.
President Obama may instead focus on reforming mental health. How I have very little idea, however.
The problem with going after mental health patients is that it discourages them to seek help. There is already a huge stigma attached and I see it being totally plausible that MORE deaths will result from someone not getting the help they need and then going postal. Someone who would have gotten help, but doesn’t want to be in a database somewhere.
Of course, that isn’t exactly what you said - and “reforming” mental health I suppose could be done in a way that was truly helpful. Just not sure how.
Most of these folks - the ones who end up in mass shootings - wouldn’t be seeking mental health treatment on their own accord to begin with.
We just don’t have the predictive power to identify those with mental illness who are going to do this kind of thing from those who are not. On what grounds are we going to provide compulsory treatment or any kind of detention?
Apart from that, funding for research is already very difficult, and will get worse until we get our heads out of our assess vis a vis the desire to drown the government in a bathtub. Look at the website of the National Institute of Mental Health. In the area of topics of concern to them, you will not see Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder, nor will you see aggression.
Who is going to provide the funding to be able to improve identification and prediction of risk for these outcomes?
Hentor, all of what you’ve written is interesting, and well thought out, but why do you think that government, either state or federal, will bother with good research to identify the mentally ill likely to do something like this? Why wouldn’t they instead use a sledgehammer to kill an ant, and restrict people’s rights using drastically overinclusive criteria? Provided the governments think they have the votes to do so, of course.
One thing not yet mentioned in the thread is the expanded Executive Order power since, IIRC, the W Administration. Given that, I don’t believe that increased restrictions on firearms ownership need accompanying legislation. Can’t the Executive, using existing laws, change the legal landscape dramatically? What if it’s spun as a Homeland Security issue?
Nothing that will make it out of GOP controlled committees in the House, and nothing that can get past a GOP filibuster in the Senate.
It’s been announced that Feinstein will be introducing an AWB renewal bill. No surprise there. It’ll probably make it out of the Senate but die in the House.
Same AWB? The “let’s make sure no scary weapons can have bayonette lugs to prevent bayonette massacres” AWB that was so wildly successful?
The problem is that, if the new AWB looks anything like the previous AWB, then it will not ban anything of significance. If they’re serious about wanting to ban so-called assault weapons, they need to propose a bill that bans any and all semi-auto rifles.
So far Obama has called for action in the most general way possible and one Democrat has said she’ll introduce a bill that she knows will not become law. Do you think it’s possible you are overreacting by the smallest amount?
Dos anyone really believe their re-elected savior is going to successfully do anything about guns? Check his history:
-First he had a Democratic majority for the first 2 years of his term and did nothing to renew the expired “assault weap:rolleyes:ns” ban.
-Then, whenever he talked (but still did nothing) about gun control the price of guns and ammo skyrocketed and sold like pancakes, helping guys with FFL’s (like me!
) make some big bucks.
-Next he signed a bill tweaking HR218 which made things better for retired cops (like me! ) to be able to continue to carry their pistols in all 50 states with no permits needed even though they are retired.
-Then, he signed a bill allowing folks to bring their guns onto Amtrak trains and carry them into national parks (repealing a law signed by Reagan!:eek: ).
The national park carry law was passed by a Dem majority in both sides of Congress!!!:eek:!!!
!!!:eek:!!!
Obama is the best “gun” President we’ve ever had.
Not quite: the previous useless AWB had a sunset clause so that after it expired its uselessness stopped infringing on lawful gun owners. The new one won’t, and no matter how stupid, useless or obtrusive it is it’ll stay on the books forever due to the plain inertia of having to actively overturn an established law.
Gee, it’s almost like he’s not some kind of anti-gun nut. Which is, I guess, bad?