|

Nothing in the Obama administration’s gun-control proposals would violate Second Amendment rights

Joe Biden sets the record straight here, and I know of no intelligent argument that refutes what he says.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/ekSi8Qzx9E0[/youtube]

Share:

13 Comments

  1. I like that comment about the public being so far ahead of their elected officials.

  2. I am now seriously considering throwing in the towel and becoming a full fledged, bleeding heart liberal.

    I heard a local guy interviewed who is famous for running gun shows. He estimated that 90% of his sales are already subjected to backround checks because customers are buying from licensed dealers who are exhibiting at the gun show. The other 10% are being sold by collectors.

    He was also confident that it would be no problem to institute gun checks for the other 10%.

    I support gun checks and am firmly convinced that it will do nothing to solve the problem that they are supposed to address. A typical, liberal solution to a problem, but hey, at least I feel like something is being done. Right?

  3. So doc, I tend to agree that closing background check loopholes will not have much impact on future mass shootings, but it is hard to prove a negative. Still, do you really think, in the recent past, background checks have not prevented even one homicide?

    My position, as stated here several times, is giving courts and attorneys all the resources they need to prosecute every single gun infraction to the full extent of existing federal laws. Zero tolerance, max sentencing.

    Today, most non-violent gun crimes result in a slap on the wrist due to limited resources.

    As for the integrity of gun sellers and their “estimates”, I am quite dubious. Here’s why:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/11/atf-shop-that-sold-newtown-weapons-violated-regulations-hundreds-of-times/

  4. I am not a gun owner, but I agree, violations of then existing regulations/laws are likely commonplace. And so the impact of more regulations and laws will be….likely nothing.

    But passing more laws and instituting more regulations will still make me feel good, now that I am a liberal.

  5. Background checks aren’t likely to prevent mass shootings (although we’ll likely never know), but they could reduce the number of suicides, spousal shootings and firearms accidents.

    Luke is right, however, that it’s hard to prove a negative. It’s sometimes pure conjecture to say that the absence of a single element — a gun, for example — changes the course of events.

    This old rhyme comes to mind:

    For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
    For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
    For want of a horse the rider was lost.
    For want of a rider the message was lost.
    For want of a message the battle was lost.
    For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
    And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

    Of course, a gun is a bigger deal than a horseshoe nail, but its absence from a household in a certain situation still might mean the avoidance of a tragedy.

    Let’s not forget that studies show that a gun in the house is more likely to be used on a member of the family than to shoot any intruder.

  6. Congrats doc. But to keep things interesting around here, I just emailed my pledge to Grover Norquist (that’s a prerequisite, no?) and am now a kneejerk conservative.

    Thus I will filibuster your attempt to enact even one law, unless that law enables the feds to send women and their doctors to prison for terminating pregnancies. It is my constitutional right to demand that government impose my interpretation of God’s will on everybody else. `Cause I love freedom.

  7. Touche Luke.

    However, I bet you don’t feel as good about your decision as I do!

    Interesting though, I have only been a liberal for a few hours and I feel my ability to comprehend simple math and issues of budgeting rapidly slipping away. Even more odd, I feel compelled to spend money I do not have, expect other people to pay for my spending and feel great about the prospect of doing so.

    I love being a liberal! I can hardly wait to see what comes next.

  8. Now that I have sworn off the right and silly things like pledges to never allow passage of legislation to raise taxes on the American people I was feeling a little lost.

    Fortunately the left does stupid things like that too! Here is a fun pledge I can sign to never, ever allow changes in entitlement programs. Thank God (or is it god now?) that I don’t have the math faculties to worry about what such a pledge might mean.

    I am just so, so happy now.

    http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_ss_grayson/?source=nobenefitcuts.org#fullletter

    We will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits — including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.

  9. This place smells like squirrel…

  10. One last thing doc – and I can’t believe I never noticed this before – doesn’t Scott Walker look like a hotter, less masculine version of Ayn Rand?

  11. Craig Knauss

    Regarding gun show background checks:
    “Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.”
    Source: http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole

    And a little more reading on the subject:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/opinion/the-public-wants-background-checks-for-gun-sales.html
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17689167-background-checks-for-guns-what-you-need-to-know?lite
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/gun-law-loopholes-let-buyers-skirt-background-checks.html?pagewanted=all

    The Washington Post (Kessler) disputes the claim that 40% of gun purchases skip background checks because of gun shows. Kessler estimates less than 2%. However, 33 of 50 states do not require background checks at gun shows. Does he believe gun shows would exist if virtually nobody bought guns there? Wouldn’t that defeat their purpose? Would gun dealers travel hundreds of miles to a show if they weren’t going to sell any? Not hardly.

  12. When I was a right winger I used to dream of hunting squirrel with an assault rifle. Alas, I couldn’t pass the backround check.

    I have to admit, as a newly minted liberal I am conflicted about Scott Walker. I know he’s evil and all, but I feel like I should admire the fact that he runs a state with some of the highest marginal tax rates in the country.

  13. Craig Knauss

    Wow, my comment has been awaiting moderation for about 4 hours now. That’s what I get for being middle of the road. Extremists don’t have to wait. LOL

    That’s a great posting system RRstar has got there, Pat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>