Some Heads Explode: Biden Says Obama Exploring Executive Orders to Combat Gun Violence


Mark today as the day when Vice President Joe Biden made many conservative Republicans’, NRA officials’, and no-on-any-gun-regulation NRA members’ (who don’t reflect the opinion of many other NRA members) heads explode: he said that President Barack Obama is considering using executive orders to stem mass shootings in America.

The police better get ready for a host of calls about (imaginary) black helicopter sightings:

President Barack Obama is exploring executive orders to help prevent mass shootings in America, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday.

“The president is going to act. Executive orders, executive action, can be taken,” Biden told reporters before meetings with groups representing survivors of mass shootings. “We haven’t decided what this is yet, but we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the Cabinet members.”

Legislative action also is needed, Biden said.

“I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans, and take thousands of people out of harm’s way, if we act responsibly,” he said.

President Obama vowed last month that a new task force overseen by Biden will provide “concrete proposals” by the end of January to reduce gun violence. The group, which includes an array of Cabinet members and government officials, was established in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 27 people dead — 20 of them elementary school children.

In addition to gun laws, the group is looking at mental health care and what the president has described as a culture that often “glorifies guns and violence.”
CNN iReport: The gun control debate
Biden’s brief remarks Wednesday came before what will likely be some of the most emotional testimony before the task force.

NBC’s First Read puts White House aspirations into context in a post written earlier:

*** Two options on gun measures: The White House has a self-imposed deadline of the end of this month to come up with some tangible items. They can go one of two ways: (1) Incremental (magazines and mental-health screenings): This will show the White House trying to create proposals that can pass, but there will be a lot of disappointed people, or (2) Bolder (really pushing for reinstating the assault-weapons ban, mandatory background checks of all purchases, including private sales, a national gun ownership database): But the risk of the bold approach is that it can’t pass Congress. It’s a bit of a political box for the White House; they’d like to do something, and there is a chance to “do something,” but what is possible and what some gun-control advocates really want are not in the same ballpark.

Executive orders would seem a third option. But those who are upset by the issue being raised — and those who will now whip up virtual hysteria to build up their audience shares or Internet hits — know full well that a)an executive order has to be within the law b)if it is an unlawful order it will be challenged in court and struck down. But none of that matters: this is red meat for some politicos and media types to gain viewer/reader attention.

Let the screaming begin.

And (sigh) you can already see it on some of the Tweets. A cross section when you look up “executive order”. Note that nothing has been revealed yet — and Tweets already have Obama seizing all guns. Such is the state of 21st century politics where facts don’t mean as much as screaming and accusing (and the trending for our democracy isn’t terrific on this front):

Razor ?@hale_razor
Biden says it’s a moral issue that Obama deals with guns by Executive Order. You know what’s moral? Obeying the damn Constitution. #tcot

15m The Young Cons ?@YoungCons
By executive order I am outlawing guns and presidential term limits. And if you don’t agree with me you’re racist. #Barackisms

RT @lachlan: Reminder: an executive order on guns wouldn’t change gun laws. Obama can only affect enforcement. http://slate.me/WtS58R

1h Martin Behm ?@TheBehmmer
If the POTUS releases an Executive Order regarding gun control, civil unrest will ensue as this will cause more commotion than a earthquake!

1h Michael Reagan ?@ReaganWorld
Protect Yourself!!Buy now while we can!Biden: Obama Considering ‘Executive Order’ to Deal With Guns http://shar.es/4hxNZ via @sharethis

1h Norsu ?@Norsu2
Drudge Compares Obama To Hitler & Stalin http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2976463/posts … Obama/Biden look to ban guns via Executive order. Pure tyranny #tcot #p2

2h Razor ?@hale_razor
#YouMightBeALiberal if Bush looking at library cards was like Hitler, but Obama imposing gun control by executive order is no biggee.

2h HealthRanger ?@HealthRanger
Obama to follow in footsteps of Hitler, Stalin with ‘executive order’ disarmament of the people http://www.naturalnews.com/038615_Obama_Hitler_Stalin.html … via @HealthRanger

2h Resist Tyranny ?@ResistTyranny
Like Hitler and Stalin before him, Obama is pondering an executive order to confiscate your #guns: http://peeped.co/?AC #tyranny

2h Norsu ?@Norsu2
Obama to use Executive Order on Guns? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html … This is Treasonous #Oathkeepers #NRA #teaparty #p2 #PitchForks #Tyranny #tcot

2h Wayne Allyn Root ?@WayneRoot
I warned about Obama’s 2nd term. I predicted he’d rule as a dictator/tyrant. He will bypass Congress to take guns away: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html …

2h #RepublicanGirlProbs ?@RepubGrlProbs
Today Biden threatened that Obama will sign an executive order on gun control. To top it off, Eric Holder sat next to him at the meeting.

Ryan Niino ?@TkRYan4short
Biden: Obama Considering ‘Executive Order’ to Deal With Guns http://shar.es/4hfo9 remember when libs said O doesn’t want to take ur guns?

Of course NOWHERE has Obama or Biden said they will “take ur guns.”


And look up “Biden” on Twitter
and you get this (with the inevitable Donald Trump quote):

Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump
This is how it starts. Obama is now threatening to use an Executive Order for gun control http://bit.ly/10fegYs Welcome to his 2nd term.

Underground Express ?@undergroundexp
Why do you think Biden PROMISED a gun grab bill would be signed by the end of this month? http://bit.ly/ZHSMSZ

Work Today ?@GetToWorkToday
Biden task force chills gun stock rally: A gun-related stocks rally of recent weeks halts on talk that Vice Pres… http://bit.ly/VHRfH5

Norsu ?@Norsu2
Biden: Obama Will Use Executive Orders To Grab Guns http://patdollard.com/2013/01/biden-obama-will-use-executive-orders-to-grab-guns/ … No one stopped Hitler from usurping power w gun grabs #tcot #p2

Let the polemics begin (they already have).

head exploding grahic via shutterstock.com

  

78 Comments

  1. “Based on past experience, when something doesn’t work, proponents typically say whatever it was didn’t go far enough, rather than admit it didn’t work.”

    If you went on a diet, and after a week of dieting lost only 1 pound, would you deem it a failure and go back to eating cheeseburgers? If you began exercising and after 6 months of walking on a treadmill you hadn’t hit your goal of losing X amount of weight, would you give up and go back to lounging on the sofa?

    No and no. If you were serious about your goal, you’d adjust your diet, change your workout, and keep at it until you reached your goal.

    Yet there seems to be an argument floating around out there that since the assault weapons ban was ineffective, any law restricting firearm ownership is ineffective and therefore must be off the table. The NRA is making the argument that more guns and more armed people are the solution, which to me seems like arguing that if you haven’t lost weight on your new diet, perhaps you should eat more and exercise even less.

    They are saying in effect that the solution to the problem of gun violence can never be less guns. That just doesn’t make sense.

  2. When you listen to people like Jones, it becomes obvious why guns need to be removed from civilian hands. Arguments presented so far by the NRA to keep weapons of war on the streets, have been utterly ridiculous, and for those who enjoy guns as sport and hunting…let me tell you, these guys are not doing your cause any favors.
    Perhaps it is the crackpot element, but when these crackpots start blathering about 2nd amendment rights, it brings up extremely close examination of that right. Is it outdated? absolutely. Is the purpose of it’s presence in the constitution still applicable? No it is not, except for those who actually DO fear a tyrannical government takeover.
    If this amendment were REWRITTEN for today’s world, I bet it could be done so that all those who wish to hunt and sport shoot could have their simple rifles, and those who would abuse guns would be out of luck.

  3. We generalize based on left and right for most issues including this one. Of course as on any issue there are moderate positions, extreme positions, and crossover views from left or right. I was not trying to be disparaging.

    I don’t care about left or right I was speaking of the term “gun nuts” which just by it’s use you indicate that you don’t consider any of their concerns legitimate, I mean they are “nuts” right? How can they believe you will spot when “reasonable” if you show such disdain for them and their positions? Now I’m not trying to pigeonhole your beliefs but rather show part of the problem that gun control advocates ignore.

    Based on past experience, when something doesn’t work, proponents typically say whatever it was didn’t go far enough, rather than admit it didn’t work or was a bad idea.

    Well yes that is also a problem. We have groups pushing for a new ban basically the same as the old but it’s already been shown to have no effect. Why push for something ineffective? And when the new ban is also ineffective then what?

  4. I don’t care about left or right I was speaking of the term “gun nuts” which just by it’s use you indicate that you don’t consider any of their concerns legitimate

    For clarification, I define “gun nuts” as anyone who believes further legislation regarding guns = complete and total gun confiscation. This is not a legitimate concern. The idea that “Obama is a-comin’ fer our guns!” is worthy of disdain, IMO.

  5. If you went on a diet, and after a week of dieting lost only 1 pound, would you deem it a failure and go back to eating cheeseburgers? If you began exercising and after 6 months of walking on a treadmill you hadn’t hit your goal of losing X amount of weight, would you give up and go back to lounging on the sofa?

    It was ten years and it’s not a diet. If the goal is reducing violence then why not concentrate on things that can and do work rather than gun control that does nothing but put restrictions on gun ownership seemingly just for the sake of making gun ownership harder.

    Yet there seems to be an argument floating around out there that since the assault weapons ban was ineffective, any law restricting firearm ownership is ineffective and therefore must be off the table.

    No that is not any argument I’ve ever made. Rather that if something is proved ineffective move on to other ideas. I’ve said repeatedly that the first thing that should matter is if gun restriction are desired they should have some real and significant public benefit. Making gun haters feel better isn’t good enough.

    The NRA is making the argument that more guns and more armed people are the solution, which to me seems like arguing that if you haven’t lost weight on your new diet, perhaps you should eat more and exercise even less.

    Are you working on a new years resolution with all the diet talk? Look it’s a flawed example for several reasons but moving past the diet talk only the tiniest percentage of guns are ever used illegally. My breakdown of the NRA stance is that it is more effective to go after the tiny percentage of those who use guns illegally than the vast majority of legal gun owners who are the primary targets of gun control. To many that just seems like common sense. Then of course there is the fact that the NRA believes that gun ownership is a civil right protected by the 2nd so even if it would be effective, and they don’t think it would, then still limits the govts ability to restrict firearms.

  6. The idea that “Obama is a-comin’ fer our guns!” is worthy of disdain, IMO.

    It is an over reaction certainly but the truth is that if possible many politicians and advocate would do so, ban guns, but for the political opposition to gun control. So the only reason it’s absurd is because all the people who would go nuts about it make it impossible. Kind of funny right, they get paranoid over something, but that something can’t happen as long as they stay paranoid.

  7. As celebrated Conservative Rush Limbaugh does, let me use absurdity to illustrate the freaking absurdity of the gun lobby.

    The Second Amendment gives me the absolute right to own any kind of arm/weapon to defend myself and my family. Just in case the government decides to come after me or my family in my home, I must have — and have every right to have — a ground-to-air missile to shoot down that aircraft that may someday attack my home, my family.

    Absurd?

  8. Look at what you want the feds to do. Punish businesses who comply with all applicable laws. Withhold training that makes LEO’s better and help provide safety for citizens. Blackmail.

    Rather than think of it as tyranny and abuse of power, think of it as enhanced local control. At least that’s what they tell us every time the federal government reduces Special Ed funding.

    It’s just wrong. There may be some way to encourage better compliance but that would not be a way that is acceptable. Not to mention anyone who advocated such a tactic would be out on their ass next election anyway.

    I wish I could disagree with this, but that’s the way is has been done in education for the past 40 years. And no elected official who has advocated doing this has been thrown out. Does that make it right? It certainly doesn’t, but too often our politician’s answer has been to throw away opportunity for children with real potential instead of funding things the way they should be. And my own jaundiced view that they will do the same with MI reporting.

  9. “If you went on a diet, and after a week of dieting lost only 1 pound, would you deem it a failure and go back to eating cheeseburgers?”
    But it did work and was worthy of continuation.

  10. EE, first let me thank you for a response to my guns VS knives example of Dec. 14th.
    “I just don’t believe that justifies the banning of guns and in specific that laws directed at guns rather than people will have almost no effect on anything except cost of firearms.”
    I read that you believe there is no justification for banning specific guns. I know you will disagree, that the dead kids are collateral damage and do not trump the “rights” of some gun enthusiasts, like yourself. And- yes, you are correct, using “gun nuts” is unfair, except for the mall and school killers, and they get named as such only after the killings have already happened.
    You have the 2nd and that might makes you technically right, but some of us prefer the moral high ground.

  11. I read that you believe there is no justification for banning specific guns. I know you will disagree, that the dead kids are collateral damage and do not trump the “rights” of some gun enthusiasts, like yourself.

    Well then you read wrong. I believe we have already tried an “assault weapon” ban and instituting a second with the same basic rules, which is the main push right now, is unsupportable because it had previously showed to be totally ineffective in lowering crime, violence, or gun deaths. Now if it had shown any effectiveness at all then we could have a discussion on if it is worth it or not. I’m reminded of the Franklin quote “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” What about giving up liberty for nothing at all?

  12. What about giving up liberty for nothing at all?

    Giving up liberty like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson warned us about?

  13. “guns VS knives”
    We also need to consider woman vs knives or woman vs unarmed assailant.

    I am not against measures to prevent this kind of crime. But I think an understanding of if/why the last ban didn’t work and what would be different this time is needed. Otherwise we run the risk of doing something just to feel better instead of having a real effect.

  14. EE< So it boils down to do nothing, since that works, against trying something of the same or stronger strength cause it didn’t work last time. Like I said child collateral damage is OK cause the 2nd says so. (I know, you don’t mean that.)

    Z, husbands get shot as intruders, harder to do that with a knife. Yes, there are cases on both sides, I will admit that. But also plenty of weapons are stolen in burglaries and some are used to kill their very owners while others are sold to criminals and wind up in violent acts. To make matters worse, the ATF has a hard or impossible time tracing the weapon. A central registry, computer based, not index cards like the ATF is now forced to use because of an NRA pushed law, is imperative.
    Jeez, give me a break.

  15. I am sorry to waste too much space here, but I really liked this common sense letter to the editor, NYT, 1/10/12:
    ” To the Editor:

    I have only seven guns in my house. As a resident of rural South Texas, this makes me practically a Quaker. Some of my guns I bought, some I inherited from my father and some I held for my son while he was in the Army.

    I hunt on rare occasions and enjoy a little target shooting. I’ve killed a dozen rattlesnakes and a rabid raccoon on my place. A couple of times I was comforted to have a gun when I politely asked trespassers to leave my property — now.

    The point is I like my guns, but I do not love them. Love is reserved for the likes of the children and teachers who died so senselessly in Sandy Hook. This and other recent tragedies serve to focus our minds on a complex blend of Second Amendment rights, public safety, civil society and mental health. I do not know what solution we will ultimately find.

    My own personal and immediate reaction, though, was to take a large-capacity ammo clip and pound it down with a hammer. My ranch rifle works fine without it, and it was stupid to have. I don’t need it, and I don’t think anyone does.

    Los Fresnos, Tex., Jan. 8, 2013″

  16. Thanks dduck, and you’re right… It’s a matter of common sense.

  17. Agreed. That letter is common sense.

    This is not:

    The CEO of a Tennessee company that specializes in weapons and tactical training is threatening to “start killing people” if President Barack Obama moves forward with gun control measures.

    [::]

    “Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “F*#k that.”

    “I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

    The CEO concluded: “I’m not f*%#ing putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

    Read more here

  18. I would have been more cautious with the executive orders talk, it is like yelling fire in a crowded theater to some people and will be counterproductive and make the NRA’s and others’ point of illegal government interference,, etc., etc.
    All in all, a bad PR move by Biden (and others?).
    Gun, ammo and HCM sales will really jump now.

  19. EELLis,

    What I’ve learned from personal research and other comenters in TMV, is firstly, that, although we have tried to regulate assault weapons in the past, there are many ways that the gun industry, with the help of lobbyists, eventually gets around those regulations. I believe you, as well as other posters, have mentioned that a gun may be re-named, or altered slightly so that it evades specific prohibition from the market. And, thanks to the videos provided by SteveK, we have all seen how guns which are now considered legal, can easily be converted (bumped)into weapons that fire at the level of machine guns. On top of that, you and others have mentioned that, although some assault weapons have previously been banned, there is still are very large stockpile of them which are collectively, already owned and usable by the American public. So, this fact may well skew the statistical effectiveness of gun control legislation.

    To me it only makes sense that these weapons should be taken completely out of circulation–even it it takes several decades for them to be removed from the hands of private owners. I believe other comenters have suggested government buy back offers over several years, which if not obeyed, would result in fines. This is a practice that has worked in several other areas and seems quite rational.

    After consulting fact checking sites, I have run into a lot of controversy about how the effects of gun ownership are studied, and, whether those studies don’t neglect to consider important variables, such as re-naming or slightly altering weapons, along with the grandfathering problem, which, keeps them in private ownership—and/or the fact that background checks are not always thorough and buyers can easily get around them. FactCheck.org also mentions that many people who conceal and carry, represent safe statistical groups like urban, white and higher income males. And, amazingly, after all of these years we still permit assault weapons to be purchased without sufficient IDs or background checks when paid for in cash at gun shows. We also fail to allow government tracking of the weapons in circulation, even though we require registration documentation, driver’s licenses, License plate renewals and (in most states) sufficient liability insurance—all used as ways to keep track of owners and their motor vehicles—as well as allowing for quick background checks etc., by officers who stop vehicles for violating traffic laws—even when guilty of having nothing more than broken tail lights. Although this has gone on for several decades, I have yet to have my license revoked or my car impounded by the government for any minor infractions—So why would banning assault weapons and providing more thorough background checks be considered a drastic measure that would result in confiscation of small handguns or complete government removal of privately owned weapons? I and many other comenters also see the obvious lack of necessity for assault weapons and, large ammo clips, being used for personal protection. So why do we always get hung up on details that make it easy to circumvent vital regulations?

    For gun enthusiasts who use the 2nd Amendment to defend private ownership of powerful weapons, involves the fact that, no Constitutional Amendments bestow complete liberties without ANY limitations. The first Amendment cannot be used to violate vital military secrets, all of civil rights and voting amendments require an age limit and previous registration, those accused of felonies cannot be retried after being found innocent, but they cannot jeopardize themselves by giving false testimony to the court, etc. etc. etc. I’m sure that careful examination of all 27 Amendments will reveal that no one gets a free pass to use those amendments as unlimited protections against the potential capabilities that exist because of the laws involved!

    Although many gun regulations do not provably reduce crimes, because of the flaws present in many statistical studies, this only begs the conclusions that, many of those studies are far from being accurate. The few flaws already mentioned in this post, reveal that effective regulations of fire-arms has not always yielded accurate results because of their less than thorough regulation and/or incomplete implementation. But as I have mentioned before, WE DO KNOW THAT MASS SHOOTINGS ARE INCREASING IN FREQUENCY! and, a large number of the weapons used in these travesties, are either unregistered, obtained illegally, or have become available in other unfortunate ways (such as the weapons used in the Newtown shooting).

    Obviously,the necessary limitations in the 2nd Amendment inherently exist, in order to prevent the public from abusing ANY KIND OF WEAPONS, based on their firepower and their great potential for harm—once again, no bazookas, machine guns, flame throwers, high powered explosives, nor (as one commenter mentioned) do we have the right to own nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. No doubt if the 2nd amendment were taken literally as allowing any kinds of “arms,” then we, the public, would also have the right to own these terrifically powerful weapons. In that light, may I suggest that restricting high power guns and high capacity clips, is not unconstitutional when used as a measure to keep the lethal power of certain weapons out of our private arsenals!

    I do approve of less powerful guns with smaller clip capacities—being the right and necessity for many people to own in regards to their own self-protection. In that sense They provide for our useful needs as part of personal self defense, but not for unlimited firepower to accomplish that goal.

    I agree that gun rights advocates are not inherently bad people any more than any of us are! They care about the safety and well being of their families and friends (including elementary school children) just as much as others do—only differing in the best ways to provide them with protection. However, in light of the frequency of mass shootings and the predominant use of assault weapons in them, it only makes sense to keep some of these weapons out of our hands, and therefore, completely unavailable to the mentally ill! The time has come when the old talking points do not really add up. I sincerely hope we never lose interest in changing gun laws for any of the reasons mentioned in this post!

  20. Before the post and the thread go “below the fold”:

    Bravo, petew. Probably your best: well-researched, well-thought-out, pertinent, balanced and — above all — common sense.

    Thank you

  21. “large number of the weapons used in these travesties, are either unregistered, obtained illegally
    What can be done about trafficking across the southern border? The fight against drug trafficking has been difficult. Anyone who wants drugs can get drugs. Would it be any different with banned weapons?

  22. The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though they may be advised with by the legislative councils. The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act, though by the joint act of two of its branches the judges may be removed from their offices, and though one of its branches is possessed of the judicial power in the last resort.

    – James Madison, Federalist 47, January 30, 1788.

  23. Thanks petew for your great point-by-point overview of the current problem and some possible future solutions in regards to these weapons of mass distruction.

    I believe you, as well as other posters, have mentioned that a gun may be re-named, or altered slightly so that it evades specific prohibition from the market.
    .
    [...]
    .
    I believe other comenters have suggested government buy back offers over several years, which if not obeyed, would result in fines. This is a practice that has worked in several other areas and seems quite rational.

    Once these weapons are made illegal they ought to treat offenders the same way they treat drug offenses or other illegal activities… i.e. penalty’s for manufacturers, wholesalers, and dealers would be severe and automatic while first offense ‘users’ face only a fine and confiscation of course. Second, third, fourth, etc offenses progressively more severe.

    I also believe that these “fine and confiscation of course” steps should only come after a reasonable grace period in which the owners are given time to turn in these weapons and high capacity magazines in some sort of buy back program.

    The MAIN reason the ban didn’t work last time is because they allowed existing weapons to be exempt.

  24. zusai says: What can be done about trafficking across the southern border? The fight against drug trafficking has been difficult. Anyone who wants drugs can get drugs. Would it be any different with banned weapons?

    As one who lives 5 miles from the Mexican Border and who’s local paper covers just about every Border Patrol incident I think you overstate the border problem in regards to weapon smuggling… The weapons are going the other direction.

    Northbound smuggling consists primarily of drugs – A backpack of cocaine is considerably more valuable (and less bulky) than a couple of AR -15 and the smugglers are in it for the money.

  25. Steve, The border is porous with the direction of trafficking a function of supply and demand. Based on history, a ban creates a void that is filled by illegal means. I don’t see a barrier preventing criminals to continue to source banned weapons from across the border just like how the Mexican criminals are sourcing them now from us despite the Mexican laws. It would be nice if a ban had the effect of keeping these weapons out of the hands of criminals as well.

  26. zusai, I think your concerns about to US / Mexico border smuggling is meant to throw this thread off track… Why would a smuggler consider smuggling an 8 pound AR-15 when 8 pounds of cocaine is worth $216,000.00 wholesale.

    What do you think about about petew’s last in-depth comment?

  27. there are many ways that the gun industry, with the help of lobbyists, eventually gets around those regulations.

    That’s one way to spin it. Another way to look at it is that since the previous ban was based almost entirely on cosmetics, as is the one they are pushing now, it’s no surprise that guns with the same actual firing characteristics were legal. Trying to blame the gun industry for , well making guns, is a bit much.

    To me it only makes sense that these weapons should be taken completely out of circulation–even it it takes several decades for them to be removed from the hands of private owners. I believe other comenters have suggested government buy back offers over several years, which if not obeyed, would result in fines. This is a practice that has worked in several other areas and seems quite rational.

    Thank god that a strong majority of Americans don’t agree with you and the 2nd protect my rights even if that wasn’t the case. And by the way buy backs have never been “successful” You get guns that don’t work, don’t and wouldn’t get used, that would have no effect on violence and crime. It’s bs feel good politics. Mind you it’s fine if you want to have one. it’s voluntary so knock yourself out, but it doesn’t remove guns that are likely to be used. The only way to count them as successful is if you guns in and of themselves as bad and that kind on personification of inanimate object is beyond me.

    And, amazingly, after all of these years we still permit assault weapons to be purchased without sufficient IDs or background checks when paid for in cash at gun shows.

    This drives me nuts. We have had many comments on here, quite a few from me, but even some fro pro control commenters, about there not being any “gun show loophole” but people insist on repeating bad info anyway. There is no exemption in Fed law for gun shows. No licensed dealer, as a dealer, can sell any firearms without a background check and cash has nothing to do with nothing. In most jurisdictions you can have private transactions of fire arms at gun shows but have always had the right to sell guns without any any checks. There is no loophole it’s just that few areas bother to add restrictions on private party transactions at gun shows.

    We also fail to allow government tracking of the weapons in circulation, even though we require registration documentation, driver’s licenses, License plate renewals and (in most states) sufficient liability insurance

    Well There are several things I could say but lets just go with one. Which of those things are required by the feds? Oops none right? Registrations of firearms has already been called a violation of the 10th by the courts.

    Although many gun regulations do not provably reduce crimes, because of the flaws present in many statistical studies, this only begs the conclusions that, many of those studies are far from being accurate.

    Wait a second, because the studies don’t show what you believe they should then it’s the studies that are flawed? Wow.

    I suggest that restricting high power guns and high capacity clips, is not unconstitutional when used as a measure to keep the lethal power of certain weapons out of our private arsenals!

    But these high powered guns aren’t, for the most part, high powered I mean. Most hunting rifles have more power. Many use similar actions and the mechanics of the guns are similar. Not to mention that if the 2nd means anything it must protect the right to own guns that, well, can effectively kill people.

    I would say you may want to look at sources other than gun control websites when you research an issue. Because for all that research you make arguments that sound good but are rather hollow.

Submit a Comment