First, talking like Obama voters consider him their “savior” is just the Right projecting their own attitude onto everyone else; it’s the Right that treats Republican Presidents like they are God-anointed prophets, a Messiah who cannot be questioned.
And Obama is anti-gun only in the hallucinations of the Right.
Not me. Get a pot of coffee and do some research. You’ll find that I frequently posted that George W. Bush was not the friend to gun owners he was painted to be. I even said that beofre he even captured the nomination in 2000!!!
Fine. That’s one, out of millions.
Neither political party as a whole (as opposed to individual members) is particularly honest about its position on guns. Republicans pose as pro-gun advocates and Democrats as gun-control advocates, and both go by expediency instead of principle.
True. But we will not get a single candidate from the Libertarian Party elected to Congress needless to say a Libertarian majority. My observation is Americans do not truely want to be free any more, they just want to pretend they are. So those of us who are pro-gun rights are usually forced to support the Lawyers who run as Republicans as opposed to the lawyers that run as Democrats.
Are you familiar with the concept of the social contract?
pkbites is talking about libertarianism; so it can be assumed they either don’t know the concept or oppose it.
Run for office. Seriously. And when you come up with some piece of gun control legislation, we’ll talk. Seriously. And I’ll listen.
Well, looks like the President and Dems might be taking more concrete steps than I thought they would.
Yes, I’m sure that reinstating the expired AWB will have a positive effect…after all, the weapons used in this attack were…um…well, no, none of them would have been part of the AWB afaik. I’m sure that it will help though, since most of the guns and things on the AWB were sure scary looking. At any rate, I wish the Dems all the luck in this quest…maybe they will get traction because of all the public scrutiny from this tragedy. This is exactly what we need right now…a meaningless and ultimately futile fight over gun control, re-affirming right wing paranoia about Obama and the Dems, and detracting from the fiscal cliff thingy that’s rapidly rushing towards us.
After banning “assault weapons”, what will they do when (not “if”) eventually someone massacres some children with a semi-automatic deer rifle or hanguns?
Glad to hear, since the bill is so meaningless, that you won’t oppose it!
I am anxious to hear your ideas for a gun control bill that would make a difference.
Oppose it? No, I won’t oppose it…not that my opposition means anything one way or the other. 
I think it’s stupid and silly…and that the timing couldn’t be worse. But I am a realist about how politics work in this country, and this is a golden opportunity for the anti-gun crowd…from their perspective they would be fools not to seize it. The Republicans thought that after Bush was elected to his first term it was a golden opportunity for them to push through a bunch of things as well. Hopefully for the Dems sake they will have a better time of it.
As for a gun control bill that would make a difference, I don’t think such a beast is possible in the current political climate. I also don’t think one is necessary. Incidents such as the one we just went through are rare, even in the US. Trying to legislate them away is futile. Gun violence in the US is way over stated, as I’ve said in multiple threads on this subject…and been shut down and dismissed for the view over and over again.
So, let me try and answer your question rather in a way that you perhaps won’t simply dismiss, by playing devils advocate. How would I craft a bill that would make a difference, assuming I could actually just do it by fiat and wave aside the heavy political opposition? I’d basically make firearms ownership similar to driving a car. You need a license to own a gun. All guns must be registered. No more gun sales at gun shows, instead all fire arms must be purchased from authorized dealers, and this would include waiting periods and having to phone in for authorization of a sale (which you have to do today if you buy a gun at a gun store…you’d just have to do it every time a gun or ammo was purchased) Ammunition also must be purchased using a license and from authorized dealers as well…including all reloading supplies (powder, brass, caps, dies, etc). All of these would be federal and uniform regulations, evenly applied to every city and state in the union, and enforced by federal agents. Mandatory gun safes and trigger locks would be required for every new purchase.
It would cost the world, it would be highly unpopular and politically impossible without fiat powers, and in the end it would make a small difference at best…and zero difference in random mass attacks such as the one that just happened. It wouldn’t be worth the costs, either monetary or political to do any of those things above, let alone all of them, and it wouldn’t make anyone happy…the anti-gun crowd would see it as not enough, the pro-gun folks would see it as a huge infringements on their rights and a path back to the road we were on in the bad old days.
I was going to say nothing, but I visited the NRA-ILA website for another thread and it was already full of “Obama tooken our gunz” nonsense. So maybe he loses nothing by backing a gun control push.
It’s simply amazing that the NRA and folks on the NRA’s web site would jump to the conclusion that the anti-gun types are using this as an opportunity to push through their agenda. I mean, where do these people get this idea from??
By “already” I mean those articles were all dated before the Newtown shootings.
Yeah, well…you are right there. No doubt there are some nuts on those sorts of boards, and pro-gun folks in general are always a bit wary that at any time the anti-gun types are going to start sliding the country back down the path we were on until recently, with ever increasing attempts at more and more heavy legislature, with the intent of eventually banning all guns, or making the restrictions so hard that we resemble something like the UK wrt gun control. And events like this sort of validates their paranoia, since what’s the first thing that happens in the wake of a tragedy like this one? Well, the gun control folks come out of the wood work, the President who was supposedly gun neutral is making noises about gun control and bringing back the (highly stupid IMHO) AWB, and many others in Congress jumping on the bandwagon. shrug While I don’t agree with the paranoia aspects, I can see where it comes from.
Boards? I’m talking about the NRA-ILA’s own articles. Seriously, go look for yourself.
Nada, nothing.
I avoid them like the plague. I’m not a member anymore…haven’t been for years now. But I can imagine, and I’ll take your word for it. Again, though, from their perspective it seems they have a point…as soon as something like this happens, the gun control folks are out everywhere, and the press is tacitly going along with all the stories (every one of the top page on CNN is about this, most are opinion pieces about how gun control is good, that we shouldn’t listen to the gun lobby, that there seems to be political traction for gun control, etc etc…that’s where I got the article I linked to earlier) and all of the subtle language queues (such as the use in most of the articles of ‘slaughter’ and other charged language). So, they are trying to lay the groundwork, in advance, for things like this happen, so that they can respond and try and fight for what they see as their rights.
Well one guy with guns killing 26 unarmed school children … gee, seems the very sort of thing the words “slaughter” was invented to describe.