Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

White House to Push Gun Control

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:02 PM
Original message
White House to Push Gun Control
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html


White House to Push Gun Control
Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his State of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.


We are going to get our asses handed to us in 2012
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Man, they really do want Palin as President in '12 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. naw
I think the RNC wants to keep Obama right where he is, but gain both houses of congress, just like they did with Clinton. It's win win for them, a compliant Democratic prez they can blame for the next 20 years after they finish royally fucking everything up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. White House to Push Republican victory in 2012.
Fixed it for ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. and there it goes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. Obama could press for an improvement of the NICS background system ...
to better identify those with severe mental problems and prohibit the sale of firearms to those individuals.

This would be a logical and effective approach to stopping incidents such as the Arizona shooting and the Virginia Tech massacre.

He probably will also push for a return to limited the size of a magazine to 10 rounds. This will immediately lead to a stockpiling of such magazines before the law takes effect. A "feel good" law such as this often does more harm than good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kudzu22 Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Sounds good but
to do it you'd have to force everyone to submit to mental evaluations before they can buy a gun. I can imagine how much of a backlash that would bring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Everything is in place already ...
No mental exam for everybody. The states just have to input the names of people they have already found to have serious mental problems. This was supposed to be done after the Virginia Tech shooting, but many states are far behind.

Of course, Jared Loughner had never been officially determined to have a mental problem. He waved red flags but no one followed up. Perhaps Obama will suggest improvements to our mental heath care system to make it more proactive.

As far as the NICS background check, even the Brady Campaign supports the idea.


POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports strengthening the Brady background check system to make it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to buy firearms. The Brady Campaign supported the NICS Inprovement Act of 2007, which provides for financial assistance to aid states in sending records to the National Instant Check System (NICS).


PROBLEM: Many states fail to supply complete records of prohibited gun buyers to the national Brady background check system or the Brady Law's National Instant Check System. That means many felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into a gun store and buy firearms without being stopped.

The Brady Law, which mandates that federally licensed firearms dealers do background checks on prospective gun purchasers, has prevented over 1.9 million prohibited persons from buying guns. However, a background check is only as good as the records it can search. Unfortunately, many prohibited persons are not blocked from buying guns because their records are not in the NICS, including about 80-90% of individuals with disqualifying mental health records, and one-fourth of those with felony convictions. Ten states do not provide any relevant domestic violence records that indicate prohibited purchasers.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/nics


You can check on how your state is doing to input names at this link:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/2011-01-05_Overview_State_Records_of_Mental_Prohibitors.pdf








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kudzu22 Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. The Catch-22 here is that
A) Someone needs to define "serious mental problems". To some people, the desire to own a gun is a sign of a serious mental problem.

B) If getting help for your mental problems means you lose your guns forever, it will deter people from seeking help -- probably the ones who need it the most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. Push for NICS access to medical mental health records?
You'll have both the NRA and the ACLU on your ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
22.  The only problem with that is that the
anti-gun people believe that even to want to TOUCH a firearm is a sign of mental problems!!!!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. Another possibility
is the he will push for the approval of the BATFE's new scheme to get FFLs to report multiple long gun purchases in the South West
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
7. I hear a dog whistle for AWB & the gun show issue..

"But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check."

Not sure if that's Newsweek's editorializing or something from the administration, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I must be a dog
'cause I heard that one loud and clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. That "mentally unstable people . . . alleged" is a clear violation of the due process right. Is it
not then morally correct that anyone who is alleged by an anonymous source to oppose any unalienable right should them self be declared by government as mentally unstable and have all their rights prohibited without due process?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. The more I read that, it appears as Newsweek editorializing..
There's no way a con law scholar would propose it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Agree but some of our proposed laws won't pass a "con law scholar" review. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
8. Gun & Ammo sales are going to go through the roof again. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Then the buyer have to pawn them when the rent is due
Can't shoot your way back into an apartment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Try harder dude
that wasn't even funny
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. It should go without saying that it is mostly people with income who are buying...
I will have to pick up some if the bill clears committee. Magazines are consumables, after all (well, except for AK magazines, which last forever).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #17
25. You're going to buy a bunch of armament magazines now?
You really don't know how to manage money. Do you need a dozen of these for the firing range? Or are you going to speculate in them so that you can sell them if they are banned? A sale that would be "outside the law".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. They are consumables.
Unlike a FUDD who takes his rifle out of the gun cabinet once a year to sight in / hunt, those of us who carry frequently also go to the range to keep our skills sharp.

Many owners of these handguns are also competitors in sanctioned events that occur fairly regularly.

If you wish to have magazines appropriate for these events, and legislation is being proposed to limit them to only stocks that you already own, would it not make sense to purchase more before the cut-off?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. If you've ever been to a gun range, having a dozen loaded
magazines cuts down on reload time (You're paying to shoot, not reload) and it saves wear and tear on your fingers.

Besides, I don't need someone to ask me why I "need" something, it's up to them to show me why I don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. First, what's an "armament magazine"? I am going to purchase ordinary civilian factory mags.
Edited on Fri Jan-28-11 11:23 AM by benEzra
if this clears committee. Ordinary, mundane, non-extended, flush-fitting factory magazines for one of the most popular civilian pistols in the United States, magazines like those owned by civilians for the last 75 years. Plus a few spares for my competition/HD carbine.

Yes, I will need a dozen magazines for the range over the next 40 years. More than a dozen, actually. See, magazines for most guns (AK's excepted) wear out over time, like the tires on your car, IF you shoot a lot. McCarthy et al are saying that if we want to continue shooting our guns, we need to stock up on spares now, because if she gets her way she won't allow us to legally purchase them for the rest of our lives. No, I can't afford to buy enough to speculate; I can hardly afford enough to hedge (my primary financial priority is providing for a family with a special-needs kid).

If a fundamentalist zealot politician told you that you'd never be able to buy spark plugs for your car or tires for your bicycle for the fucking rest of your life, you think you might buy a couple of spare sets?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
15. NEWSWEEK misspoke
They called the Brady Campaign a "gun-safety" group, not a "gun-control" group. They really need to work on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. How many gun safety workshops has Helmke run?
Or is Hennigan that runs them? Silly me. I'm always so confused as to which Brady people actually teach gun safety.

I wonder how many classes they conduct each year to help keep people safe and teach police departments about safe gun handling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. if gun control groups teach gun safety and fewer people die from gun accidents or violent crime
then gun control groups get less donations. This is why the honest people left the gun control groups a long time ago and now only those willing to ... remain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. Silly, "safety" is the new "control"! Didn't you get the memo?
You're so Pete Shields, you are. *tsk*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
27. I'm all for prohibitionists of all stripes shooting themselves in the foot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. I'm not I would rather our party maginalize them preferably BEFORE another giant loss like 1996
Sadly hindsight is 20/20 and if this does happen Democratic leaders will flee from gun control AFTER the damage is done, just like they did in 1996. Seems they can't go two decades without making the same mistake again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. I stand by my previous statement.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 23rd 2024, 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC