Presidential Study on Gun Control

Looks like I'll be buying my hi cap pistol this weekend.

They withheld the report. Had it been released before the 2010 elections the results may have been worse for the Democrats.

On top of this he wants this issue for 2012.

Despite the last few years of polling, and the failure of the media to revive the issue last month, Sweetness and Light thinks he can single handedly bring it back to life.

This ain't the early nineties, and he ain't Bubba. Bring it.

So, basically Clinton's 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and a repeal of the Tiahart Amendment. Yeah, I address that here.

I don't see why Obama would want to waste any political capital (as if he has any to spare) on a third rail issue like gun control. It's a losing proposition and as time goes by, I become more and more convinced that gun grabbing is not the answer to our problems. I am also not convinced that the "anything goes" attitude espoused by the NRA (especially in Florida) is the answer either, but that's not exactly what we're talking about here. I've lived in a strict gun control area where law abiding citizens have to register their guns and keep them under lock and key and pay heavy registration fees. It turns out the outlaws have got all the friggin' guns and they're using them. There are aspects of American gun culture that make me queasy and I don't think giving everybody a gun is the answer to crime. However, I have now lived long enough and seen enough that the facts as I've seen them have convinced me that trying to drastically reduce legal gun ownership is a time and money wasting idea...sorta like banning alcohol or pot. Of course as those two examples show just because they are bad ideas doesn't mean the government won't pursue them.

"Skin that smokewagon and see what happens!"

I tend to agree. Gun control has become a BIG loser for the Democrats, so they're in no hurry to go there. I aim to do what I can to keep it that way and, if possible, to make the situation even more--pardon the pun--bulletproof for law-abiding gunowners by supporting pro-gun candidates and donating to gun rights political organizations.

I think Obama would be stupid to go that route. Very few people, even here, would say the man is stupid. Other adjectives might apply, but probably not that one.

I agree. I expect we won't see any substantive gun control effort by Obama unless he attains a second term, perhaps not even then.

In the meantime, gun rights advocates are going to steadily attack and roll back all or most of the un-Constitutional gun control that's been built up over the years.

I don't even worry about gun control anymore, for reasons I've stated often and elsewhere.

It's a question of perception, as is the case with so much in politics. The point of political agendas is not so much to set up a workable society as it is to give people the impression that you are doing something for them, so that they will vote for you.

Many people have let themselves become convinced that easy gun ownership is the root of crime (look at the reactions to the shooting last month), and those people tend very heavily to vote Democrat. For Democrats not to do something about gun control is like Republicans with run-away budgets: You alienate your own support base by failing on one of the prime issues for which they supported you in the first place.

Obama may be one of the worst presidents in history (I'm being kind by saying "one of") but he's no idiot. He has a tremendous ego that means he has to stay in power, but he knows the public has turned against him to a great extent. So he needs to "go with what works." Gun control will not reduce crime at all, but the voting base to which he is appealing will pay more attention to laws against "teh evil guns!" than to actual crime statistics.

IOW, he is (as usual) campaigning rather than governing. He doesn't know how to govern, but he sure knows how to campaign.

I don't buy it. While your passing judgments from across the pond, my feeling from actually being here is that there's no real passion on the democratic/liberal side for a serious run at any kind of gun restrictions, let alone outright gun grabbing. Nothing would mobilize the right wing, tea party crowd more quickly. The biggest drivers are police and their political cronies like Mayor Bloomberg of New York. I don't discern any grassroots support at all.

Allow me to introduce you to Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Daley...

It's weaker than it used to be, but there is still a lot of support for the gun control agenda.

How many of them do you think ever believed it to begin with? Skin doubts any of them did, but rather were merely hoping to swing the uninformed and undecided.

Whatever else I might say about the protests in Egypt, they are having an effect on their government armed with rocks.

I don't have any rocks to throw.

Three gun related homicides per 100K? That's about my county.
Now across the tracks, it's about fifteen per 100K.

Georgia has very lax gun laws, but truth be told many of these are drug/gang related: that is the victims knew (directly or indirectly) their attackers and were armed themselves - but the shooter got the jump on them or ambushed them.

Rarely do the shooters target "plain folks" unless it's an armed robbery, in which case they don't want to shoot unles the robbery goes FUBAR.

Now armed clerks/homeowners shooting armed robbers is quite common in Georgia - but these are not homicides, because they are self defense.

Gee, a gun control study by a democratic administration that says we need more gun control? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

I wonder if he'll put this study up on his campaign website, and then remove it and act like it never existed - the same way he did with his "Urban Policy" page in the last campaign.

And I wonder if liberals will play stupid and deny the pages existance... like they did in the last campaign?

I don't get why there is even a discussion about this.

Where's the ambiguity? How can anyone familiar with the Constitution even start a conversation about regulation -pro or con- without first obtaining an amendment that permits infringement?

What am I missing (all I can see is the blatant unconstitutional behavior on the part of irresponsible legislators)?

Side note: I've never owned a gun, though I *did* learn to read a while back (that pistol in my av is borrowed).

What would be necessary for gun control advocates to achieve an amendment to the constitution in line with their views?

If you dislike Obama going in this is going to just fuel the hatred. (Hope your not saying Obama is the first and only narcissist we've had in the White House. Our system as it stands today makes that a prerequisite) Also if you're laying awake at night because you're convinced gun grabbers are hiding in your closing waiting to take the gun from under your pillow this will fuel that fire. I'm not saying either feeling is wrong, just exaggerating to make a point. Gun rights supporters do not trust Obama, will never trust Obama and anything that he says that falls short of a call to everyone to go armed and allow open carry is going to be seen as advancing his gun grabbing agenda. The gun grabbing agenda is about like the anti abortion agenda for the opportunistic candidates looking to stir up their base. They might generate some tough talk, but when the chips are down, they're both losing issues and never go anywhere. They're just posturing for effect.

Florida hasn't gone to hell despite loosening gun carrying and self defense laws, even though there was much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. What's really unfortunate is that in Florida no one can discuss even the most innocuous mefasures that might work for the public good without being labeled a gun grabber. If I was a candidate gun control would be so far off my radar screen I wouldn't even discuss it. If someone asked me, I would say "It's a non issue, I'm not going to Tallahassee to waste my time and your time trying to pass legislation that has no chance and probably wouldn't do any good. Next question"

Article 5:
To Propose Amendments
•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
•Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (never used, yet)

To Ratify Amendments
•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. (used only once, to ratify the 21st Amendment (which repealed Prohibition))


So to sum up:
Bill must pass both houses of Congress, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. Then the proposed Amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states.

And it's worth noting that there are two amendments floating around out there that are still waiting on ratification. Article on those two and a few other failed amendments.

I like you, man. For a poster that is more to the left, you make good points seem to be a pretty decent person.

But when people say things like that, it literally gives me hives. (OK, not literally hives, but it does provoke an actual physical reaction.)

A solid majority in both houses of Congress to vote the ammendment, then three-quarters of the states to approve it.

Ain't gonna happen.

It makes me angry. The reason no one can do that without being labeled a gun grabber is that history has proven time and time again that without staunch resistance gun control leads to gun banning.

In every area of liberty, the status quo never just magically "sticks around." We have always either gained rights, or lost rights. Arms follow this pattern to the letter; any deviation from it is simply the pattern magnified.

You wanna talk about "protecting the public?" Then let's protect the public. Let's restore shooting clubs to our schools to teach children responsible handling of weapons and a healthy respect for the destructive power of guns - power that can be used for good. Not just evil, the way the leftists portray them.

Let's establish a system in which if someone is legally justified in defending themselves, they don't have to worry about lawsuits from the family of a person they shoot in self-defense.

Let's encourage citizens to stand toe to toe with thugs - literally making every citizen a beacon of light in dark surroundings and an agent of change from fear to confidence.

But ban guns? Come on man.

Usually, my attitude towards the State of Alabama is mild contempt followed by a lot of head shaking. But, occasionally, they get something right.