Obama Considers Broad Arms Sales Restrictions: Report



Obama considers broad arms sales restrictions: report (via AFP)

The administration of President Barack Obama is considering a broad array of measures to curb the nation’s gun violence, including more than just a reinstatement of a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, The Washington Post reported Sunday. Citing multiple people involved in the administration…



Auf Stumbleupon zeigen
Auf tumblr zeigen

Author: Guest Voice

  • petew

    Anything that works will work. Complicated rationalizations concerning the definition of “assault weapons,” and splitting hairs about the Second Amendment are not necessary. If guns represent the level of threat that they do in this country, whether or not they are used by “bad” people, is irrelevant. If we take simple measures to prevent their acquisition by felons or the mentally ill, these will obviously be common sense measures to take. When the NRA uses various tricks and technicalities to get around the law, they are culpable for those who kill with weapons which THEY helped make easily available.We CAN initiate reforms if we continue to want to. Getting Wall Mart involved is also a great idea!

  • ordinarysparrow

    This sounds positive, thus far this year there is an initiative to think out side the box,or outside the outdated, entrenched, and odorous delays of division. ” If you are not going with us, then we are going around you.” I like that much better than; “If you are not for us, then you are against us.” ….Now i get a glimmer of what ‘progressive’ means. I do not know that Obama can do it, but in his heart he is a dinosaur/dragon slayer. :) I read this and am glad that i voted for him.

  • ordinarysparrow

    A video created by Paul Cardall for the children of Sandy Hook….It is good to remember what all of this is about in the midst of all the pros and cons that will be coming forth…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=40UGBiYBf6M#!

  • cjjack

    I haven a concern. Not that it will change my belief that reasonable restrictions on some types of guns and ammunition are necessary, but it is a concern nonetheless.

    Today, while discussing a proposed repeal of the 22nd Amendment with a friend on Facebook, I wondered where he got the story that had him all worked up. Then I found the page where he got the link and several others about gun control, the 2nd Amendment, etc.

    Here are some quotes from the comments there:

    “Obama is setting the foundation for his complete takeover, America is headed towards a communist state with Barrack Hussein obama steering the ship.”

    “obama is the lawless one, he does not care about America or any citizen of America. He has come to destroy everything that true Americans hold dear. America needs “to wake UP” and revolt against him and all his evil minions.”

    “…if the patriots of the US try to stop him & his thugs he’ll declare marshall law, which they are already training in NC for it & the fema camps are already up, stocked, manned & ready to go..so if we want our country back we better start soon, before he has a chance to complete his agenda”

    Now here’s some other quotes from a time before Facebook:

    “The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do
    anything to the people.”

    “I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist
    government.”

    “The government is continually growing bigger
    and more powerful, and the people need to prepare to defend
    themselves against government control.”

    Similar, but less strident and inflammatory than the previous quotes, huh? That second batch of quotes was taken from a story published in 1993 in the S.M.U college newspaper. The reporter stopped to interview a young man sitting on the hood of his car in Waco Texas during the standoff between David Koresh and the ATF. The young man was Timothy McVeigh.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    Lots to ponder there, cjjack. Thanks

  • Jim Satterfield

    cjjack, I’ve found comments like that all over. It’s fairly typical for the most radical part of the conservative base. Look at past polls showing what the GOP base thinks of him.

  • Jim Satterfield

    Speaking of….

    http://goo.gl/SK8H2

  • zephyr

    The crazies who have been convinced Obama is the great destroyer from the beginning will now have even more fuel for their paranoid delusions. I agree with petew, it’s time for common sense to make an entrance. Better late than never.

  • http://www.americaincontext.com Barky

    Cjjack, I like to post back “ask David Koresh how his stockpile of heavy arms helped him against the government”. Does two things: a) points out that if the government really wants you, they’ll take you out regardless of how many weapons you own; and b) put them in the same camp as a nutjob whacko who sacrificed his own people rather than sacrifice his own god complex.

    [blockquote]
    If we take simple measures to prevent their acquisition by felons or the mentally ill, these will obviously be common sense measures to take.[/blockquote]

    The problem with this statement is there are no simple measures to prevent gun ownership by the mentally ill. First, what is the definition of “mentally ill”? Second, unlike felons, there is no list of mentally ill people who should be prohibited from buying guns, and creation of such a list would be frought with civil liberties issues across other parts of the Bill of Rights. Three, there are accute and chronic mental illnesses, just about anyone is capable of having a “moment of rage” that erupts into gun violence, yet that wouldn’t show up in any pre-screening. Fourth, are we seriously going to trust the commercial sector to make judgement calls on the mental health of their customers?

    There is no screening process that could prevent guns getting in the hands of those who could commit these crimes. The only answer is to limit the damage such a person can do when they do “snap” is to restrict the ownership of high-capacity clips, hollow points, and rapid-fire weapons. It won’t stop the violence, but it would limit the casualties.

  • petew

    Some psychological reports I’ve read make the point that most gun owners are not raving paranoids but really believe in their own rights to self-protection. It is too bad that more and more of them will be seduced by this insane propaganda, and remain spooked about a liberal, black President with a Muslim sounding name. When you consider what a different approach Obama has taken on many issues, you can kind of understand why some people become paranoid and obsess over a threat that isn’t there.

    Despite the fact that nothing in the ACA legislation really authorized the government to “pull the plug on granny” a lot of people continued to believe it anyway! I wish most of them could hear a recording of the accusations they may have made about Obama bailing out the banks as part of a Socialist plot to take them over—they could then ask themselves what really happened—the banks are paying, or have payed back almost all of the money that was borrowed from taxpayers, and because Obama believes in diplomacy he has really been quite lenient and tolerant of Wall Street. Now we are hearing that the President wants to take over the country by seizing “our” guns.

    It is a never ending irony that almost invariably those who warn of such political extremes, are the most extreme people possible. There is no better way to gain political complicity than to play upon the fears and desires for security that frightened people have. Yes, we have a right to have guns, but that right is tempered by the degree of potential harm that might happen if sensible restrictions are NOT made concerning assault weapons which (by any other name are just as deadly) and the way gun buyers are NOT being effectively screened in order to keep them out of the wrong hands. The madness of buying overly powerful weapons for cash and without adequate background checks, has also just GOT TO END! When we listen to the dire warnings of 1st amendment alarmists, we usually end up only enforcing all of the fears and insecurities we originally meant to prevent!

    MOTHER JONES, did research which discovered that there were 62 mass shootings in America in the last 30 years. This is on top of many other gun assaults which
    failed to qualify for the list because less than four deaths resulted (by the FBI’s own criteria). In absolutely NONE of these assaults, did an armed civilian prevent the gunman from spreading his carnage. There have been several carrying and armed individuals who tried, but, only increased the death and injury tolls—often dying themselves. So, this fact shoots holes (pardon the macabre pun) in the theory of preventing Mass shootings by arming the good guys with guns.

    People need to realize that although there is much political discord and polarization in the country, the Government is not going to force us into submission by taking away our guns. This is just about necessary regulations concerning any dangerous product i.e Many States ban certain 4th of July fireworks that are deemed dangerous.

    What stands in our way is basically only paranoia, and it’s about time we started to get over it!

  • dduck

    If you overreach, you can wind up with a flawed bill as evidenced by two wasted years on ACA/Obamacare, although having Biden in charge may be a plus.

  • EEllis

    MOTHER JONES, did research which discovered that there were 62 mass shootings in America in the last 30 years. This is on top of many other gun assaults which
    failed to qualify for the list because less than four deaths resulted (by the FBI’s own criteria). In absolutely NONE of these assaults, did an armed civilian prevent the gunman from spreading his carnage. There have been several carrying and armed individuals who tried, but, only increased the death and injury tolls—often dying themselves. So, this fact shoots holes (pardon the macabre pun) in the theory of preventing Mass shootings by arming the good guys with guns.

    I don’t necessarily agree with that conclusion for several reasons. First mass shootings are extremely rare, sure we have been hearing more and more about them but they really haven’t been increasing as much as we just have more exposure. My point being with only a tiny fraction of people caring and shootings being so rare conclusions are very hard to draw. Then there is defining the criteria. Clackamas mall had a shooting but only two were killed by the gunman. The gun man was confronted by a armed citizen and detoured into the service corridors. I’ve not seen these fact being disputed and it certainly seems like in that case an armed civilian had most likely saved some lives but since the civilian didn’t fire and the gunman was interrupted early in his spree it wouldn’t count statistically but certainly it shows that an armed citizen can make a difference and no one can argue that he responded in a very good manor. Conspicuously absent is the New Life church shooting were a armed prate citizen definitely shot and stopped a spree killer. There is also the fact that current thought on the proper procedure in a mass shooting has changed and even a few years ago any civilian who was armed and confronted an active shooter unless they were under direct attack would of been acting against what was then proper procedure. They were supposed to keep their heads down and that’s it. Never to go out and try and “stop” anyone. Now it’s much less clear. The psychology of mass killers have them often suiciding as soon as they meet any rel resistance so while no one would recommend directly confronting an active shooter it has become a more acceptable situation. I also have to say I haven’t found one case where armed civilians have increased the body count in any direct way.

  • petew

    EELLis,

    You may be correct in surmising that some shooters were held at bay, in incidents which did not involve more than 4 death or injury of several others that did not, therefore, satisfy the official requirements neccessary for MOTHER JONES’S list. But, then again, there may have been many more mass shootings too small to meet MOTHER JONES’S and the FBI’s criteria because less than four deaths were involved and, resistance from armed civilians may have made the situation worse—making the death toll even greater than MOTHER JONES’S official estimates!

    Most of the Fact checkers point out that unknown variables have been involved in producing statistics which show little or no correlation between gun deaths and gun regulations. They also cannot account for what might or might not have happened, if existing regulations had been properly implemented and continued—such as banning assault weapons without allowing manufacturers to get around the laws by altering them slightly and then selling them under different names.

    While overall it is true that there is a lack of solid evidence that gun regulations increase or prevent crimes, one thing we do know is that the rate of mass shootings IS increasing. On average only about two mass shootings per year have happened in the US during the last 30 years, however, MOTHER JONES points out that 25 of the 62 mass shooting cases they examined, have taken place since 2006. If this rate was consistent in every year among the last thirty, it would cause the average to jump up to, 4.17 mass shootings every year–doubling the previous rate. MOTHER JONES also points out that in this year alone, we have had 7 mass shootings.

    EELLis, I really do not want to see the possession of small firearms denied to average law abiding citizens, but, I think the concept of regulation, when involving dangerous substances or products is an entirely valid one. The best analogy, is how some States prohibit the purchase of many types of 4th of July fireworks which have been involved in unforeseen explosions causing deaths or injuries. To point out that most people who purchase such fireworks will not have such accidents, is a moot point, since a definite threat to the safety of others does exist anyway. Another example might be the way we screen children’s toys for toxic lead content or other harmful substances. I assume that not every toy with such toxic substances causes in the death of an infant, but why play with fire just because it is often only others that get burned?

    Most of us are shocked when any company of business is caught diluting the effectivness of their regulations or, changing the law with lobbyists, in order to get around such regulations. I know that you would also probably feel betrayed and shocked as a consumer, if you were deliberately sold dangerous products that could threaten your life or your children by way of any negligence involved in producing and/or evaluating them. To me, it is clear that powerful weapons provide such a threat and negligence when they are available to a madman like Adam Lanza—regardless of whether he was not flagged by a thorough background check, or, if they were easily available from his Mother’s gun cabinet. If certain products like baby cribs have been shown to elevate the occurrence of SIDS syndrome, fatalities, then most of us have no trouble concluding that these dangerous products should be taken off the market—even if most other cribs are safe when used by responsible parents!

    That’s where we are considering the types of weapons used by mass shooters and the fact that without them, crazy attackers would probably not be able to kill and/or wound anywhere near the number of people they they do, when using these powerful weapons. I believe that the statistical evidence DOES definitely prove that Mass shootings are on the rise, and, MOTHER JONES also points out that out of 142 weapons, in total, used by mass shooters, 68 of those were semi-automatic handguns and, 35 were assault weapons. If you have any quarrels with their definitions, take it up with them.

    All these statistics show that we have definite room for improvement. To me it is completely obvious that, since, a large percentage of killers obtained their guns illegally—despite regulations that were meant to be enforced—this does not implicate that the regulations were the cause—rather, that the regulations were not enforced properly, and that, powerful lobbyists for the NRA have been able to get around them.

    If part of our problem is the availability of semi-automatic weapons, then it seems reasonable enough to just ban them—except possibly for people who DO PASS thorough screenings and background checks and who ARE sufficiently trained in their use. Ordinary Joe’s like my neighbors and I should not be able to easily buy them with cash and without proper documentation at gun shows, and, more importantly, we do not even need to own them in the first place! So why not do what is right and start saving lives!

  • EEllis

    one thing we do know is that the rate of mass shootings IS increasing.

    Maybe , 6 years is not alot of time to base that on but the additional press may have in fact spurred these events on. So you are also advocating for restricting the press because they seem more culpable in any increases than the availability of firearms would justify.

    35 were assault weapons. If you have any quarrels with their definitions, take it up with them.

    One of their “assault weapons” was a sawed off 22 rifle. So yes I do have an issue with calling that an assault weapon but to be honest I don’t get your point. Since people aren’t actually saying what they want exactly it’s pretty hard to refute “it” but is there some law that you think has a chance in hell that will make any real difference that people are willing to except? Personally I doubt it I think 99% of any result will be just to make gun ownership more difficult and won’t make anyone any safer at all.

    The best analogy, is how some States prohibit the purchase of many types of 4th of July fireworks

    Until we have a constitutional right to have fireworks then it’s not a good analogy.

    rather, that the regulations were not enforced properly, and that, powerful lobbyists for the NRA have been able to get around them.

    That seems strange. The NRA is big on enforcement. They have pushed, hard, for heavy sentences for illegal firearm possession and use. They are for background checks and have been advocating for greater application of the mental health restrictions. What regulations do you think people get away with because of the NRA and how????

    If part of our problem is the availability of semi-automatic weapons, then it seems reasonable enough to just ban them

    I hate to bring up the pesky 2nd again but…..

    Not to mention that the majority of people just do not want that. Sure they have been bamboozled but the vague but scary term “assault weapon” so they are barely in favor of restriction on those scary guns but the majority doesn’t want restrictions on hunting, sporting, self defense rifles or handguns. I expect Obama to over reach like so many here have and that any legislation will be pushing the constitutional line and have issues there and that there just will not be the support for the type of restrictions needed to enforce any laws that are strong enough to make a difference.

  • SteveK

    Sure they have been bamboozled [by] the vague but scary term “assault weapon” so they are barely in favor of restriction on those scary guns…

    Again, Some would have you believe that it is not fair to compare military assault rifles to their ‘semiautomatic’ civilian counterparts and they have spent thousands of words repeating this claim.

    How to make an AR 15 a fully automatic weapon using the belt look on your pants (starts at 00:01:40)

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    In another thoughtful — and well thought-out — logical and to-the-point post, Petew says:

    The best analogy, is how some States prohibit the purchase of many types of 4th of July fireworks which have been involved in unforeseen explosions causing deaths or injuries. To point out that most people who purchase such fireworks will not have such accidents, is a moot point, since a definite threat to the safety of others does exist anyway.

    The “but” apparently is:

    Until we have a constitutional right to have fireworks then it’s not a good analogy.

    My first question would be, where in the Constitution does it say we do not have a right to shoot fireworks?

    However, another very important document very germane to out nation’s founding and our nation’s character says:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Many will argue that the use of fireworks to celebrate our independence and other important occasions is part of our “pursuit of Happiness.”

    But then we come full circle to Petew’s comments that such fireworks can cause injuries, even deaths (also, the loss of property) and that “[T]o point out that most people who purchase such fireworks will not have such accidents, is a moot point, since a definite threat to the safety of others does exist anyway.”

    But, but, some will say — even though guns cause many more fatalities than fireworks, and without a question terminate in no uncertain manner the pursuit of Happiness by those whose lives are terminated by guns — the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution or its Amendments.

    Yeah, you got me there. We have to live with the continued senseless loss of lives.

    And, yes, the uproar against these senseless deaths will slowly abate, and the NRA and their supporters will get their way — until the next tragedy.

  • dduck

    EE, from a legalistic view point, but not from a humanitarian one, you and the NRA have that big boulder of the 2nd to hide behind and the rest of us can snipe all we want to no effect. Touche.
    I do agree with you on one point: “I expect Obama to over reach like so many here have and that any legislation will be pushing the constitutional line and have issues there and that there just will not be the support for the type of restrictions needed to enforce any laws that are strong enough to make a difference.”
    What are those “restrictions” pray tell.

  • petew

    EELLis,

    The point I made about the MOTHER JONES study finding that, 25 our of 62 cases of mass shootings happened since 2006, is indeed, important precisely because it covers a short period of time—that is exactly the point! Six years is an extremely short amount of time for 25 mass shootings to have taken place!

    And, no, I do not hold the press culpable. Even if there were a definite way to estimate the impact of media reports on the frequency of shootings, I would think that some reporting may actually have reduced the potential number of shootings. So, no, these are primarily the acts of crazy people who may not have even launched their attacks without specific weapons of choice made available to them. Of course some may have decided to use knives etc., but I believe it would greatly increase the odds of many less children being killed in a knife attack, until after authorities were able to stop the attacker. Perhaps the words, “common sense” are politically overused but, that is exactly what eliminating the availability of assault weapons is—COMMON SENSE!

    My point about the definition of assault-weapons, is a reference to how complicated we have made this issue—mostly at the insistence of Gun advocates like you. Pardon me, but you really seem to be one of the few posters on this site who is not aware of exactly which weapons we are talking about—namely, the ones used in Aurora with hundred round clips, and the kind that killed 20 children in Newtown much more efficiently than a conventional non-assault weapon would have. And, in fact, most of the high-power weapons used in the 62 mass—shootings reported by MOTHER JONES are such weapons! The NRA and you can quibble about precise definitions all you want, but most of us know full well what kind of weapons we are referring to. Just watching SteveK’s video clears up most of that confusion.

    About my analogy in regards to purchasing fireworks—Dorian’s comment pertaining to everyone’s rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is one important point to make in answer to your mention of constitutional rights. However, you missed the most important point I tried to make when discussing the safety of fireworks. That point is, that, no constitutional right comes without common sense restrictions. First Amendment rights do not included violent riots deliberately choreographed to take human lives, nor do they apply in situations where classified military intelligence issues are involved. Similarly, as I have said many times before—making such dangerous weapons allowable for private ownership IS EXACTLY LIKE THE ABUSE OF YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER! WE also cannot exercise our religious freedoms if they directly contradict civil laws, such as the use of human sacrifices in ceremonies. And, once again, the point is that not even constitutional freedoms are granted without limitations. So,although, I see nothing wrong with that Amendments guarantee of the people to bear arms, I don’t see anything specifically disallowing flame throwers, bazookas, and/or machine guns, either. Could it be though, that these are not allowed because it is common knowledge that such weapons are considered much too dangerous for ordinary citizens to use?

    About the NRA being responsible for getting around many of the laws that might effectively prevent the criminal use of firearms—I have heard you, as well as many other comenters, make note of the fact that, once certain high power weapons are made illegal, manufacturers cam merely change them slightly (even if only by name) and they are able to circumvent that law. Now, I hope you are not pinning all of this on manufacturers while claiming that the NRA had no hand in such slippery strategies—being pure as the new fallen snow. The fact is that the NRA represents one of the most (if not THE most) powerful lobbying interest on Capitol Hill. Though lobbyists are the ones that influence legislators to support their causes, if is a well known fact that the NRA is eyeball deep in the use of them, to make sure that restrictive gun laws can be avoided—so as not to lessen the economic gains made by the gun industry. If you say the NRA is not directly culpable in such scams, I just don’t believe you because that claim itself is nothing but another scam!

    If we believe gun laws cannot be effectively changed, then we need only refer ourselves to the regulations that are now required on every pack of cigarettes we smoke. To educate the public about the misuse of high power weapons, is in itself, a good start, but that beginning should be followed with the realization that not every citizen needs to have, nor should have, an assault weapon capable of firming many rounds in a very short time. If we want to specifically designate which guns we are referring to, or clamp down on loopholes which allow them to be sold after being renamed or slightly changed, WE ABSOLUTELY CAN! Endless hair splitting and nit picking is primarily a delaying tactic, and yes, the public has largely been bamboozled by the gun industry and the NRA into thinking that even if abuses occur, they are unavoidable. Millions of us are now insisting on disagreeing with that scenario! I only hope that the enthusiasm for banning these dangerous weapons remains, until we really do something about it!

  • SteveK

    Endless hair splitting and nit picking is primarily a delaying tactic, and yes, the public has largely been bamboozled by the gun industry and the NRA into thinking that even if abuses occur, they are unavoidable. Millions of us are now insisting on disagreeing with that scenario! I only hope that the enthusiasm for banning these dangerous weapons remains, until we really do something about it!

    Absolutely petew… And bravo.

    The intentional misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment to provide profit for the Weapons Manufacturers and giggles to the “boys and their noisy toys” faction has got to be stopped.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    I have to echo Steve with a resounding Bravo!!, Petew.

    I feel somewhat awkward for continuing to compliment you for your common sense posts on this subject, but it is so well deserved.

    Perhaps you already have written (published) on this issue, but if you haven’t I would highly encourage you to do so Your views deserve much wider publicity than just on “comments boards.”

    I’d be very happy to help in any way.

    Thanks again.

  • petew

    Thanks Dorian and SteveK for the words of encouragement,

    But no, I have not published anywhere on this issue, and the limits of my comments are contained in local opinion pages and letters to the Editor in my region. These and a few letters published in TIME’S inbox, plus one published years ago in NEWSWEEK are my main accomplishments.

    I find TMV an excellent spot to post, and often feel inspired by the dialogue which flows among comenters, but, I hardly consider myself to be on the same level as some of the wonderful professional writers whose works interests me. And, actually, I prefer the anonymous freedom of being able to roam around perusing different articles and being able to make comments when I actually have something definite to say.

    Another advantage is that, for example, even when disagreeing with other posters like EELLis, there is an overall civility to our comments. This proves that one can be both passionate and respectful at the same time. As I have said before, the people who frequent TMV seem more interested in intelligent discussions and less interested in merely venting their frustrations without understanding the other person’s points of view. I may not always understand the points of others, but, many of them have set me straight about some of my comments, and, they do so without insult or rancor. In this day and age such interaction is invaluable!

    Thanks again for all of the compliments and encouragements!

  • EEllis

    EE, from a legalistic view point, but not from a humanitarian one, you and the NRA have that big boulder of the 2nd to hide behind and the rest of us can snipe all we want to no effect. Touche.

    It’s not something I hide behind, it’s something I celebrate.

    What are those “restrictions” pray tell.

    Well if you want any real effectiveness out of a hi cap ban you would need to make possession illegal regardless of age and I doubt more than 10% would give their mags up. You would create a new class of criminal from a taxpayer to a felon with a stroke of a pen needing extra law enforcement jail space etc without doing anything to effect crime and violence in the US. This doesn’t even get into the feds having everyone’s mental health records, universal registration, taking millions of guns

  • dduck

    EE, back to square one, you have no suggestions for anything that could either work and/or that could get passed.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    @ Petew,

    Thanks for your kind comments about TMV, the authors and the commenters.

    As to your comment on anonymity

    Posting or commenting anonymously has both its pros and cons.

    It gives one the perceived freedom to ‘unrestrainedly’ speak one’s mind, pretty much devoid of personal attribution or consequences. Most people do not abuse such “freedom” — some do, especially at sites where posting standards are lax or non-existing. The temptation to just let it all go is always there..

    When your name and reputation are at stake, in my opinion, one tends to be more careful, more civil, research the facts better, etc.

    Again, thanks, and should you change your mind, we’ll be here.

    Thanks again for all of the compliments and encouragements!
    Read more at http://themoderatevoice.com/172642/obama-considers-broad-arms-sales-restrictions-report/#T7vofiG2ICHJkl4Q.99

  • SteveK

    Well if you want any real effectiveness out of a hi cap ban you would need to make possession illegal regardless of age and I doubt more than 10% would give their mags up. You would create a new class of criminal from a taxpayer to a felon with a stroke of a pen needing extra law enforcement jail space etc without doing anything to effect crime and violence in the US.

    That’s what they said about seat belt laws but after a couple of your ‘buds’ got $200 tickets… In no time MOST people buckle up. AND… In no time traffic fatalities dropped dramatically.

    According to the National Safety Council:

    Seat belts saved more than 75,000 lives from 2004 to 2008.
    Forty-two percent of passenger vehicle occupants killed in 2007 were unbelted. A 2009 NHTSA study estimates more than 1,600 lives could be saved and 22,000 injuries prevented if seat belt use was 90 percent in every state.

    In less than 20 years seat belt use is 88% in states with primary enforcement 75% in states with secondary enforcement.

    If we really want to “outlaw” high capacity magazines do it along the lines of seat belt laws with the option of:

    A) A ONE YEAR Grace Period that includes a BUYBACK PROGRAM – $200 PLUS tax write off any difference for those turning in high capacity magazines.

    OR

    B) A $200 citation PLUS CONFISCATION first offense… A $500 citation PLUS CONFISCATION second offense… etc, etc. until at some point it becomes a felony.

    AND

    C) A misdemeanor citation PLUS loss of business license to any gun dealer / shooting range that allows high capacity magazines on their premises.

    20 years a dos high capacity magazines.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    obvioulsy in my previous post, this:

    Thanks again for all of the compliments and encouragements!
    Read more at http://themoderatevoice.com/172642/obama-considers-broad-arms-sales-restrictions-report/#T7vofiG2ICHJkl4Q.99

    should not have been there, but I was unable to edit.