is there room for compromise on gun control?https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psych-unseen/201510/the-psychology-...
Of course, we must blame the law abiding citizens who legally own guns. That's like blaming the account holders of the bank that has just been robbed.
2
Make no mistake, making gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of citizens will end the manufacturing of guns in America and likely the sale of new guns too. Hate it or love it, this would be the end result. And it ain't likely to happen. Let's focus on achievable improvements such as background checks, limiting magazine capacity and funding mental healthcare.
1
More liberal lies that the low information voter will fall for. 100% of commercial gun sales require a background check. Even if they are at gun shows. Also all gun sales across state lines are required to go though a FFL dealer even is the sale is done over the internet. Common sense would say it is time to ban 'gun free zones' No law abiding person has ever been helped by having their guns controlled.
4
I’ve been proposing Responsible Gun Ownership – LICENSING for gun owners, REGISTRATION of all guns, mandatory liability INSURANCE for all gun owners, PERMIT required for ammo purchases (or for making your own ammo). Also, a ten year ban for those convicted of assault or domestic abuse, closing gun show loopholes, felony charges for possession of high capacity magazines.
It would be a start.
It would be a start.
5
"(back ground checks) are not required at gun shows or over the Internet with private sellers." I have purchased several guns at a gun show, each vendor there required that I pass a background check before they gave me the gun even though they were right next to each other and had watched me pass already. Any internet purchase that involves shipping the firearm will require a background check or an FFL. Anything else and your just setting up a meeting to do the actual sale.
Also, making "anyone selling a substantial number of guns declared in the business of firearms dealing..." is not a radical use of power but a simply restating of the law as it CURRENTLY stands. In other words if I start turning out $20 pipe shotguns and selling them for $50 I am engaged in work as a dealer (also manufacturer, but that's another license). That is how the law works right now. But I suppose pointing out Mrs. Clinton's ineptitude is criticism so the author of the article is technically correct.
Sure blame the gun rights activists for your background check system for not working. Because bureaucratic ineptitude is the fault of those who criticize it.
Also, making "anyone selling a substantial number of guns declared in the business of firearms dealing..." is not a radical use of power but a simply restating of the law as it CURRENTLY stands. In other words if I start turning out $20 pipe shotguns and selling them for $50 I am engaged in work as a dealer (also manufacturer, but that's another license). That is how the law works right now. But I suppose pointing out Mrs. Clinton's ineptitude is criticism so the author of the article is technically correct.
Sure blame the gun rights activists for your background check system for not working. Because bureaucratic ineptitude is the fault of those who criticize it.
3
"gunman’s mother sometimes confided the difficulties she had in raising her son, including that she had placed Mr. Harper-Mercer in a psychiatric hospital when he did not take his medication."
And yet... Momma thought it was A-OK for him to have guns.
ARE! YOU! KIDDING! ME!!!!
Clinton & Obama have the temerity to suggest this tragedy is a motivation for more restrictions on law-abiding, SANE, gun owners ?!?!!
The parents of this guy failed our society. They failed to inform local sheriffs that THEIR KID SHOULD NEVER OWN A GUN.
And yet... Momma thought it was A-OK for him to have guns.
ARE! YOU! KIDDING! ME!!!!
Clinton & Obama have the temerity to suggest this tragedy is a motivation for more restrictions on law-abiding, SANE, gun owners ?!?!!
The parents of this guy failed our society. They failed to inform local sheriffs that THEIR KID SHOULD NEVER OWN A GUN.
2
An Executive Order to single handedly violate the US Constitution??? You must give this career politician an A for effort. Too bad she does not understand, or care, how our government is supposed to work!
That is in addition to the fact the steps she wants to take have been proven to have no impact on crime rates.
That is in addition to the fact the steps she wants to take have been proven to have no impact on crime rates.
1
Anyone thoughtfully addressing this problem has to address the fact that there are over 300 million guns already in circulation. Confiscation is a ridiculous idea, so what do we do about those ??
Also, in both the Sandy Hook and Oregon shootings, the mother of the shooter played a prominent role in obtaining the weapons and the familiarity their children had with guns. Any ideas on that ??
Also, in both the Sandy Hook and Oregon shootings, the mother of the shooter played a prominent role in obtaining the weapons and the familiarity their children had with guns. Any ideas on that ??
1
A huge shift has started and Hooray for the Democrats for finally breaking loose of their fear of the NRA. Mrs. Clinton's promise to issue an executive order to treat anyone selling lots of guns as "in the business of firearms dealing" (thus closing the gun-show loophole) will prod President Obama to do that very soon, perhaps this Friday on his visit to Roseburg, Oregon. The public has had enough and it's only a matter of time before the GOP starts to beat a retreat, as many have begun to do on climate change and gay rights. Hooray for democracy!
1
I wasn't sure about Hillary because she didn't seem genuine but, I like her much more now that she is making strong statements about this issue. It's about time. Gun law need reform. Semiautomatic guns should not be allowed to be sold so easily.
4
The Oregon shooter was a self-identified "conservative Republican", identified with white supremacism and had a gun fetish. AGAIN.
Enough said.
Enough said.
4
A "white supremacist" whose mother was black. He's as African American as Obama. Maybe he's a "half=white supremacist."
3
Evidence please.
Amend the 2nd Amendment to allow sensible regulation of guns, like in nearly every other civilized country (with rates of gun violence a fraction of those in America). Enough of this cowardly posturing and cowering before the NRA and the gun merchants.
6
This all pretty simple, and Mrs. Clinton's proposed margin measures won't even begin to make a dent in the problem.
The outlines of a plan are obvious:
1) Ban all assault weapons.
2) Ban any semiautomatic weapons.
3) Ban hand guns.
4) Have stringent and strict controls on all hunting guns.
5) A no questions asked national gun buyback program.
Do that and the gun violence would disappear.
Closing "loopholes?" You might as well resign yourself to more of the same. Which is exactly what she is doing with her "proposal."
The outlines of a plan are obvious:
1) Ban all assault weapons.
2) Ban any semiautomatic weapons.
3) Ban hand guns.
4) Have stringent and strict controls on all hunting guns.
5) A no questions asked national gun buyback program.
Do that and the gun violence would disappear.
Closing "loopholes?" You might as well resign yourself to more of the same. Which is exactly what she is doing with her "proposal."
4
Stop with the executive actions. If you don't like the Second Amendment, all you need to do is amend it out of the Constitution. If that's politically impossible, then there is your answer.
4
Disrupting the privacy rights of mentally and emotionally ill persons will do nothing to end gun violence. Only more bans on owning guns which involve actually turning in those already in possession of gun fans will help. We must make a deep cultural change which reflects the values of the two thirds of Americans who don't own guns.
2
Cynthia, the inconvenient fact is that our Constitutional right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry firearms in more places since the year 1900. Yet, all homicides with firearms have been decreasing since 2006, and all violent crime has been decreasing since 1992. Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010, and 4.7 per 100,000 in 2011 and 2012, and 4.5 in 2013.
According to the Pew Research Center Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since its 1993 Peak
In addition, two recent studies found that firearms homicides have dropped 49% since 1993.
According to the USDOJ: Homicide rates today are as low as they were in the 1960s.
According to the Pew Research Center, non-fatal violent firearms crimes are down as well, and all non-fatal violent crimes are down as well.
We don’t need any further restrictions on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
According to the Pew Research Center Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since its 1993 Peak
In addition, two recent studies found that firearms homicides have dropped 49% since 1993.
According to the USDOJ: Homicide rates today are as low as they were in the 1960s.
According to the Pew Research Center, non-fatal violent firearms crimes are down as well, and all non-fatal violent crimes are down as well.
We don’t need any further restrictions on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
4
A law banning guns will never, repeat never, be enacted in this country. Period. If you want to observe civil disobedience first hand tell gun owners they must surrender their guns. Remember 13 years of Prohibition?. Same idea, different product. And forget Britain or Australia as examples. They are "subjects" of their governments, we are "citizens". There's a world of difference.
6
We must make a deep cultural change which reflects the values of the two thirds of Americans who don't own guns.
++++++++++++++++++
Actually, at least 42% of Americans own guns
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
++++++++++++++++++
Actually, at least 42% of Americans own guns
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
1
the left is their own worst enemy in this debate. they like to put it all on the republicans -and to an extent they have a point- but the problem is the left is making a purely emotional appeal and doing so rather sloppily too. when you break down the gun control crowd, you have maybe half that really think this or that law will make a difference, but the rest will constantly push for more because, regardless if they admit it or not, they just don't like guns period. the president's speech the other night was the embodiment of the mistakes made in this fight. hillary says "here's what the other side counts on", but what she says next is wrong. what they count on is for the democrats to shoot themselves in the foot, and they're more than willing to do.
1
"But under federal law, they are not required [...] over the Internet with private sellers."
This is incorrect. You can buy a gun from a private seller online, but it is a federal crime to ship one to someone who doesn't hold a federal firearms license, ie a registered gun dealer. To receive the firearm from said gun dealer, you will have to submit to a background check.
I hear this mentioned all the time, like people are buying guns no-questions-asked off eBay or something. That is not the case.
This is incorrect. You can buy a gun from a private seller online, but it is a federal crime to ship one to someone who doesn't hold a federal firearms license, ie a registered gun dealer. To receive the firearm from said gun dealer, you will have to submit to a background check.
I hear this mentioned all the time, like people are buying guns no-questions-asked off eBay or something. That is not the case.
4
The president can also issue an executive order prohibiting the use of federal dollars to purchase weapons from any gun manufacturer which doesn't put safety devices on its guns and which doesn't insist that all those who sell their guns conduct rigorous background checks. Imagine how many guns are purchased using federal funds -- FBI, DEA, US Military, state and local police departments, etc. etc. -- that's a lot of guns and gives the president a great deal of leverage.
2
Safety devices? How is that to stop a determined person who knows how to use the inanimate piece of hardware?
Background checks? REALLY??? Not only are these required today, but Oregon requires them on essentially 100% of all gun transfers!
How about the Feds actually enforcing the law by bringing charges against those who are banned from possessing a gun yet try to purchase gun at the present rate of around 1%???
Background checks? REALLY??? Not only are these required today, but Oregon requires them on essentially 100% of all gun transfers!
How about the Feds actually enforcing the law by bringing charges against those who are banned from possessing a gun yet try to purchase gun at the present rate of around 1%???
1
This really isn't a winning issue for Mrs. Clinton. The NRA is more popular than she is.
Favorable/Unfavorable
NRA - 43%/32%
Hillary - 37%/48%
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/how-public-views-planned-parenthoo...
Favorable/Unfavorable
NRA - 43%/32%
Hillary - 37%/48%
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/how-public-views-planned-parenthoo...
3
If Hillary is hoping to get people more motivated who only consider her a least worst option with a chance, it's working for me. This is the first thing she has done in quite a while that has seemed principled and risky in a good way.
4
Hilary is on the right path with Executive action to control guns. Yet, virtually everyone -- including those who support the strictest gun controls -- tends to say that the right to the uncontrolled ownership of guns is a fundamental constitutional right and that any restriction on that right must come from a law passed by Congress, which is inhibited by the NRA's political clout. But the actual text written on the pages of the Constitution proves that virtually everyone is wrong on both counts. Take the time to read the actual text of the Second Amendment and the actual text of Article II, Section 2 and you will see that Hilary is absolutely on the right course because the text does in fact give the president, as Commander in Chief of the militia, the power and responsibility to manage and control the purchase, storage and use of all arms in the United States -- because such management is "necessary to the security of a free state," and vital to "a well regulated militia." In order to make that stick we as a people will have to take the time and focus to read BOTH the text of the Second Amendment and the text of Article II, Section 2 and connect the dots. Just because the Scalia led Supreme Court majority and the NRA intimidated Congress refuse to connect those dots does not mean we the people have to stand sheepishly by while thousands more of our most vulnerable people die from unchecked gun violence. We can and must connect those dots just as Hilary has begun to do!
5
“Take the time to read the actual text of the Second Amendment and the actual text of Article II, Section 2 and you will see that Hilary is absolutely on the right course because the text does in fact give the president, as Commander in Chief of the militia…”
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
“…the power and responsibility to manage and control the purchase, storage and use of all arms in the United States -- because such management is "necessary to the security of a free state," and vital to "a well regulated militia.””
It makes no reference to “The power and responsibility to manage and control the purchase, storage and use of all arms in the United States” by the militia. Congress has jurisdiction over the militia until they are called into service by Congress.
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
“…the power and responsibility to manage and control the purchase, storage and use of all arms in the United States -- because such management is "necessary to the security of a free state," and vital to "a well regulated militia.””
It makes no reference to “The power and responsibility to manage and control the purchase, storage and use of all arms in the United States” by the militia. Congress has jurisdiction over the militia until they are called into service by Congress.
2
I hate to tell you this, but there is not "uncontrolled" ownership of guns in the US. Firearms are heavily regulated at the federal, state and local level. Where are the most dangerous places in American, in leftist controlled cities that have tried to ban all weapons, Chicago being a prime example. Criminals don't purchase guns legally, they are going to participate in buy backs and they aren't going to submit to background checks.
6
First off the militia in view is now the national Guard. Each state controls their state National Guard units. When the president federalizes the guard unit he then has control. Nothing there gives him any control of arms and ammunition so long as the militia and the National Guard are not under direct control of the federal government. It is the governors who control the Guard otherwise.
The militia is citizens of the United States who traditionally provided their own arms and ammunition. The Dick Act of 1903 defines it and who is a member.
The militia is citizens of the United States who traditionally provided their own arms and ammunition. The Dick Act of 1903 defines it and who is a member.
“Mrs. Clinton will suggest urging Congress to end another loophole, by which people with felony records who should be barred from obtaining a gun can get one if their background check is not completed within three days.”
When the National Instant Check System first passed there was only one phone line into the system, and it was always busy. Thus, it was a de facto gun ban. When Congress made it law that if a background could not be completed in three days than the transaction would be completed. All of a sudden, it was easy for firearms dealers to reach the system and complete transactions. Hilary Clinton and other citizen disarmament zealots. their organizations, their media allies, and their apologists would love to see a return of the nation gun ban loophole.
When the National Instant Check System first passed there was only one phone line into the system, and it was always busy. Thus, it was a de facto gun ban. When Congress made it law that if a background could not be completed in three days than the transaction would be completed. All of a sudden, it was easy for firearms dealers to reach the system and complete transactions. Hilary Clinton and other citizen disarmament zealots. their organizations, their media allies, and their apologists would love to see a return of the nation gun ban loophole.
2
Gun violence is an epidemic in our nation. The American people deserve to know what actions the next President of the United States will take to make our communities safer.
Earlier today, Hillary Clinton released her comprehensive plan for reducing gun violence in the US. Commonsense steps like closing loopholes that allow dangerous people to buy guns, keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, and cracking down on the illegal gun trade will save lives while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners.
We need to know where every presidential candidate stands.
Earlier today, Hillary Clinton released her comprehensive plan for reducing gun violence in the US. Commonsense steps like closing loopholes that allow dangerous people to buy guns, keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, and cracking down on the illegal gun trade will save lives while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners.
We need to know where every presidential candidate stands.
1
Gun violence is an epidemic in our nation.
============
Then why has it been declining for over 20 years?
And half of what it was in 1993?
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-sinc...
============
Then why has it been declining for over 20 years?
And half of what it was in 1993?
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-sinc...
1
Violence is a problem, guns are only an inanimate object. If guns are the problem, mine are all defective as they have never hurt anyone.
Sadly, that she even alludes to using executive action indicates Democrat contempt for Congress and the Constitutional responsibility for Congress to pass laws, rather than for the President to legislate by executive action. Congress's abdication of its power is to blame; they deserve to wallow in their irrelevance.
4
“But under federal law, they are not required at gun shows or over the Internet with private sellers.”
That is only half the truth. Private sellers at gun shows are not required to administer a background check, but licensed dealers are. I purchased a rifle at a gun show and had to submit to a background check.
“It was not immediately clear what the bar for being declared “in the business” would be.”
Any person who is “In the business” is required to have a Federal Firearms License. A person who decides to sell part of his/her collection is not considered “In the business.”
Of course, few criminals obtain their firearms from gun shows. Of all sources where criminals obtain firearms, they obtain them from gun shows the least often. This is certainly because criminals don’t want to be seen purchasing a firearm in public. Go to any gun show and you will see uniformed law enforcement all over either working as event security or shopping for themselves. Most gun show promoters give free admission to uniformed law enforcement officers. Criminals know this, and they avoid gun shows for fear of being recognized by a law enforcement officer.
According to DOJ, sources where criminals obtained firearms:
Street/illegal source 40.8%
Friends or family 33.8%
Retail store 14.7%
Pawnshop 4.2%
Flea market 1.3%
Gun Show 0.6%
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
That is only half the truth. Private sellers at gun shows are not required to administer a background check, but licensed dealers are. I purchased a rifle at a gun show and had to submit to a background check.
“It was not immediately clear what the bar for being declared “in the business” would be.”
Any person who is “In the business” is required to have a Federal Firearms License. A person who decides to sell part of his/her collection is not considered “In the business.”
Of course, few criminals obtain their firearms from gun shows. Of all sources where criminals obtain firearms, they obtain them from gun shows the least often. This is certainly because criminals don’t want to be seen purchasing a firearm in public. Go to any gun show and you will see uniformed law enforcement all over either working as event security or shopping for themselves. Most gun show promoters give free admission to uniformed law enforcement officers. Criminals know this, and they avoid gun shows for fear of being recognized by a law enforcement officer.
According to DOJ, sources where criminals obtained firearms:
Street/illegal source 40.8%
Friends or family 33.8%
Retail store 14.7%
Pawnshop 4.2%
Flea market 1.3%
Gun Show 0.6%
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
3
Hillary, the NYT, and other liberal elites fail to understand that the public des not necessarily believe strict gun laws will work. Look at Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore, and other big cities that have very restrictive gun laws. Honest law abiding citizens generally do not commit murders and kill others. Criminals and mentally disturbed people do.
5
if my house sits on a river bank and I am worried about flooding I will build a dike to protect my property. Now if my property is the only dike along the river this probably won't work very well as the water just flows in around the dike.
this is how the current gun laws are working now. All anyone has to do in places like Chicago is go out of state buy the gun and travel back to Chicago or have some one do it for them. Gun laws need to be national if they are going to work.
this is how the current gun laws are working now. All anyone has to do in places like Chicago is go out of state buy the gun and travel back to Chicago or have some one do it for them. Gun laws need to be national if they are going to work.
If they buy that gun from out of state they are buying it illegally from some street seller. Federal law requires a person to be a resident of the state of purchase. If they want to purchase the gun must be shipped by the seller to a gun seller in their own state who must have a Federal Firearm License. The local vendor who transfers the weapon to the buyer must also conduct a NICS check before turning over the weapon. If the local state requires a permit to purchase a firearm the the buyer must also present one as well. Permits are usually issued by the Sheriff of your county of residence who will take application and conduct the background search.
You know, there are books you can get that explain all the firearms laws of every state and the federal government. There's no need to make statements out of ignorance.
You know, there are books you can get that explain all the firearms laws of every state and the federal government. There's no need to make statements out of ignorance.
1
The NRA is like the Wizard of Oz when it comes to improved background checks. A huge majority of Americans, and even a majority of NRA members, favor improved background checks. You go Hillary, don't back down from these bullies who support murderers.
1
Sure, a majority of Anericans favor background checks on private sales. Most of them haven't thought about it. It won't stop criminals from getting guns. And those who support these things without giving it any thought are going to be the type who loan Uncle John a shotgun when he flies in for Thanksgiving, and be shocked when they both end up in jail.
1
the man who did the shootings last week was not a criminal when he bought the guns. Also the man who did the church shootings was a criminal (drugs) and with a better background check would not have been allowed to legally buy a gun.
1
NPR....The Last Thing Bernie Sanders Needs Right Now Is A Conversation About Guns.
Sanders may be to the left of Clinton on most things, but is to her right on guns.
It was inevitable this would affect the long campaign, since mass shootings keep recurring.
Sanders: “ I think that urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law-abiding people.”
So like the NRA says in effect, why should millions of law abiding gun owners sacrifice their rights just b/c of these evil mentally ill nuts running around? Thus...why should lawful rural people sacrifice for urban gun nuts? Same thing.
Somehow citizens in dozens of countries don’t regard gun bans as sacrifice. What IS the matter with these foreigners?
NPR says, after the SC church massacre Sanders tone was more muted than the other Dems.
Now, I'm thinking that this one issue just may be what catapults Hillary to the presidency. The repub radical nuts all oppose gun control. The Dem debates will sharpen this issue to a razor’s edge.
Otoh, Sanders on guns may play well in the general election.
Otoh, polls show most gun owners do want more gun control, including many NRA members.
Otoh, Sanders did vote for background checks and assault gun ban, BUT against a waiting period in Vermont. Complicated? Yes.
Truly universal h/c would be so apt for a gun crazy country with uninsured wounded in hospitals. We lack that and permit guns for all.
Sanders may be to the left of Clinton on most things, but is to her right on guns.
It was inevitable this would affect the long campaign, since mass shootings keep recurring.
Sanders: “ I think that urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law-abiding people.”
So like the NRA says in effect, why should millions of law abiding gun owners sacrifice their rights just b/c of these evil mentally ill nuts running around? Thus...why should lawful rural people sacrifice for urban gun nuts? Same thing.
Somehow citizens in dozens of countries don’t regard gun bans as sacrifice. What IS the matter with these foreigners?
NPR says, after the SC church massacre Sanders tone was more muted than the other Dems.
Now, I'm thinking that this one issue just may be what catapults Hillary to the presidency. The repub radical nuts all oppose gun control. The Dem debates will sharpen this issue to a razor’s edge.
Otoh, Sanders on guns may play well in the general election.
Otoh, polls show most gun owners do want more gun control, including many NRA members.
Otoh, Sanders did vote for background checks and assault gun ban, BUT against a waiting period in Vermont. Complicated? Yes.
Truly universal h/c would be so apt for a gun crazy country with uninsured wounded in hospitals. We lack that and permit guns for all.
Hillary Clinton announced her aggressive plan to tackle gun violence today. She would enact universal background checks and close the gun show and internet sales loophole that currently allow criminals to purchase firearms.
Under her plan, Clinton will advocate for comprehensive federal background check legislation, but if that fails, she has vowed to take administrative action to tighten the gun show and internet sales loophole. Her plan also calls for repealing a law which prevents victims of gun violence from suing gun manufacturers and pushing for legislation to prevent domestic abusers from buying guns.
Clinton’s proposals put her in stark contrast to her Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, who has faced scrutiny for his past support of a number of pro-gun positions. Sanders voted against the Brady Bill - legislation signed by President Bill Clinton that instituted federal background checks and a five-day waiting period for gun purchases - and has voted for other pro-gun legislation to appeal to voters in his gun-loving, rural state of Vermont.
Under her plan, Clinton will advocate for comprehensive federal background check legislation, but if that fails, she has vowed to take administrative action to tighten the gun show and internet sales loophole. Her plan also calls for repealing a law which prevents victims of gun violence from suing gun manufacturers and pushing for legislation to prevent domestic abusers from buying guns.
Clinton’s proposals put her in stark contrast to her Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, who has faced scrutiny for his past support of a number of pro-gun positions. Sanders voted against the Brady Bill - legislation signed by President Bill Clinton that instituted federal background checks and a five-day waiting period for gun purchases - and has voted for other pro-gun legislation to appeal to voters in his gun-loving, rural state of Vermont.
2
Wouldn't changing the law preventing suing of gun manufacturers also be used by persons to sue other manufacturers? I imagine a person could sue CUTCO if they get stabbed by someone. Or they could sue an automobile manufacturer if someone decides to drive down a sidewalk full of pedestrians. Sue Louisville Slugger if some hits you with a baseball bat. In addition, the manufacturers do not sell guns to end users. They sell to distributors who sell to gun dealers who then sell to the end user.
2
If there really are options for executive actions to bypass Congress on gun conrol, why hasn't the president used them already? Not that I approve of the idea, anyway. But are we to conclude that Hillary is making up some phantom option that doesn't exist (just to make a good speech), or do we conclude the president is lazy?
1
I vote "phantom option" to get to Sanders' left on an issue
2
"But are we to conclude that Hillary is making up some phantom option that doesn't exist (just to make a good speech),"
BINGO!!
BINGO!!
That college campus was a gun free zone. Even the security guards don't carry guns. If the shooter obeyed these gun-free zone laws, there wouldn't have been a shooting.
1
The campus itself was NOT a gun free zone. The college tried to get a round the rule making it illegal to bring a gun into a building. State law required them to have security in that case. The college employed one unarmed Rent A Cop per shift as "security".
Why doesn't someone focus on the "well regulated" language of the 2nd?
1
10 USC 311 defines the militia, of which there is a good chance you are part of, or were at one time.
Why believe anything she says? She's just like Mitt Romney who would say whatever his advisers and polls directed him to. HRC is no different. Can't she understand we all know she is a phony/
5
Mental illness has long been the raison-de- être for recurring trageties according to gun supporters . Pray tell me, how the most rotten apple can be picked out in a basket of bad or perhaps bad or about to go bad apples, especially when there is no money to undertake this tedious, difficult task? Rhetoric is one thing and reality another. So why not do the obvious? Take the guns out of the equation and any incidence or potential for carnage is avoided. Ask the Aussies, Brits and Canadians for the success of that common sense approach. But common sense is not common here. Besides, we have that archaic 2nd Amendment!
15
As a mental health professional, it is bothersome that the mentally ill get selected as a target when most mentally ill people are not prone to violence. And when they become violent, it is most often toward themselves. We all have mental health issues at one point in our lives and that does not make us dangerous to anyone.
I would love for Hillary Clinton to just say "MORE GUNS = MORE HOMICIDES. PERIOD." And PLEASE!!! Mrs. Clinton, use your lawyerese to debate the gun lobbyists' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
1
And yet, it would appear (without doing a statistical study) that a significant number of perpetrators in incidents like this exhibited mental health problems before. So there may be a connection. Considering that lives are at stake shouldn't this potential connection be studied and perhaps acted upon?
Is it unreasonable for people to be concerned about the possibility?
Is it unreasonable for people to be concerned about the possibility?
This is just another pitch to get votes. I do not believe a word she says. She cannot be trusted !!!
7
We need to have a national dialogue that leads to positive legislative action, rather than immediately descend into hardened stances of "left" and "right".
I see far more good ideas on this message board today than I've heard come out of Washington in years... ideas clearly coming both from people who are concerned that their 2nd amendment rights are very important and those who may never have owned a gun.
We need to demand that our legislators dialogue the same way, hash out the issues, find out what ALL their constituents (not just their donors) want, attempt to understand what the Constitution and Bill of Rights mean ... and the TAKE ACTION to make it more difficult for the mentally ill and people with a history of violence to obtain weapons ... without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
Why does that have to be so difficult?
I see far more good ideas on this message board today than I've heard come out of Washington in years... ideas clearly coming both from people who are concerned that their 2nd amendment rights are very important and those who may never have owned a gun.
We need to demand that our legislators dialogue the same way, hash out the issues, find out what ALL their constituents (not just their donors) want, attempt to understand what the Constitution and Bill of Rights mean ... and the TAKE ACTION to make it more difficult for the mentally ill and people with a history of violence to obtain weapons ... without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
Why does that have to be so difficult?
We need to demand that our legislators dialogue the same way, hash out the issues, find out what ALL their constituents (not just their donors) want,
====================
Most constituents want gun laws to stay the same or to be more lax than they are now - 53% to 47%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
More constituents say gun rights are more important than controlling gun ownership - 52% to 46%
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/17/despite-lower-crime-rate...
====================
Most constituents want gun laws to stay the same or to be more lax than they are now - 53% to 47%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
More constituents say gun rights are more important than controlling gun ownership - 52% to 46%
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/17/despite-lower-crime-rate...
1
Interesting statistics and certainly needed in the discussion. However it doesn't address the issue of finding ways to identify people who clearly should NOT have access to guns and preventing that access more effectively.
That is what we need to find an answer to.
Of course, some people might take the stance that everybody should have full access, including potential criminal mentally ill people who have not yet committed felonies. But I have a hunch if that sort of question were put to the public we would see very different numbers.
"Do you believe the people diagnosed as mentally ill and potentially violent should have the same rights of gun ownership as law-abiding citizens?"
I'd like to see the stats for that.
That is what we need to find an answer to.
Of course, some people might take the stance that everybody should have full access, including potential criminal mentally ill people who have not yet committed felonies. But I have a hunch if that sort of question were put to the public we would see very different numbers.
"Do you believe the people diagnosed as mentally ill and potentially violent should have the same rights of gun ownership as law-abiding citizens?"
I'd like to see the stats for that.
New gun laws are not the answer IMO.I heard Ms. Clinton, recently, stating what she would like to see as far as new gun laws. Ms. Clinton is going down a road that ends with a sign that says "Good, there goes the 2nd Amendment, now what else, Ah...."
I disagree with that kind of policy, and this knee jerk reaction and the "We gotta do something, something.." mentality.
No thank you.
I disagree with that kind of policy, and this knee jerk reaction and the "We gotta do something, something.." mentality.
No thank you.
3
Knee jerk is not good. But maybe we DO need to do something. The question is what. And in order to answer it we have to be able to have a civil dialogue about it rather than just repeat hardened positions.
2
How about better parenting? How is the mother not aware of what was going on? All stories indicate she watched him closely. Where is the judgment? Nancy Lanza too.
I agree with Hillary. If people are selling guns on a regular basis at gun shows and over the internet, they should be treated as retailers in terms of background checks.
It is simple for terrorists to by pass our current gun laws by purchasing at these unregulated shows and over the internet.
How can anyone who has a legitimate reason to purchase a gun not wait for a background check?
This loophole needs to be closed, as well as the requirement for a background check evaporating after three days.
It is simple for terrorists to by pass our current gun laws by purchasing at these unregulated shows and over the internet.
How can anyone who has a legitimate reason to purchase a gun not wait for a background check?
This loophole needs to be closed, as well as the requirement for a background check evaporating after three days.
2
Guns shows are not "unregulated".
1
You do know that if you purchase a firearm over the internet it is then sent to a local dealer where all the paper work is done and the background check before you can take ownership of your weapon, dont you?
Why do people keep repeating that this isnt how it works?
Why do people keep repeating that this isnt how it works?
1
Apparently President Hillary expects to inherit Obama's magic Executive Order dictator's wand, because if Congress won't change the law to meet her desires, she's gonna wave that magic wand and change the law herself; after all, most people don't realize there's a tiny bit of fine print in the U.S. Constitution that gives U.S. Presidents the right to make their own laws whenever Congress won't cooperate.
2
I hear no complaints for that magic wand that was OK for GWB and republican governors to use. I don't like anyone utilizing king status but it seems what does around comes around.
I hope everyone remembers all of this when there is a republican president who also has a pen and a phone........You are right what goes around comes around.
There is an overlooked way to enact effective gun control: Gun club membership. Membership in a gun club, hunting club, etc. should be mandatory if you own a gun. You would have to prove every year that you are using your guns for legitimate purposes: go hunting, attend meetings, participate in club activities or competitions and are a part of society.
The club would attest to this on a certificate, which is needed to extend your gun ownership for another year.
This is a far better way of finding out mentally unstable individuals who should not own a gun then incomplete databases and regulations full of loopholes.
And who knows, maybe just by being part of a group, interacting with others in a healthy way rather than just through hate filled postings on the internet some of these alienated, unstable mass murders would not have been driven to those extremes.
The club would attest to this on a certificate, which is needed to extend your gun ownership for another year.
This is a far better way of finding out mentally unstable individuals who should not own a gun then incomplete databases and regulations full of loopholes.
And who knows, maybe just by being part of a group, interacting with others in a healthy way rather than just through hate filled postings on the internet some of these alienated, unstable mass murders would not have been driven to those extremes.
If you really truly want to eliminate some of the shootings? Do your homework and see where they most often occur? Most shootings occur at gun free zones, the really safe place for shootings, criminals do not obey the law, an example is Hillary, she knew it was against the law to us a private email to send classified documents be it didn't stop her! It was against the law to bring a gun to a gun free zone! The guns were obtained legally so what law would have stopped it from happening, it was a crime against Christians , the shooter had ties to Islam, where is the hope for our children? With unemployment at record highs, real unemployment not the numbers the prez wants you to see, my kids educator carries, if an armed person enters either of my kids classrooms they will leave with several extra holes, two center mass and one in the head, the prezs kids are protected in school!
3
Jerry, the Christian vs. Muslim thing really doesn't hold much water in the bigger picture. Over the last few years the number of Americans dying worldwide in terrorists events compared to the number of Americans dying in the USA due to criminal violence is about 1:800. In other words, about 800 Americans are murdered for every 1 American who dies due to terrorism.
Since the Christian vs. Muslim thing is basically an aspect of terrorism I think you can see why I feel your view doesn't hold much water.
In fact, most people are murdered within 2 miles of their home, by someone who lives within 2 miles of them. Most murder victims are murdered by people of the same ethnic group as themselves as well.
These facts put our present focus on the dangers of terrorism in a different light. We are throwing unimaginable resources towards battling terrorism. If the 1 trillion figure for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is roughly correct that amounts to around $3000 for every man, woman and child in the USA. It's worth asking what that kind of expenditure could do to reduce crime here in the USA. After all, only 1 out of 800 murders prevented would be the same as eliminating ALL terrorist murders against Americans.
I know the Oregon guy had some kind of religious agenda. I'm not responding to the specifics of his case but rather to the phenomenon as a whole.
Since the Christian vs. Muslim thing is basically an aspect of terrorism I think you can see why I feel your view doesn't hold much water.
In fact, most people are murdered within 2 miles of their home, by someone who lives within 2 miles of them. Most murder victims are murdered by people of the same ethnic group as themselves as well.
These facts put our present focus on the dangers of terrorism in a different light. We are throwing unimaginable resources towards battling terrorism. If the 1 trillion figure for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is roughly correct that amounts to around $3000 for every man, woman and child in the USA. It's worth asking what that kind of expenditure could do to reduce crime here in the USA. After all, only 1 out of 800 murders prevented would be the same as eliminating ALL terrorist murders against Americans.
I know the Oregon guy had some kind of religious agenda. I'm not responding to the specifics of his case but rather to the phenomenon as a whole.
2
We need more than loop hole curbing.
Why do we need to be a nation armed with automatic weapons and ammunition clips designed for only one purpose -- to kill massive numbers of people? We are not at war with our own people -- or at least we should not be.
Why are you so afraid of the gun manufacturing lobby? ‘We will vote against you.’
Why do we need to be a nation armed with automatic weapons and ammunition clips designed for only one purpose -- to kill massive numbers of people? We are not at war with our own people -- or at least we should not be.
Why are you so afraid of the gun manufacturing lobby? ‘We will vote against you.’
4
Automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934 unless you go through an expensive and exhaustive licensing process, you need to get your facts straight. So, now that we have dispelled the myth that Americans are armed with automatic weapons, what's your point?
Sorry Rick. To correct my terminology, I meant semi-automatic assault weapons, not machine guns. But the result of owning the guns is the same -- to kill massive numbers of people.
From the Washington Post:
"When Adam Lanza shot 26 people in Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, police say he largely relied on a Bushmaster AR-15 "assault-type weapon," a semiautomatic rifle that could rapidly fire multiple high-velocity rounds. He was also equipped with magazines that held 30 bullets each."
This was my point.
From the Washington Post:
"When Adam Lanza shot 26 people in Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, police say he largely relied on a Bushmaster AR-15 "assault-type weapon," a semiautomatic rifle that could rapidly fire multiple high-velocity rounds. He was also equipped with magazines that held 30 bullets each."
This was my point.
4
Rick, arvds, will repeat that same false idea the next time.
NYT and the liberal followers keep advocating to get the mentally deranged off the streets and ineligible for gun owndership. That's easy to say, but impossible to do.
Because with enough money I can hire enough psychologists to pronounce anyone as being mentally ill or even deranged. This concept can and would be used to punish your political enemies. Yet, there are truly deranged people who should be isolated in some form or another. Where do we draw the line?
Anyone running for office and trying to get votes is the last person to consult on this issue. Only congress, who represent the full population, can hire the proper experts and study the problem impartially. But Obama giving angry speeches and the left wing cheering him will guarantee that the gun ownership issue will not be resolved; in fact, as before, it will be dismissed.
Because with enough money I can hire enough psychologists to pronounce anyone as being mentally ill or even deranged. This concept can and would be used to punish your political enemies. Yet, there are truly deranged people who should be isolated in some form or another. Where do we draw the line?
Anyone running for office and trying to get votes is the last person to consult on this issue. Only congress, who represent the full population, can hire the proper experts and study the problem impartially. But Obama giving angry speeches and the left wing cheering him will guarantee that the gun ownership issue will not be resolved; in fact, as before, it will be dismissed.
2
Perhaps if you also included the NRA in your list, alongside Obama and other last people we should consult, we might reach a solution a lot faster. Unfortunately a large number of people in Congress consider the NRA among the first to consult.
@Historis: Agreed, NRA should be included alongside Obama - both have an axe to grind.
But the Congress represents the people and they decide whom they will listen to and when. Mind you, neither NRA nor Obama has any credibility regarding how to establish mental health guidelines without exposing everyone to psychological blackmail. But that is long range.
In the meantime, NRA's position that only a good man with a gun can stop a bad man from using his still makes more sense than anything the left wing has offered so far.
But the Congress represents the people and they decide whom they will listen to and when. Mind you, neither NRA nor Obama has any credibility regarding how to establish mental health guidelines without exposing everyone to psychological blackmail. But that is long range.
In the meantime, NRA's position that only a good man with a gun can stop a bad man from using his still makes more sense than anything the left wing has offered so far.
1
Unfortunately I don't see the NRA rushing forward with realistic, effective solutions on how to keep guns out of the hands of the potentially violent mentally ill.
As much as the mass murders drive headlines, any movement to address gun violence needs to begin by resolving the largest percentage of violent acts without infringing on rights for ownership.
It seems self evident that some people just should not be allowed to possess firearms. Whether by criminal conviction, mental health, or by personal lack of control, we need to settle on a means to determine if an individual should be disqualified from ownership, and to have a process in place to prevent as many improper transactions as possible.
A small suggestion- The direct family members of an individual should be able to petition a judge in an accessible manner, and request that the individual's right to firearms be suspended or permanently revoked. The method must allow for due process, and provide for reasonable accommodation of storage and return as appropriate. A "Blood Stop" process would provide a means to restrict some who clearly should not be allowed firearms, and not impede ownership for the general population.
The act may tear a family apart, but how many families are destroyed by gun violence? The true solutions to firearms violence have to come from the construction of social systems to reduce poverty and conflict, and to build better constraints for individuals whom ownership is clearly a risk.
It seems self evident that some people just should not be allowed to possess firearms. Whether by criminal conviction, mental health, or by personal lack of control, we need to settle on a means to determine if an individual should be disqualified from ownership, and to have a process in place to prevent as many improper transactions as possible.
A small suggestion- The direct family members of an individual should be able to petition a judge in an accessible manner, and request that the individual's right to firearms be suspended or permanently revoked. The method must allow for due process, and provide for reasonable accommodation of storage and return as appropriate. A "Blood Stop" process would provide a means to restrict some who clearly should not be allowed firearms, and not impede ownership for the general population.
The act may tear a family apart, but how many families are destroyed by gun violence? The true solutions to firearms violence have to come from the construction of social systems to reduce poverty and conflict, and to build better constraints for individuals whom ownership is clearly a risk.
3
"any movement to address gun violence needs to begin by resolving the largest percentage of violent acts "
Yes! And those acts will be found in 2 categories, domestic violence (most often male perpetrator, female victim) and gang/drug related crimes.
The FBI website is a treasure trove of statistics on gun-related violence. That's where I got the 2 tidbits above. That's the kind of data we need to be looking if we want to make our country safer.
Yes! And those acts will be found in 2 categories, domestic violence (most often male perpetrator, female victim) and gang/drug related crimes.
The FBI website is a treasure trove of statistics on gun-related violence. That's where I got the 2 tidbits above. That's the kind of data we need to be looking if we want to make our country safer.
Having family members reporting on each other to the government sounds very much like life under the Stasi. Another poster suggested that the family be held accountable for the actions of a mass shooter. Another wants mandatory gun club membership, so that the clubs can be held accountable for the actions of one of their members, should they go nuts. All of this sounds pretty totalitarian to me. I have never owned a gun and the only time I feel the need to acquire an unregistered firearm is when I read stuff like this.
What is the answer? A healthy economy, imho. crime follows poverty. so does mental illness.
What is the answer? A healthy economy, imho. crime follows poverty. so does mental illness.
1
"It is also likely to be applauded by Democrats who have grown weary of gridlock in Congress."
From the dictionary of New[s]Speak:
Gridlock: media euphemism that means "those times when the voters of the U.S. have relegated the Democrats to minority status in Congress."
From the dictionary of New[s]Speak:
Gridlock: media euphemism that means "those times when the voters of the U.S. have relegated the Democrats to minority status in Congress."
4
Another NewSpeak. Notice President Obama never says "gun control laws", he always says "gun safety laws". Who is against safety? Yet the press never calls him out on it.
1
We need to demand, and be able to expect and enforce, manufacturers to produce a safe product. I hate guns and would never own one or want to be near someone who did as I do not perceive any usefulness whatsoever about them. However, since the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment permits them, then why are we not also saying they need to come with warning labels, instructions, licensing and training and liability insurance? We demand and expect safe cars - always upgrading technology. We legislate standards. We do the same for the use of certain chemicals/poisons, medicines. Every electrical item comes with a warning. We demanded cribs be made safer; we have standards for railings, swimming pools. Just about everything. Why not guns?
17
Uh.... guns are actually a VERY safe product. Very, very few product defects are ever identified in firearms that are on the market.
You may not know how to use one safely, but they are safe products.
You may not know how to use one safely, but they are safe products.
1
Joey: uh.. actually so are most cars, most electrical equipment, even most chemicals -- unless they are misused and abused. We are not talking about defects here. What we generally do is try to lessen the risk of misuse -- accidental or intentional -- and abuse. And one way of doing it is by making them even more tamper proof. Take, for instance, medicine bottles -- there were barely any accidents with medicine bottles. But once it happened and we became aware of it, the manufacturers went to great extremes to make sure it didn't happen again. And as a society, we also responded. So, Joey, you tell me - what would the objection be to making guns "even" safer or to put warning information on them? You cannot rely on the "guns" are inanimate objects argument and more - it just does not hold up to logic.
Every gun I've ever bough came with instructions, safety admonitions, warnings and even a lopped padlock with key to secure it from being fired.
To get a concealed carry permit you are required to attend an 8 hour class on gun safety and law as well as get an 80% firing score. And you will have gone through two background checks by the county sheriff. If you are a homeowner you already have liability insurance. The insurance will not cover an incident if the gun is not in your possession and used by someone else without your permission.
To get a concealed carry permit you are required to attend an 8 hour class on gun safety and law as well as get an 80% firing score. And you will have gone through two background checks by the county sheriff. If you are a homeowner you already have liability insurance. The insurance will not cover an incident if the gun is not in your possession and used by someone else without your permission.
Why doesn't Hillary Clinton support a ban on civilians purchasing assault weapons as stated in this article ????? That is essential.There is no conceivable reason for private citizens to have military assault weapons. How serious sis he if she will allow assault weapons to be be purchased and owned by lunatics.
Assault rifles have been banned for near 80 years.
3
You're being pedantic and it's not helping.
Weapons that can carry 30 rounds and which are legal in much of the USA may not be "assault weapons" by some definitions but they can still enable somebody with the relevant intent to kill an awful lot of people very fast.
Weapons that can carry 30 rounds and which are legal in much of the USA may not be "assault weapons" by some definitions but they can still enable somebody with the relevant intent to kill an awful lot of people very fast.
1
Where are you at , that 30 round mags are legal?
Judging by the high violent crime rate of other countries with extremely strict gun laws on the books, the answer is far more complicated than just banning responsible citizens from their constitutional rights. A "reasonable" gun control plan that provides strict background checks would be welcomed, unfortunately it would not prevent those who want to obtain firearms for illicit or extreme issues from obtaining one anyway. Consider that many of our major cities right here in the US with the toughest gun laws have some of the highest violent crime rates in the country.
2
Which countries are you thinking of? I'm curious to know.
According to the Wikipedia list linked below, the USA falls in position 108 on a list of 218 countries, ranked from lowest murder rate (0 - Liechtenstein and Monaco) to highest (218 - Honduras). This puts us right about half way down the list. Virtually all of Western Europe, most of Eastern Europe, several Middle Eastern states and several large Asian states rank above the USA in terms of safety. You are 3 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than in Libya. Cuba is safer. Kosovo is safer. Egypt is safer. Saudi Arabia is far safer.
Kind of makes a person wonder. I've lived in a number of countries on several continents and when I look at the USA I really believe we have it so good in so many ways. I've lived in Saudi Arabia. I've seen what it's like to live in a country where you do NOT say certain things (many things), for fear of offending the authorities and suffering severe consequences. Our American Freedom of Speech is a really beautiful thing. I've lived in countries where people are born into desperate poverty and have no chance of ever escaping it because of endemic corruption in their societies and governments. The USA really is the land of opportunity.
And yet we insist on blasting holes in each other. Why is that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_...
According to the Wikipedia list linked below, the USA falls in position 108 on a list of 218 countries, ranked from lowest murder rate (0 - Liechtenstein and Monaco) to highest (218 - Honduras). This puts us right about half way down the list. Virtually all of Western Europe, most of Eastern Europe, several Middle Eastern states and several large Asian states rank above the USA in terms of safety. You are 3 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than in Libya. Cuba is safer. Kosovo is safer. Egypt is safer. Saudi Arabia is far safer.
Kind of makes a person wonder. I've lived in a number of countries on several continents and when I look at the USA I really believe we have it so good in so many ways. I've lived in Saudi Arabia. I've seen what it's like to live in a country where you do NOT say certain things (many things), for fear of offending the authorities and suffering severe consequences. Our American Freedom of Speech is a really beautiful thing. I've lived in countries where people are born into desperate poverty and have no chance of ever escaping it because of endemic corruption in their societies and governments. The USA really is the land of opportunity.
And yet we insist on blasting holes in each other. Why is that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_...
You are 3 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than in Libya.
=============
Hahahahahaha!!!!!
You've got to be joking - thanks to Hillary there isn't even a government in Libya to keep statistics!
=============
Hahahahahaha!!!!!
You've got to be joking - thanks to Hillary there isn't even a government in Libya to keep statistics!
Mrs. Clinton gives gun control advocates a ray of hope by proposing executive action in the face of quagmire by Congress. The USA is NOT a gun culture (only 1 in 3 households own guns), and it's time the minority stop controlling the will of the majority. We desperately need gun control, and we need Mrs. Clinton to stay strong in the face of what will be ridiculously out-of-proportion attacks from the right-to-kill movement. The Second Amendment has been torturously misinterpreted to mold to the will of the NRA. I say- we all have the right to bear MUSKETS!
1
The write a letter to the editor instead of posting online, as free speech did not include the internet when the Constitution was written.
Mrs. Clinton gives gun control advocates a ray of hope by proposing executive action in the face of quagmire by Congress. The USA is NOT a gun culture (only 1 in 3 households own guns), and it's time the minority stop controlling the will of the majority. We desperately need gun control
====================
The majority doesn't want more gun control, 53% to 47%:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
====================
The majority doesn't want more gun control, 53% to 47%:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
1
" I say- we all have the right to bear MUSKETS!"
In that case should allow only single sheet broadsheets for newspapers printed a manual press and you should start writing with a quill pen.
It's not 1 in three households. It's closer to one in two. Discounting all the adjudicated mentally ill, felons and persons not old enough under the law to possess a firearm makes the ratio nearly equal.
In that case should allow only single sheet broadsheets for newspapers printed a manual press and you should start writing with a quill pen.
It's not 1 in three households. It's closer to one in two. Discounting all the adjudicated mentally ill, felons and persons not old enough under the law to possess a firearm makes the ratio nearly equal.
I lived in PA and now California, and attend gun shows regularly. Never have I seen one that did not have a licensed dealer there, to process the paperwork and hold the firearm for the required time to do the background check. So what are we talking about then?
3
By the way, we don't actually know what percentage of gun sales get made without background checks. The usual "up to 40%," claim is around 20 years old, and rests on one piece of research that is kind of iffy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-th...
What we DO know, though, is the reason there's no better research: right-wing Republicans passed legislation barring any research that might lead to gun control laws.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-th...
What we DO know, though, is the reason there's no better research: right-wing Republicans passed legislation barring any research that might lead to gun control laws.
Simple idea Chris Rock mentioned before- stop/prohibit commercial manufacture of ammunition. Ppl can buy all the dam' guns they want - just no ammo. Maybe for 'hunting' animals (not the 2-legged ones) though only a minority use guns for that.
1
Ammo can be made at home. When will people learn, prohibition never works?
1
Any attempt to restrict ammunition by taxation would be treated by the courts as an infringement on the right to defend oneself. See McDonald vs Chicago and Heller vs DC on self defense ownership.
At least someone is not resigned to our crazed and craven gun culture. A society built on violent conflict cannot survive.
I hope to see more from Mr. Sanders but he has consistently opposed gun safety measures, so I'm not expecting too much.
I hope to see more from Mr. Sanders but he has consistently opposed gun safety measures, so I'm not expecting too much.
1
Gun safety measures? Like always making sure the gun you are carrying is in its holster properly?
Closing the gun show loophole (big enough to drive a truck through) is a good first step. I'd like a candidate to advance the idea of getting private insurers involved and regulate possession and use of firearms, just like we do for automobiles. This is likely a state issue but believe that if people had to register and insure their guns, there would be a behavioral economic incentive to use them sparingly, keep them locked and be liable for harm to humans done by them. The is a common sense, free-market approach to firearm possession which protects ALL citizens from reckless use.
2
Have you ever noticed that criminals are not too eager to follow the law in the first place?
2
It's a start - the discourse on this issue is changing (I can't recall any gun control talk after Virginia Tech).
1
Background checks are not the solution if one doesn't have any criminal records or a history of mental disorders (yet).
Have you ever heard of mass shootings in Italy? Before accessing to any firearm (even owning an antique), you need a document that states you qualify, and the procedure includes to be seen by a physician. In some protocols, two independent psychiatrists visit you.
O but, wait, that would be such a barbaric violation of my personal rights (sarcasm intended).
But then, have you ever heard of mass shootings in Italy?
Have you ever heard of mass shootings in Italy? Before accessing to any firearm (even owning an antique), you need a document that states you qualify, and the procedure includes to be seen by a physician. In some protocols, two independent psychiatrists visit you.
O but, wait, that would be such a barbaric violation of my personal rights (sarcasm intended).
But then, have you ever heard of mass shootings in Italy?
3
But then, have you ever heard of mass shootings in Italy?
=================
Yes, Mussolini and his Fascists did some as well as the Nazis when they were fighting there.
=================
Yes, Mussolini and his Fascists did some as well as the Nazis when they were fighting there.
When Congress declines to extend the existing rationale for gun shop background checks to gun shows, it demonstrates the difference between actually legislating an issue (such as revising the ACA to resolve a wording ambiguty), and handing that declined issue to the other branches of government (as filing a brief in a federal lawsuit).
In such a circumstance, it is appropriate for the President to issue an Executive Order that governs the matter until the Congress is able to produce legislation on the matter.
In such a circumstance, it is appropriate for the President to issue an Executive Order that governs the matter until the Congress is able to produce legislation on the matter.
2
A (possibly) more quickly accepted proposal to help curb gun violence would be a law that says, "If your child commits a felony with a gun, you are aiding and abetting the crime."
No parent whose mentally ill child kills someone should be blameless.
No parent whose mentally ill child kills someone should be blameless.
1
We want guns for the "good guys," we want computers for good uses, we want civilian jets for peaceful purposes and a military to protect and defend the "good guys." Any elementary school teacher will tell you that a kid can turn anything into a "weapon" -- pencil, backpack, finger. No, we don't outlaw pencils, backpacks, and fingers in school, but we do have an authority in place there. By contrast, we live in some variety of a democracy. So, (1) anything can fall into hands that want to use it for ill purpose and (2) we need to, as participants in a democracy, impose on ourselves restraints that support the good of the community. Or else we need to stop developing tools that are so powerful, whatever the good uses to which they can be put, that they can cause so much destruction as well when they are put to unintended ill uses.
1
Regulate guns and their operators like autos. Owners need a serial number, registration, title, safety inspections, and liability insurance. Shooters need to qualify for a license to shoot by medical exam, written exam, and practical application.
1
Regulate guns and their operators like autos. Owners need a serial number, registration, title, safety inspections, and liability insurance. Shooters need to qualify for a license to shoot by medical exam, written exam, and practical application.
=======================
If you operate your auto on private property, you don't need registration, title, safety inspections or insurance. You don't even need a license.
=======================
If you operate your auto on private property, you don't need registration, title, safety inspections or insurance. You don't even need a license.
2
OK. Treat guns similarly.
Executive orders are the Democrats modus operandi.
4
Executive action to restrict guns? Trad carefully Hillary. You could lose the election, or even the nomination on this issue alone.
4
Simply because it may be extraordinarily difficult to repeal the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that our representatives and senators should not attempt to do so.
Remind me, which Senator or Congressman/Congresswoman most recently sponsored such a bill? Profiles in courage. indeed.
Remind me, which Senator or Congressman/Congresswoman most recently sponsored such a bill? Profiles in courage. indeed.
1
Sponsoring that bill would be ridiculous. There are over 250 million guns in this country with over 2 million sold annually, yet gun violence has dropped in the US by 75% in the past 20 years from the already minsescule blip that its always been. You want to buy into sensationalized media frenzying over shootings nonstop, go for it. Its just a talking point in an election cycle to distract from the actual social and economic issues causing depression, desperation, crime and violence of ALL kinds regardless of the weapon. But hey, lets just pretend getting rid of guns will solve something, its worked out so well in the UK where they have a higher crime/violence ratio per capita than we do here.
3
why yes, because another civil war is a great idea
3
1. Those gun show sellers should be getting a license under current rules.
2. There is no "loophole." The fact that private sellers don't need a license is a policy decision.
3. There are 320 million guns in private hands in the US. The Left thinks it can pass a law and declare victory. It can't. To truly and effectively control guns, we'd have to amend the Second, Fourth and Fifth amendments, call in as many guns as we can, then send police door to door to confiscate the rest.
2. There is no "loophole." The fact that private sellers don't need a license is a policy decision.
3. There are 320 million guns in private hands in the US. The Left thinks it can pass a law and declare victory. It can't. To truly and effectively control guns, we'd have to amend the Second, Fourth and Fifth amendments, call in as many guns as we can, then send police door to door to confiscate the rest.
2
I don't recommend that action.
2
'Progressives'...the enemy of YOUR freedom.
3
The FREEDOM to kill innocents
4
Seems to me the children at Newtown and the adults in Charleston, and Roseburg had more than just their freedom taken by "tough guys" lusts for guns. Oh that's right, they were mentally ill. But they were aided and abetted by the tough guy gun culture.
3
or supporting my "freedom" to watch a movie without fear of being killed with a military grade weapon (that's a pretty good freedom IMO!)
1
Those who think that stricter gun control will "work" fool themselves. They miss that guns are deeply a part of the culture of much of our nation. When a part of your culture is threatened, you will cling more tightly to it. In our effete mockery of rural cultures, we forget that 20% of our population is Appalachian, and from a culture where the long rifle was, less than 200 years ago, a vital survival tool. We ignore that the "Kentucky rifle" was named such before Kentucky was a state, and that Obama's war on coal has thrown much of that region into turmoil that will cost a significant part of the senate.
3
The fact is, gun violence and death has dropped by more than 75% in the past 20 years and it was already a statistical blip to begin with. There are over 250 million guns in this country and the media sensationalizes every single shooting they can get their cameras on because our failing, corrupt government has an agenda to disarm its citizens as they become more peturbed with how rigged our economic and "democratic" system is. So here we have a bunch of political figures condemning guns with one hand while on the other takint bribes to continue mass producing tanks the pentagon says they dont need and mongering for war citizens say they dont want to be involved in. I see our police departments militarizing with assault weapons and tanks, but im supposed to want a ban on guns... Ok. Meanwhile countries with absolute gun laws like the UK have more violent crimes per capita than we do. If our government really gave a toot, theyd start worrying about the issues that cause people to lash out and become violent regardless of the weapon. Desperation, depression, a lack of education and options, economic hardship, social injustice. You know... The stuff that is earning congress that 9% approval rating as they continue to ignore us and shore up bills to serve private sector interest groups and the financial elite.
3
Very well stated.
1
This from a woman who walks around with an armed security detail.
7
Like most who are trying to force this agenda on the law abiding citizens of this country.
1
Since Drug companies can arbitrarily raise the cost of medication ten fold, why not Arms manufacturers? Instead of having to pay $200.00 for a glock, why not $20,000.00? or $30,000.? Would make everyone that owns a gun keep them safer, insure them, and encourage people to sell their weapons at a great profit. And they could also mandate insurance for every gun like they do automobiles. No insurance, and you cannot purchase a gun or renew your license to carry. Would make gun ownership more profitable and be taken more seriously.
3
The current Teapublican-infested Congress is the worst we've had in my memory, and based on general trends, the infestation is unlikely to be fully under control any time soon, perhaps not even during Hillary Clinton's eight years as President. When Congress shows itself incapable of acting to mitigate an ongoing public danger such as our problem with deadly abuse of firearms, we don't expect our Presidents to shrug their shoulders and ignore the problem: we expect them to try to do something about it using the power of the Executive Branch. This isn't the preferred solution—it is Congress who should lead here—but it would be unthinkable to support a candidate for the presidency who was unwilling to step into the breach in situations like this one.
4
You're a fine little Tory
1
I do expect the president of this country to follow the US Constitution unlike to present occupant and potently Clinton. She is more of a crook than Richard Nixson.
1
Good first step for Hillary, but she needs to get in with both feet to distance herself from Bernie on this issue. Three suggestions that most Americans can get behind:
Raise the age limit for legal handgun purchase. The data consistently show the highest rates of gun violence are found among males between the ages of 18 and 25. Federal law currently is age 21 for handgun sales to individuals by licensed dealers and age 18 for private gun sales. Raise them both to age 25. Concurrently, make it a federal felony for an underage person caught in the commission of a crime to be in possession of an illegal weapon.
Re-institute the assault weapons ban with wording that will make it impossible for manufacturers make minor structural adjustments to the weapon to get around it, as was previously the case.
For ammunition clips in excess of 10 rounds, institute a very substantial, if not completely inhibitory, purchase fee, with proceeds directed toward firearm research at the CDC.
Raise the age limit for legal handgun purchase. The data consistently show the highest rates of gun violence are found among males between the ages of 18 and 25. Federal law currently is age 21 for handgun sales to individuals by licensed dealers and age 18 for private gun sales. Raise them both to age 25. Concurrently, make it a federal felony for an underage person caught in the commission of a crime to be in possession of an illegal weapon.
Re-institute the assault weapons ban with wording that will make it impossible for manufacturers make minor structural adjustments to the weapon to get around it, as was previously the case.
For ammunition clips in excess of 10 rounds, institute a very substantial, if not completely inhibitory, purchase fee, with proceeds directed toward firearm research at the CDC.
31
Take a good look at those numbers. Of the actual 8,583 gun murders committed in 2011, 323 were committed with “rifles.” And that’s all rifles, including bolt action, deer hunting rifles and all the rest. The number committed with so called “assault rifles” were a fraction of that. When you ask how dangerous those rifles are, compare that to nearly 1,700 who were stabbed as well as nearly 500 murdered with blunt objects and and more than 700 beaten to death by somebody with their bare hands. Enough said on that topic.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/04/the-truth-about-gun-deaths-numbers...
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/04/the-truth-about-gun-deaths-numbers...
2
Please learn something about weapons before shooting your mouth off.
1
Great argument in favor of gun control. After all they are 5 times more dangerous than knifes, 17 times more dangerous than blunt objects, and 12 times more dangerous than bare hands.
As for assault rifles... well I guess they are a crutch for those who can't hit the side of a barn.
As for assault rifles... well I guess they are a crutch for those who can't hit the side of a barn.
1
I'm happy to have a discussion with Hillary on this but first I would like to discuss EMAILS! We need to get through all of those emails and discern why she used a private server? Is she hiding something? Quit changing the subject Hillary! Please we want to talk emails!
2
Really? What are you hoping for? The entire email inquiry is a republican-hatched attempt to discredit Clinton because they can't come up with anything real - they've admitted as much. Give it a rest, she's not a criminal!
Clarifying her views on wide-ranging important issues our country wrestles with every day is what a presidential candidate should be doing so voters can be best informed in choosing our next leader - how is that changing the subject?
Clarifying her views on wide-ranging important issues our country wrestles with every day is what a presidential candidate should be doing so voters can be best informed in choosing our next leader - how is that changing the subject?
1
I think the media's obsession with the emails as opposed to things that matter to American life (like policy - imagine that policy!!) is the textbook "changing the subject"
The entire email inquiry is a republican-hatched attempt to discredit Clinton because they can't come up with anything real
=================
Um, hate to break this to you, but "the entire email inquiry" is being conducted by the FBI and DOJ - not Republicans
=================
Um, hate to break this to you, but "the entire email inquiry" is being conducted by the FBI and DOJ - not Republicans
"A central issue in Mrs. Clinton’s proposals are the background checks on prospective gun buyers, which are required for retailers at stores."
This just isn't true. There is no 'Gun Show' loophole. Every booth at a gun show is manned by an FFL licensed dealer. All handguns purchased through them require a background check. The NY Times obviously knows this and insists on deliberately spreading lies to whip up their uninformed base. If two private individuals conduct a private transaction, the laws vary by state as to whether a background check is required.
This just isn't true. There is no 'Gun Show' loophole. Every booth at a gun show is manned by an FFL licensed dealer. All handguns purchased through them require a background check. The NY Times obviously knows this and insists on deliberately spreading lies to whip up their uninformed base. If two private individuals conduct a private transaction, the laws vary by state as to whether a background check is required.
4
She would be more believable if she would have done this before the massacre.
5
Hillary Clinton stands in stark contrast to gun lovers like Bernie Sanders and all the Republican presidential candidates.
5
I know and that is why I will stay home on election day if she is the nominee. I'd vote for Bernie, but not for someone who wants to disarm the populace.
2
None of these massacres are tied to gun shows. They bought assault weapons by mail order and in stores. An assault weapons ban and buyback worked for Australia. It will work for us.
2
Martha- you can't buy a gun by mail order any more, although in the history of the US it's true that Sears & Roebuck did offer shotguns in their catalogue.
Now days, a face-to-face FFL transaction with a Federal approval form is required, except for limited private sales. ANY firearm transaction crossing state lines requires an FFL intermediary. The gun cannot change hands without it.
Now days, a face-to-face FFL transaction with a Federal approval form is required, except for limited private sales. ANY firearm transaction crossing state lines requires an FFL intermediary. The gun cannot change hands without it.
1
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/04/the-truth-about-gun-deaths-numbers...
Take a good look at those numbers. Of the actual 8,583 gun murders committed in 2011, 323 were committed with “rifles.” And that’s all rifles, including bolt action, deer hunting rifles and all the rest. The number committed with so called “assault rifles” were a fraction of that. When you ask how dangerous those rifles are, compare that to nearly 1,700 who were stabbed as well as nearly 500 murdered with blunt objects and and more than 700 beaten to death by somebody with their bare hands.
Take a good look at those numbers. Of the actual 8,583 gun murders committed in 2011, 323 were committed with “rifles.” And that’s all rifles, including bolt action, deer hunting rifles and all the rest. The number committed with so called “assault rifles” were a fraction of that. When you ask how dangerous those rifles are, compare that to nearly 1,700 who were stabbed as well as nearly 500 murdered with blunt objects and and more than 700 beaten to death by somebody with their bare hands.
1
No it won't. Australia has no Bill of Rights, and nothing that approximates the Second Amendment. To believe an Australia style gun confiscation would work in this country is to be fully ignorant of cultures outside of your bubble. Not to mention the teenage Jihadist that shot, with a real gun, someone a few days ago in Australia, how in the heck did that happen?
Braying for this type of gun control is nothing short of asking for a second Civil War.
Braying for this type of gun control is nothing short of asking for a second Civil War.
1
No constitutional authority.
But that hasn't stopped progressives before.
But that hasn't stopped progressives before.
6
This has become a routine event. An obviously deranged individual used firearms to murder again. Before the crime scene is secured, extreme anti-gun politicians scramble to denounce guns, and call for more restrictions. Others say an outright ban and confiscation of all firearms is the only action that will work.
And in the States and cities with the most stringent gun laws, the body count continues its unending rise.
And in the States and cities with the most stringent gun laws, the body count continues its unending rise.
2
Actually, our body count is down from what it was previously.
1
And they ignore the drugs that the murder has been prescribed.
Fact. Democrats lose elections over this gun stuff.
Drop it Hillary. If you're not in office it's all pointless.
Too many Americans are cool with thousands of
gun deaths every year.
Drop it Hillary. If you're not in office it's all pointless.
Too many Americans are cool with thousands of
gun deaths every year.
1
Better than nothing, and far better than what any Republican proposed, but not nearly enough. Would not have prevented the Umpqua shootings. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned and there needs to be severe restrictions on any kind of gun designed primarily for shooting people (as opposed to hunting weapons).
4
We should all be permitted to have and carry as many muzzle-loaded flintlock weapons as we want. Also, cross bows. And swords.
5
By that logic- you should be allowed to drive a horse & buggy.
Um, you are. Ever hear of the Amish?
Since Republicans don't care how many innocent people die, by guns, I support Executive action to close this loophole. There's nothing to stop President Obama from doing it, right now. Republicans, once again, are unconcerned and good-for-nothing. Bernie can take a page from this playbook, as well.
6
By the same token, the NRA doesn't care whether murderers are members, or not; they will defend any person who has, or wants to have, a gun. Better yet, many guns. Personal conscience has nothing to do with it.
2
ejzim- It's ridiculous to assert that Republicans don't care how many innocents are injured by guns- please try to make a rational argument.
You'll note, Barack Obama (as Commander in Chief) apparently killed 22 innocent people in one airstrike on an Afghan hospital just a few days ago. Should we conclude (after his comments re gun violence) that he's a hypocrite?
You'll note, Barack Obama (as Commander in Chief) apparently killed 22 innocent people in one airstrike on an Afghan hospital just a few days ago. Should we conclude (after his comments re gun violence) that he's a hypocrite?
1
I'll try to be as rational as a Republican.
At my local grocery store there were 8 magazines about fashion and beauty. There were 28 about guns. I didn't count the ones about just war and hunting. These were magazines devoted specifically to guns with guns on the covers. Looking at them, they display the guns much like the display of body parts in porn. There is a direct correlation between heightened lethal capability and more "hard core" presentation of the gun. The one's about AK47's are much like snuff porn in their cool, gritty objectification.
These magazines are at knee level for any child to look at and take up the whole of the bottom section of the display. The beauty magazines, all 8 of them are difficult to pick out from the house and home, cooking and craft magazines. On the whole, it's a chilling lurid display that brings a pall to taking a look at the latest fashions and hair do's or for that matter, organic gardening, celebrity and current events.
Why is gun porn within easier reach of a 3 year old than Vogue or Sixteen? Why can our children get guns more easily than they can a prostitute or condoms under the eyes of a clerk who may be a friend's parent?
These magazines are at knee level for any child to look at and take up the whole of the bottom section of the display. The beauty magazines, all 8 of them are difficult to pick out from the house and home, cooking and craft magazines. On the whole, it's a chilling lurid display that brings a pall to taking a look at the latest fashions and hair do's or for that matter, organic gardening, celebrity and current events.
Why is gun porn within easier reach of a 3 year old than Vogue or Sixteen? Why can our children get guns more easily than they can a prostitute or condoms under the eyes of a clerk who may be a friend's parent?
7
The direct correlation you speak of is to the mind altering drugs being prescribed today.
It is not the guns that kill, but the ammunition. Why not create a type of "no-kill" ammo for gun enthusiasts and keep the real ammo very hard to get (e.g., minimum age and a special license)? Second, let's all get real about funding mental health in this counrty, and investigate Pharma and its influence on destabalizing children's mental faculties. Third, I thought the Clintons dealt with gun violence by throwing everyone in jail and creating one of the largest jail systems in the world?
What? A politician showing leadership concerning our countries gun problem? What a new concept. I applaud someone finally having the guts to stand up to the NRA.
6
Why do people get so excited when a candidate proposes something? Tax plan, gun control, abortion, whatever. Have we forgotten how our government actually works or doesn't work?
If I was president I would make college free for everyone. I would be against cancer. I would grow the economy. I would clean the environment. Taxes will be optional.
If I was president I would make college free for everyone. I would be against cancer. I would grow the economy. I would clean the environment. Taxes will be optional.
2
Hillary Clinton seems to not know that it's the legislative branch of government, not the executive branch, who make laws. No one this ignorant or who wants to diminish the separation of power provisions in the constitution should be considered for the presidency. I suspect, however, that she's not serious about closing legal loopholes but merely trying to stem her decline in the polls.
5
How will this stop someone who has never committed a crime nor been treated from mental illness from passing a background check, buying a few guns legally, and using them to commit mass murder? Universal background checks won't stop someone who can pass them and is still bent on committing a crime, and even if they do, that person can just go to a cutlery store and buy a long knife, then use it commit a mass stabbing.
3
A central issue in Mrs. Clinton’s proposals are the background checks on prospective gun buyers, which are required for retailers at stores. But under federal law, they are not required at gun shows or over the Internet with private sellers.
===================
You would think with the hundreds of articles the NYT publishes on this subject that it would find reporters who understand the law. A seller who has a Federal Firearms License must conduct a background check on any sale it makes, whether in a retail store or at a gun show. Any interstate sale of any kind has to go through an FFL holder who conducts a background check.
Intrastate sales between private individuals are not subject to background checks in most states.
Using executive action to decide private individuals are "deemed" as having a FFL without really having one is contrary to any law and wouldn't withstand any legal scrutiny.
===================
You would think with the hundreds of articles the NYT publishes on this subject that it would find reporters who understand the law. A seller who has a Federal Firearms License must conduct a background check on any sale it makes, whether in a retail store or at a gun show. Any interstate sale of any kind has to go through an FFL holder who conducts a background check.
Intrastate sales between private individuals are not subject to background checks in most states.
Using executive action to decide private individuals are "deemed" as having a FFL without really having one is contrary to any law and wouldn't withstand any legal scrutiny.
4
If you sell 10 or so cars per year you are considered a car dealer and subjected to the laws governing auto dealers. Why not with weapons?
1
Background checks that would uncover anything like potential mental illness are in direct conflict with our privacy laws. The gunman at the Virginia Tech massacre's parents were not aware of his mental problems due to privacy laws (he was over 18). So please explain how any of this will help?
But that being said why does anyone need to own 15 guns? That alone should have been a red flag.
But that being said why does anyone need to own 15 guns? That alone should have been a red flag.
3
It's none of your business how many guns anyone owns, period. Do you want someone telling you how many cars you can have, or televisions, or computers? Or how about telling you how many kids you can have? You sound like you want to impose your own brand of sharia law here.
1
Let Hunt, there's a difference between owning twenty sports cars (not that I do) and owning twenty guns and a munitions warehouse in your cellar. Cars are vehicles, guns are designed to kill.
A collection of antique muskets? Why not?
A collection of semiautomatics, with enough ammunition to murder a couple dozen children, each with multiple wounds, in a minute, seems a little different, no?
A collection of antique muskets? Why not?
A collection of semiautomatics, with enough ammunition to murder a couple dozen children, each with multiple wounds, in a minute, seems a little different, no?
How do we define mental disorder for the sake of background checks and denying the purchase? Obviously severe cases requiring hospitalization, mental institution, etc are easy flags. But what about the over medicated society where 1 in 10 are currently taking anti-depressants for some kind of "mental disorder". And significantly higher percentage of teens and young adults are being medicated for some sort of behavior disorder. Does this disqualify them also? In many cases it should, but when we start to look at the numbers 50% of americans could probably be denied based on our overly medicated and diagnosed society.
3
As I write this comment, I know I have no easy answers to the issue of gun violence and mass shootings. I am fatigued by the hopelessness of those who say nothing can be done. We need a leader and citizens who set a tone of non-violence who imagine a country where gun bravado and rage against others and themselves is tempered by de-escalation and restraint. Gun rights advocates, perhaps inadvertently, have a message of the right to bear arms but also right to use arms at will. Thus, young people see no other way to solve their personal issues.
2
If the second amendment lets so many people own and sell guns, we should change the second amendment to make it relevant to today's society and the need to reduce access to guns.
2
Sure, let's take away more rights, smart move. Maybe you want to be a subject rather than a citizen, but I don't.
We haven't gone far enough I think we should arm dogs and cats, as well. We could have the Supreme Court decide if rabbits should have them. We could also have "Protection Stations," where guns are easily located and ready for pickup at no charge, taxpayer supported. Happy, gun enthusiasts?
2
- and bears. I support the right to arm bears.
4
An holistic approach to reducing gun violence is urgently needed and we must begin by addressing the key elements -- such as mental illness and gun control -- with great urgency and commitment. The plain language of the U.S. Constitution -- "the text that is written on the page" -- does in fact give the president, as Commander-in-chief, the power and responsibility to control guns through executive action:
1) The right to keep and bear arms is inextricably tied to the need for a "well regulated militia";
2) Such a "well-regulated militia" is justified because it is "necessary to the security of a free State";
3) The government official to whom the Constitution assigns the ultimate authority over, and responsibility for, the militia and its regulation is the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief;
4) Such regulatory authority includes the responsibility to regulate the arms that are justified by the need for the "well-regulated militia" specifically cited in the text of the Second Amendment;
5) This regulatory authority includes, of necessity, the responsibility to make and enforce rules for the storage, possession, sale and use of any and all arms in the United States.
Therefore, a presidential Executive Order that controls the storage, possession, sale and use of any and all arms in the United States is not only desperately needed, it is consistent with -- in the words of Justice Scalia -- "the text written on the page" of the U.S. Constitution.
1) The right to keep and bear arms is inextricably tied to the need for a "well regulated militia";
2) Such a "well-regulated militia" is justified because it is "necessary to the security of a free State";
3) The government official to whom the Constitution assigns the ultimate authority over, and responsibility for, the militia and its regulation is the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief;
4) Such regulatory authority includes the responsibility to regulate the arms that are justified by the need for the "well-regulated militia" specifically cited in the text of the Second Amendment;
5) This regulatory authority includes, of necessity, the responsibility to make and enforce rules for the storage, possession, sale and use of any and all arms in the United States.
Therefore, a presidential Executive Order that controls the storage, possession, sale and use of any and all arms in the United States is not only desperately needed, it is consistent with -- in the words of Justice Scalia -- "the text written on the page" of the U.S. Constitution.
6
The citizens were and are the militia. Once again people are taking written statements out of the context they were written in.
Yes, the citizens were the militia and President George Washington was their Commander-in-chief. Does anyone familiar with the history of Washington and his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 really believe he would have allowed guns to continue falling -- unchecked -- into the hands of people who murder our children in their classrooms again and again and again and again and again ad infinitum? Of course not! And these wise founders gave George Washington and all future presidents the power and responsibility to control the storage, possession, sale and use of any and all arms in the United States with the words they wrote and approved in the Constitution, in the text of Second Amendment itself and with the powers specified for the president in Article II, Section 2.
The Second Amendment clearly states that the very purpose of the right to bear arms is to ensure "the security of a free state." No reasonable person believes that any state is free or secure when its innocent little school children have no security from being repetitively murdered in large groups within the sacred space of their own classrooms. A nation that permits such unchecked slaughter of its children without using every means at its disposal to stop such a perversion of human values does not deserve to exist. It's time for our people to wake up and break through the paralyzing political fear promoted and sustained by the bullys in the NRA and the cowardly fools who support them!
The Second Amendment clearly states that the very purpose of the right to bear arms is to ensure "the security of a free state." No reasonable person believes that any state is free or secure when its innocent little school children have no security from being repetitively murdered in large groups within the sacred space of their own classrooms. A nation that permits such unchecked slaughter of its children without using every means at its disposal to stop such a perversion of human values does not deserve to exist. It's time for our people to wake up and break through the paralyzing political fear promoted and sustained by the bullys in the NRA and the cowardly fools who support them!
1
.........and just how many of these shooters got their weapons from gun shows?
Nada.
And how many passed a back ground check?
Right.
So Ms. Clinton is going to reduce gun violence by restrictions on law abiding citizens. And in the hurry to "address" the issue, everyone seems to ignore the same elephant in the room..........
Mental Illness.
Punish the millions for the acts of a handful of people.
Why is it so hard to connect point "A" to point "B" without politicians going through the alphabet?
Nada.
And how many passed a back ground check?
Right.
So Ms. Clinton is going to reduce gun violence by restrictions on law abiding citizens. And in the hurry to "address" the issue, everyone seems to ignore the same elephant in the room..........
Mental Illness.
Punish the millions for the acts of a handful of people.
Why is it so hard to connect point "A" to point "B" without politicians going through the alphabet?
5
Dylann Roof--the recent SC shooter--would have failed his background check.
But it took more than three days to get the results.
So they--Cabela's--sold him the gun anyway (via a loophole in the law).
Bottom line: tighten up the loopholes and the laws, and guys like him won't get guns and kill a bunch of people.
But it took more than three days to get the results.
So they--Cabela's--sold him the gun anyway (via a loophole in the law).
Bottom line: tighten up the loopholes and the laws, and guys like him won't get guns and kill a bunch of people.
The New York Times used the phrase "supporters of the Second Amendment" in this article. It's unfortunate that the media continues to mislead the American people by refusing to correct this misappropriation of the Constitution by the NRA-backed right wing. The Second Amendment does not prohibit reasonable regulations on arms, such as elimination of the gun show loophole. The Supreme Court's decision in Heller makes that absolutely clear in its opinion. We cannot have an honest debate about gun control as long as we are fighting fictional constitutional battles that don't actually exist. The Constitution is not blocking gun control. Congress is.
75
And this most recent mass shooter, like most before, didn't get his weapons at a gun show -- so how does this horrible act relate to the gun show loophole, by by political expediency?
1
The shooter in Oregon bought the guns legally. Which one of Clinton's proposals deals with that? None, I think.
The problem is that NICS does not include those who MIGHT be dangerous.
If someone has been diagnosed as bi-polar and is taking meds, should his doctor report him to NICS?
The problem is that NICS does not include those who MIGHT be dangerous.
If someone has been diagnosed as bi-polar and is taking meds, should his doctor report him to NICS?
7
I continue to believe that we should reach out to loners and try to integrate their lives with ours, providing meaningful relationships. The stability that friendship and relationships provide are an essential check against the anger and resentment that can build up inside a person who walks around with nobody to talk to and feels alienated.
I'd love it if there were better gun laws, and it's too bad that most Democrats and Republicans seem to foreclose the possibility of real change in advance of real campaigns. But in addition to that, we do what you might call "winning hearts and minds" of the disaffected youth.
I'd love it if there were better gun laws, and it's too bad that most Democrats and Republicans seem to foreclose the possibility of real change in advance of real campaigns. But in addition to that, we do what you might call "winning hearts and minds" of the disaffected youth.
3
Her threat of using executive action to impose new gun regulation will make it much easier for Republican candidate to campaign against her. She is having enough problems already, why invite another one?
NRA will not have to do much; majority of the nation is already tired of regulatlions and executive actions. Especially when it comes to guns. They have heard the entire spectrum of left's arguments to regulate guns even more, and Obama was really a good spokesman for them; yet the public isn't buying it. This issue will be used rather effectively against Hillary and the dems if they insist on bringing it up.
NRA will not have to do much; majority of the nation is already tired of regulatlions and executive actions. Especially when it comes to guns. They have heard the entire spectrum of left's arguments to regulate guns even more, and Obama was really a good spokesman for them; yet the public isn't buying it. This issue will be used rather effectively against Hillary and the dems if they insist on bringing it up.
1
Background checks will be ineffective, as will screening people for mental illness. Arming the general population would change America into a fear-ridden vigilante police state. Solutions to gun violence are difficult in America because of our violent culture and suspicion of government.
Elimination of killing in movies and television would change our culture, as would the elimination of the constant state of war that we are engaged in. These two are almost impossible. That is unfortunate because these could affect the mentally ill killers.
People will always cling to their guns. Law abiding, sane gun owners will resist any gun laws, because they fear creep in the legislation that will result in confiscation.
Having said all of that I offer the following proposals:
Limit the size of magazines to 6 bullets. Limit the number of guns that one may have on his person or in his car to two. Ammunition not in the firearm must be stored in a locked, steel box.
Elimination of killing in movies and television would change our culture, as would the elimination of the constant state of war that we are engaged in. These two are almost impossible. That is unfortunate because these could affect the mentally ill killers.
People will always cling to their guns. Law abiding, sane gun owners will resist any gun laws, because they fear creep in the legislation that will result in confiscation.
Having said all of that I offer the following proposals:
Limit the size of magazines to 6 bullets. Limit the number of guns that one may have on his person or in his car to two. Ammunition not in the firearm must be stored in a locked, steel box.
2
How sane is a person who feels a need to own a gun?
This is going to do zip. Nutcases aren't going to worry about how many guns they have in their cars, you're getting ridiculous. And who is going to check to see if you've got your ammo in a locked, steel box? Are you going to come knocking on my door to spy on me?
How utopianist is the one who doesn't?
Never one to allow a crisis go to waste, the Hillary Brand® is right out there in front of the "so-called" loophole of gun shows. Has anyone ever asked her if she has a firearm and a concealed carry license to "protect" herself…or, as an illustrious US politician and ex-Secretary of State does she get one for free?
"Do as I say, and not as I do" - ought to be her campaign slogan.
"Do as I say, and not as I do" - ought to be her campaign slogan.
4
Would any of her proposals have stopped ANY of the shootings in recent years?
For cars you can have anti drunk driving campaigns, registration, driving lessons, speed limits, insurance requirements, seat belts etc... and there will always be people who disregard them and act irresponsibly, too often with horrible loss of life.
Why is the reaction different for autos and guns?
Recently someone drove drunk and killed a limo full of bridesmaids. There wasnt a call to repeal driving privileges. There wasnt a call for tighter regulations on all.
There werent calls for restrictions on types of cars you should be allowed to buy.
There werent editorials and politicians bemoaning the high cost of lives that car ownership takes on society.
People blamed the driver and accepted that he alone was at fault.
Why then,is society to blame when there is a shooting?
Why the vastly different reaction to gun violence?
Why are auto tragedies "shrugged at", for lack of a better term, and why is our reaction to guns different?
For cars you can have anti drunk driving campaigns, registration, driving lessons, speed limits, insurance requirements, seat belts etc... and there will always be people who disregard them and act irresponsibly, too often with horrible loss of life.
Why is the reaction different for autos and guns?
Recently someone drove drunk and killed a limo full of bridesmaids. There wasnt a call to repeal driving privileges. There wasnt a call for tighter regulations on all.
There werent calls for restrictions on types of cars you should be allowed to buy.
There werent editorials and politicians bemoaning the high cost of lives that car ownership takes on society.
People blamed the driver and accepted that he alone was at fault.
Why then,is society to blame when there is a shooting?
Why the vastly different reaction to gun violence?
Why are auto tragedies "shrugged at", for lack of a better term, and why is our reaction to guns different?
2
Another Executive branch power play. You know what is really going on? what is that? Force O do take action he tells us is not permitted by the Constitution. Or is this just another “half-baked idea” that will amounted to “a bunch of mumbo-jumbo?” We will get a lot of the latter in the months to come.
Thank you Hillary Clinton for proposing this one small step but it is only a start.
2
How about we make buying a gun about as hard as getting an abortion in this country? For example, a mandatory 3 day waiting period while we investigate your background, and asking you to obtain a "no mental issues" certificate from your doctor, all the while telling you how wrong it is to do this? And then make you drive 300 miles to the state's only gun store? As you are entering the gun shop, we will show you photos of the countless butchered men, women and children from the several hundred mass shootings, just from this year? We promise not to scream in your face though.
Yes. Gun violence and gun ownership regulations should be the "anti-abortion" fight the Democrats (& even the sane Repulicans) should be championing. The difference is, this is so required for the well-being of each and every LIVING person in this country.
Yes. Gun violence and gun ownership regulations should be the "anti-abortion" fight the Democrats (& even the sane Repulicans) should be championing. The difference is, this is so required for the well-being of each and every LIVING person in this country.
6
I hope you realize you're simultaneously decrying and advocating the (so called) right to lifer's tactics.
Another week , another massacre, stuff happens , ya know. What are you going to do? I have a few ideas. For starters change this outdated law that was written in 1791 when awe were a frontier country with no standing army or police force. If the right and the NRA want a fight , please bring it on!.Every organization from Moms against Drunk Driving to Million man march need to join hands and protest 24/7 outside every NRA office, every politician's office who stands in the way, their houses, their offices, the schools where their children go.Bullhorns and placards, 500 , 1000, 100,000 marching and disturbing the peace. I would say in about 3 weeks, things will change. But we need a Bully Pulpit first, my money is on Bernie!If we can defeat Hitler, build the Atomic bomb, and go to the Moon, we can change this, but not without leadership.
2
The neglected point and absolutely crucial in this argument, which the TIMES in its wisdom never seems to admit, is that the 2nd Amendment does NOT GUARANTEE individual gun ownership. A well -regulated militia requires citizen soldiers who are armed. That is what it said at the end of the 18th century Nowadays we have a huge army and a National Guard, so we don't need amateur soldiers to form a militia. As Warren Burger, the late Republican Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote, the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the biggest hoax (his word) ever perpetrated on the American public.
4
.....and the Military will come out and take care of a mountain lion, coyote, or bear going after my livestock, or God forbid, a human intruder? How about when I have an injured animal that needs to be put down immediately?
How many of these shooters had a military background?
Think about it.........
How many of these shooters had a military background?
Think about it.........
The neglected point and absolutely crucial in this argument, which the TIMES in its wisdom never seems to admit, is that the 2nd Amendment does NOT GUARANTEE individual gun ownership
=============
Sorry, but the Heller v DC SCOTUS decision says the 2nd Amendment guarantees individual gun ownership. So it does. Its. The. Law.
=============
Sorry, but the Heller v DC SCOTUS decision says the 2nd Amendment guarantees individual gun ownership. So it does. Its. The. Law.
Well, Campesino (Hillbilly?), Supreme Court interpretations can be wrong and can be reversed. See Dred Scott and many other wrong-headed decisions. Citizens United is another one. I guess you didn't pay attention in school American history!
She didn't say how these proposals would have stopped the Oregon shooting, because they wouldn't have.
6
@Joe: of course not!! But the dems need more issues to rally their base. This has nothing to do with public welfare; it's pure partisan politics.
1
Your marks are proof that you have not listened to Bernie Sanders as he has remarked in Sandy Hook and now Oregon College - guns should only be sold to persons that have mental check (which takes several hours or days) and that said individual is sane.
I have remarked above in the Sandy Hook and now Oregon case the mothers living alone with these mentally deficient persons abetted and even bought guns for their sons. In the last case, the father of this killer had been living in Arizona for 10 years, never knew of his former wife's allowing him to purchase 14 arms.
Maybe some of these mothers are also mentally deranged.
Guess that is a big reason for BACKGROUND MENTAL CHECK!
I have remarked above in the Sandy Hook and now Oregon case the mothers living alone with these mentally deficient persons abetted and even bought guns for their sons. In the last case, the father of this killer had been living in Arizona for 10 years, never knew of his former wife's allowing him to purchase 14 arms.
Maybe some of these mothers are also mentally deranged.
Guess that is a big reason for BACKGROUND MENTAL CHECK!
1
@JoanZee: We have seen this movie before, many times. The liberals' arguments for more and more gun control has been loudly presented to the population since Obama got elected, and he was a really good spokesman for them. The nation heard what the left was selling. But they aren't buying.
So, why should we listen to Sanders? He isn't saying anytihing that wasn't said before.
So, why should we listen to Sanders? He isn't saying anytihing that wasn't said before.
1
The irony here is that the 2nd amendment was put in place so the citizens of this county has a means to fight a government out of control. Like if the president starts making autocratic decisions with executive orders.
3
The unarmed are in perill from armed narcsissistic nihilists thanks to misinterpretation of the second amendment.
6
No, the irony here is that you know nothing about history, and genesis of the Second Amendment
1
All sound and fury, signifying nothing. Yes, by all means, close the gun show "loophole." And please identify how many innocent victims from Newtown, Virginia Tech, Oregon, etc. would still be alive today as a result. (Hint: none.)
One thing we should have learned about Hillary by now- she fervently stands for whatever she believes might get her elected. The public is currently inflamed over the Oregon shootings (and rightly so), so she's on board! Ride that wave! Of course, should enthusiasm wane, well, she'll be on to the next big thing, as her only core guiding principle is self-interest.
The partial solution to America's gun violence problem (it can only be partial, as it doesn't address root causes, just the means) lies with Congress, not with a perennial wanna-be leader of the Executive branch.
Once again, we see wall-to-wall coverage of everything Hillary says. Apparently Bernie Sanders has a more nuanced position on this issue. Any chance we might get to read about that some day? Maybe on a day Hillary doesn't make any official pronouncements, so a reporter could be spared?
One thing we should have learned about Hillary by now- she fervently stands for whatever she believes might get her elected. The public is currently inflamed over the Oregon shootings (and rightly so), so she's on board! Ride that wave! Of course, should enthusiasm wane, well, she'll be on to the next big thing, as her only core guiding principle is self-interest.
The partial solution to America's gun violence problem (it can only be partial, as it doesn't address root causes, just the means) lies with Congress, not with a perennial wanna-be leader of the Executive branch.
Once again, we see wall-to-wall coverage of everything Hillary says. Apparently Bernie Sanders has a more nuanced position on this issue. Any chance we might get to read about that some day? Maybe on a day Hillary doesn't make any official pronouncements, so a reporter could be spared?
7
Americans should ask this question first. What is the most dangerous to Americas future, the 2th Amendment, more and larger nuclear weapons, more deficit spending, "American Pride" or pigs in college dorms like you wrote about in todays paper.
It was Democrats who forced open the doors of mental hospitals to give patients and the severely mentally disturbed the right to re-enter society, without restrictions. Now these same Democrats want to deny that salient fact by further restricting gun ownership. They refuse to see the obvious link between the mentally disturbed and mass murder by guns. Instead they prefer to punish law abiding gun owners by denying the link. After all, it is not politically correct to incarcerate the criminally insane.
3
It's also not constitutional to incarcerate them before they commit a criminal act. You know - all those amendments and stuff.
And do I misremember, or doesn't the NRA support restoring gun rights to convicted felons? Ah, here it is:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm
Is the NRA also working to restore voting rights to the same folks?
And do I misremember, or doesn't the NRA support restoring gun rights to convicted felons? Ah, here it is:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm
Is the NRA also working to restore voting rights to the same folks?
2
Neither logic nor respect for the rule of law is notable among the strengths of the modern left. In BHO, we have the most lawless POTUS in the history of the country, who simply refuses to enforce laws with which he disagrees. Now, HRC proposes to continue that imperial precedent, simply rewriting laws by fiat. How would the left react if a Republican POTUS unilaterally refused to spend a dime on Planned Parenthood?
While she’s in NH, perhaps Hillary should wander next door, to VT, the state with among the best gun laws in the country. Up to 75% of the people own guns; one needs nary a “by your leave”.
And the number of annual gun homicides in this Wild West, rock-ribbed Republican paradise? You can usually count them on the fingers of one hand, with a few fingers left over.
Meanwhile in Newark, NJ, with roughly 2/5 the population, and boasting probably the strictest laws in the country – one can literally get busted for going to the bathroom on the way to the range – in just one week – ONE WEEK!! – six people were murdered.
So, lots of people armed, few restrictions, next to no murders. Virtually no one legally armed, draconian restrictions, and carnage. And since both areas have lots of Democrats, you can’t even blame the Party!!
Clearly, it’s not guns which are the problem, if folks in VT somehow manage to avoid blood running in rivers. So, query, what IS different?
Logic and facts are difficult, but with a little work, even HRC and the left might make some sense.
While she’s in NH, perhaps Hillary should wander next door, to VT, the state with among the best gun laws in the country. Up to 75% of the people own guns; one needs nary a “by your leave”.
And the number of annual gun homicides in this Wild West, rock-ribbed Republican paradise? You can usually count them on the fingers of one hand, with a few fingers left over.
Meanwhile in Newark, NJ, with roughly 2/5 the population, and boasting probably the strictest laws in the country – one can literally get busted for going to the bathroom on the way to the range – in just one week – ONE WEEK!! – six people were murdered.
So, lots of people armed, few restrictions, next to no murders. Virtually no one legally armed, draconian restrictions, and carnage. And since both areas have lots of Democrats, you can’t even blame the Party!!
Clearly, it’s not guns which are the problem, if folks in VT somehow manage to avoid blood running in rivers. So, query, what IS different?
Logic and facts are difficult, but with a little work, even HRC and the left might make some sense.
2
Limit the size of magazines to 6 bullets. Limit the number of guns that one may have on his person or in his car to two. Ammunition not in the firearm must be stored in a locked, steel box.
7
AJK - Do you really believe that what you and many others propose, limiting magazine size, limiting number of guns, safe storage of ammunition, will have any effect on stopping a mentally ill person who has homicide on his mind?
Laws prohibiting the purchase of multiple small capacity magazines and the violation of the other two "laws" would not be a deterrent to mass murder. What they will do is aggravate to 300+ million legal. law abiding gun owners in the United States and force them to continue to fight non-common sense laws.
Laws prohibiting the purchase of multiple small capacity magazines and the violation of the other two "laws" would not be a deterrent to mass murder. What they will do is aggravate to 300+ million legal. law abiding gun owners in the United States and force them to continue to fight non-common sense laws.
3
Limiting the size of magazines and the number of guns would slow the mentally ill person in his carnage. These restrictions would not affect hunters, sportsmen, or self defense.
And, god forbid you should need to use that six round gun in the event of a home break-in. Particularly if you're a woman, as they don't generally have pockets for spare magazines in their bedclothes.
I fully support more gun control laws, and closing loopholes seems reasonable enough. But i'm more afraid of putting Mrs. Clinton in the position to enact executive orders at will than i am of any restriction on current gun laws.
9
sorry, that should read lack of further restriction.
1
One of the issues with guns is that with minimal maintenance, they can last for over 100 years. When you die, your guns are still out there for another couple generations. They get left to people who may not be as responsible as the original owner.
Mrs Clinton's proposals are, of course, reasonable but they mainly just address new gun purchases. We need a gun buy-back program from coast to coast, 365 days per year, managed by police departments and funded by taxing new guns and ammo sales.
Mrs Clinton's proposals are, of course, reasonable but they mainly just address new gun purchases. We need a gun buy-back program from coast to coast, 365 days per year, managed by police departments and funded by taxing new guns and ammo sales.
11
Nothing new here when states don't report felony convictions to the FBI-maintained NICS database, or when states don't enforce their own laws, as was the case in Conn. when Ms. Lanza was allowed "assault weapons" ownership without verification of her compliance - bad things often happen.
Were the individual records within the NICS database actually maintained - a mental health protocol included, along with prescribed (Rx) psychotropic drug use - then perhaps the "background" check system would be sufficient for all firearms transfers.
However, at this hour the government system shows that there were record-setting June through August 2015 requests for verification, with more than 2.6 million NICS checks requested by FFL dealers. And within more recent current event - the media has not vetted either the actual citizenship of the Oregon shooter (http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapt... OR the alleged "legal" sales which resulted in his firearms ownership, as should have been contained within each ATF Form 4473 that covers each "legal" sale through a retail (FFL licensed) firearms dealer.
Granted - this matter is a "political football" and the media should verify the information furnished them by all government officials.
Were the individual records within the NICS database actually maintained - a mental health protocol included, along with prescribed (Rx) psychotropic drug use - then perhaps the "background" check system would be sufficient for all firearms transfers.
However, at this hour the government system shows that there were record-setting June through August 2015 requests for verification, with more than 2.6 million NICS checks requested by FFL dealers. And within more recent current event - the media has not vetted either the actual citizenship of the Oregon shooter (http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapt... OR the alleged "legal" sales which resulted in his firearms ownership, as should have been contained within each ATF Form 4473 that covers each "legal" sale through a retail (FFL licensed) firearms dealer.
Granted - this matter is a "political football" and the media should verify the information furnished them by all government officials.
1
Hillary Clinton is demonstrating true leadership here. She deserves a lot of credit for doing more than just taking a stand on this issue, but for spear-heading a sensible measure to limit the sales of guns to the wrong people.
94
Bernie Sanders has been against gun sales unless a thorough check of the person's ability to use the weapon proves the person has the mental capacity to use said weapon. The Oregon gun owner that created the mayhem at Oregon University had lived with his mother who also knew he had mental instability - she even bought guns for him...
Sounds like another "mother" abetting her son, just as the Mother bought and gave guns to her mentally deficient son in the Sandy Hook murders.
Maybe the next step is to CHARGE THESE MOTHERS FOR AIDING AND ABETTING what are now criminals, and hopefully now dead!
Sounds like another "mother" abetting her son, just as the Mother bought and gave guns to her mentally deficient son in the Sandy Hook murders.
Maybe the next step is to CHARGE THESE MOTHERS FOR AIDING AND ABETTING what are now criminals, and hopefully now dead!
1
Hillary Clinton is currently a private citizen, with no power to back her words with action, and if she ever gets that power again, there will be nothing to hold her to her promises. If she were pledging millions of dollars of the Clinton fortune to gun safety or other projects, that would be something, but currently she is offering only words.
1
If the NRA is the real culprit, then why not find out how many of these shooters are member? I'm willing to bet that very few if any are NRA members.
25
Folks with illegal intentions are not likely to belong to an organization. What purpose does your comment serve?
1
Its not that they are necessarily members that is the point. Its that the NRA is enabling these folks. Enablers are just as guilty as perpetrators.
1
The NRA will support any person with a gun. Membership is not a requirement. The goal: a gun in every pot. Oh, sorry, that used to be a chicken.
1
What difference, at this point, does it make? Hillary won't really enforce it. Hillary won't stop the way in which guns find their way into the hands of inner-city teenagers, even in cities with strict gun control laws. Hillary won't stop the way legal gun buyers peddle their guns to teens and cons. Besides, the Left won't allow Hillary to jail people for mere possession of a gun. So gun possession will be, at most, a ticket or misdemeanor until the gun owner murders multiple people.
I wonder how many of those Fast & Furious guns ended up back in the streets after the federal government got done with them.
I wonder how many of those Fast & Furious guns ended up back in the streets after the federal government got done with them.
2
In a panic situation holding a gun is likely to cost you your life...How do you determine who to shoot and what the risks are of hitting someone else are?
If there is ever a man made or natural catastrophe that calls for the immediate evacuation of an unban area there will never again be a need for a gun debate.
If there is ever a man made or natural catastrophe that calls for the immediate evacuation of an unban area there will never again be a need for a gun debate.
1
If you want a gun, you should buy it now because when Hillary takes over in 15 months, guns ownership will be thoroughly regulated.
Another gun dealer heard from. You guys used the same canard very effectively when Obama was elected. Had a pretty good run, didn't you?
For far too long gun lobbying groups have thwarted any common sense legislation by falsely branding the issue as gun control by big government over individual law-abiding citizen rights to own guns. The words “individual rights” triumphs over “government controls.” This is how the gun lobby has been able to expand the sale of guns beyond any developed country but on a par with some of the most dangerous regions in the world. Gun control vs. gun rights may be the most successful use of branding in any marketing campaign in US history.
Gun manufacturer’s are at the stage in their life cycle that cars were in the 1960’s when they started making cars safer. There are many things the gun industry could do to make their products safer
Today, Google, Apple and others are developing a “driverless car” that can sense the immediate surroundings at high speeds in busy traffic. Certainly they could develop a tiny “smart chip” for a gun that would not fire in a bus station or airplane. Facebook already has enough information to make a “smart chip” that could stop a gun from firing at a wife, loved one or helpless children. These “smart chips” could also have override features where the gun would fire by recognizing truly dangerous situations that the video gaming industry could perfect. American ingenuity could make gun safety a reality. Walmart and others have a unique opportunity to develop this chip as a business venture that would also have great humanitarian benefits.
Gun manufacturer’s are at the stage in their life cycle that cars were in the 1960’s when they started making cars safer. There are many things the gun industry could do to make their products safer
Today, Google, Apple and others are developing a “driverless car” that can sense the immediate surroundings at high speeds in busy traffic. Certainly they could develop a tiny “smart chip” for a gun that would not fire in a bus station or airplane. Facebook already has enough information to make a “smart chip” that could stop a gun from firing at a wife, loved one or helpless children. These “smart chips” could also have override features where the gun would fire by recognizing truly dangerous situations that the video gaming industry could perfect. American ingenuity could make gun safety a reality. Walmart and others have a unique opportunity to develop this chip as a business venture that would also have great humanitarian benefits.
Since the murders in Sandy Hook, I and many of my friends in CT are single issue voters - and gun safety laws are THE primary concern.
2
The 2nd Amendment is very clear:
"The right to be randomly slaughtered by a mentally imbalanced male SHALL NOT be infringed".
GOP 2015
"The right to be randomly slaughtered by a mentally imbalanced male SHALL NOT be infringed".
GOP 2015
93
Mrs. Clinton, and any other candidate wishing to make our streets, homes, schools, and workplaces safer from gun violence, face an uphill battle, because the majority in Congress and the Republicans on the Supreme Court believe that the founding fathers enshrined this in our Constitution:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, THOU SHALT NOT REGULATE FIREARMS IN ANY FASHION WHATSOEVER!" Of course, if you're Rick Santorum, you believe that the President can simply ignore what the Supreme Court says about the Constitution, and do whatever the heck you want.
Of course, the last time the President did that, the precedent that some Republicans want to follow, was Andrew Jackson's decision to remove the entire Cherokee Nation from the lands granted it by treaty, so that white land speculators could mine for gold in Georgia and Alabama. So perhaps the Trail of Tears School of Constitutional Law isn't the best example to emulate.
Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, whose order Andrew Jackson chose to ignore, may nonetheless have provided the answer to this dilemma. He wrote in "McCulloch vs. Maryland" (1819) that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Very well, let every sale of firearms and ammunition be taxed according to the destructive power involved. The owners of private arsenals can be forced to declare their property, and if they fail to do so or pay for the privilege, then they can be jailed for tax evasion!
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, THOU SHALT NOT REGULATE FIREARMS IN ANY FASHION WHATSOEVER!" Of course, if you're Rick Santorum, you believe that the President can simply ignore what the Supreme Court says about the Constitution, and do whatever the heck you want.
Of course, the last time the President did that, the precedent that some Republicans want to follow, was Andrew Jackson's decision to remove the entire Cherokee Nation from the lands granted it by treaty, so that white land speculators could mine for gold in Georgia and Alabama. So perhaps the Trail of Tears School of Constitutional Law isn't the best example to emulate.
Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, whose order Andrew Jackson chose to ignore, may nonetheless have provided the answer to this dilemma. He wrote in "McCulloch vs. Maryland" (1819) that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Very well, let every sale of firearms and ammunition be taxed according to the destructive power involved. The owners of private arsenals can be forced to declare their property, and if they fail to do so or pay for the privilege, then they can be jailed for tax evasion!
Clinton's concept - "make anyone selling a substantial number of guns declared “in the business” of firearms dealing, and subject to the same rules as retailers" may sound good but, in reality, has little chance of changing anything.
Today, practically anyone "selling a substantial number of guns" is compelled to process those transactions thru an FFL (such as at a gun show), or to be an FFL themselves. Translation : federal background checks are generally done. So Clinton, who should know better, is trying to say the checks are not done, which is misleading.
I've attended many guns shows, and have seen very little evidence of guns bought/sold outside of these normal procedures. Though it does happen from time to time, its not a huge volume.
The 72 hour Federal limit is designed to MAKE GOV'T DO IT'S JOB in a timely fashion. Extending that limit constitutes an unconstitutional ban on firearms ownership.
Ms. Clinton - I will vote against you.
Today, practically anyone "selling a substantial number of guns" is compelled to process those transactions thru an FFL (such as at a gun show), or to be an FFL themselves. Translation : federal background checks are generally done. So Clinton, who should know better, is trying to say the checks are not done, which is misleading.
I've attended many guns shows, and have seen very little evidence of guns bought/sold outside of these normal procedures. Though it does happen from time to time, its not a huge volume.
The 72 hour Federal limit is designed to MAKE GOV'T DO IT'S JOB in a timely fashion. Extending that limit constitutes an unconstitutional ban on firearms ownership.
Ms. Clinton - I will vote against you.
23
Mrs. Clinton, you are spot-on! I will support you in any way I can. As a parent of a student of Columbine in 1999 I have been waiting to see the day Americans will wake up. It's beginning to happen. I am just sorry it has taken so long and so many lives have been lost!
2
Like you would have voted for her, huh?
"I've attended many gun shows". Um, how big is YOUR gun collection? Got any automatic weapons? Ever pointed a gun at someone, apart from in the military? Ever been depressed? Ever get into a physical confrontation with someone? How often? Alcohol consumptionj?
I'm convinced if you scratch a little deeper on these rabid anti-gun control types, what's going to be found is not pretty, more likely marginally or outright pathological.
"I've attended many gun shows". Um, how big is YOUR gun collection? Got any automatic weapons? Ever pointed a gun at someone, apart from in the military? Ever been depressed? Ever get into a physical confrontation with someone? How often? Alcohol consumptionj?
I'm convinced if you scratch a little deeper on these rabid anti-gun control types, what's going to be found is not pretty, more likely marginally or outright pathological.
2
Joey--I will cancel your vote with my vote.
1
In Heller v District of Columbia the Supreme Court ruled that there is a “traditional” right to gun ownership, but what is the traditional USE of an AK47 or any other automatic weapon? These are weapons of warfare and mass murder. The Supreme Court has given us the basis for a definition. Only traditional guns should be legal in America—hunting rifles, basic shotguns, and simple handguns (pistols only, no magazines) and nothing else. If you can't defend your home with a pump shotgun, you shouldn't be allowed out on the streets without your mother to protect you.
80
I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but automatic weapons have been illegal to own since 1934 without going through an extensive and costly licensing process. According to FBI data in 2011 there exactly 323 murders committed with rifles in the US. The number committed with so called “assault rifles” were a fraction of that. When you ask how dangerous those rifles are, compare that to nearly 1,700 who were stabbed as well as nearly 500 murdered with blunt objects and and more than 700 beaten to death by somebody with their bare hands. Enough said on that topic.
Do you have any idea how hard and expensive it is to buy a fully automatic weapon?
If you did , you wouldn't be making posts like above that make you look stupid.
The average price for a single fullauto gun starts around 16,000 DOLLARS
And that doesnt include the massive FBI check and license costs
If you did , you wouldn't be making posts like above that make you look stupid.
The average price for a single fullauto gun starts around 16,000 DOLLARS
And that doesnt include the massive FBI check and license costs
1
Fully automatic AK47s and the like are not traditional are are illegal.
"Arms" in the purview of the Floundering Fathers were single-shot muskets, not machine guns. The 2nd amendment needs an update.
1
The people who always call for more control on guns after these kinds of shootings seem to not understand criminals. Yet they all want to be seen as the smartest guy in the room. If guns kill, not people, then why not require every person to have one of these "Guns that Kill" in their home at al times in case another "Gun that Kills" walks into your house? If strick gun laws worked, you'd be able to walk the streets of Chicago with no fear of being killed by a gun. Yet President Obama left out of his speech the fact that in his home town, there have been about 6,000 shootings since 2012 with about 750 dead. He said that places where there are strick gun laws, homicides go down. What planet is he living on? People have been killing each other since Kane killed Able. It is a condition of the heart not the lack of laws. Remember, laws are for law abiding citizens. Criminals and mentally ill people do not abide by laws. Some things happen to us because we live in a free society. Many politicians believe that they always have to "Do Something" like more gun laws and we will all live happily ever after.
1
The way Mrs. Clinton can close gun loopholes is to get elected and appoint sane, reasonable justices to the Supreme Court. Heller needs to be overturned, and that would be one step in the right direction. Otherwise she and everyone else who is concerned by the annual gun slaughter in this country is just whistling in the wind.
Last year the NRA spent a total of $3,360,000 lobbying. This sum spread among Federal, State and Municipal lobbyists to influence elected officials is tiny. Surely their out sized influence versus their minuscule expenditures should easily be blunted. Michael Bloomberg's personal net worth alone is 1,000 times the size.
2
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Given that a "well regulated militia" is no longer "necessary" - since we now have a "standing army" - it would seem that the Second Amendment is, ipso facto, obsolete.
Given that a "well regulated militia" is no longer "necessary" - since we now have a "standing army" - it would seem that the Second Amendment is, ipso facto, obsolete.
2
The militia isn't obsolete at all, it's enshrined in Federal law:
10 USC 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
10 USC 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
There is a question that many seem to be asking about the Roesburg shootings, and politicians should be asking it as well. How could someone lawfully buy 13 firearms over a relatively short time span and not attract some sort of attention? Was the purchaser a "collector" or was the purchaser a dealer in arms? No one, apparently thought to ask, even though it seems there was a single licensed seller and a national database that is supposedly up to date and that must be checked. The USPS, FedEx, UPS, etc., can track packages almost instantaneously. Amazon, Walmart, and others can track you purchasing preferences. Yet, we cannot seem to get a handle on who is buying guns, what types of guns they are buying, how often they buy guns, and how many guns they own. All of this might have been useful information to have regarding Roseburg.
3
Hopefully if a Democrat wins coattails will make executive action unnecessary.
We simply can't stop the proliferation of guns in America. Anyone who thinks we can is delusional. We have a problem and no gun law will stop this until a majority of Americans also believe we have a gun problem. Many Conservatives seem to believe that all Americans should have free access to any kind of gun they want, and that the only thing that stops gun violence is "a good guy with a gun". I don't know what will happen to America. All I know is that I am going to be very careful that I don't make anyone angry.
1
More people are killed on average in Hilary's home city of Chicago every week than were killed in Oregon. It doesn't take away the tragedy of Oregon but I would like to suggest the candidates from Chicago, President Obama and Mrs. Clinton, show us how they can fix things at home before they subject the rest of the country to their folly.
1
The killings in Chicago are mostly done by people with guns. Getting guns off Chicago streets would help.
so the whole mass shooting issue is mental problems, and actual control of guns is not needed. That is like saying someone who is a pyromaniac just needs counseling, but no need to take away their matches.
1
Thank God, someone will openly attack the NRA. The enemy
is the NRA and their influence has to be greatly diminished.
is the NRA and their influence has to be greatly diminished.
1
Guns should only be sold by licensed regulated dealers, period. You should not be allowed to sell your weapon to anyone at anytime without background checks and a paper trail. No even to a family member. And I own many guns.
1
Second amendment be damned! That law was intended to provide a sort of "volunteer fire department," to allow our citizens to fight wars, if needed, at a time when we barely had an army in this new country. History has proven that passing out guns like candy results in carnage; people explode and kill innocents. Outlaw guns. Provide buyback programs.
2
Canada has sensible gun laws. That would help. I don't believe the things being discussed will work. Require a license. For everybody who wants a gun. No grandfather clauses. The license would require a significant information class and a written and practical test. A spouse must sign an application, or some community member if no spouse. In Canada, guns must be locked, with ammunition in separate, locked spaces. I believe these would help.
8
1- Voluntary Federal Buyer's ID, enabling FFL dealers to prefer those buyers.
2- Federal incentives for manufacturers to design/market firearms without detachable magazines.
3- Increase participation in CMP with contemporary weapons, not WWII leftovers.
4- Increase trained & licensed concealed carry, enabling civilian first-responders, by 5-7%. One or two trained civilians could have taken the last guy out quickly.
Americans have become afraid of the responsibility for their own safety.
2- Federal incentives for manufacturers to design/market firearms without detachable magazines.
3- Increase participation in CMP with contemporary weapons, not WWII leftovers.
4- Increase trained & licensed concealed carry, enabling civilian first-responders, by 5-7%. One or two trained civilians could have taken the last guy out quickly.
Americans have become afraid of the responsibility for their own safety.
Why not treat every young potential gun buyer like we treat every women who wants a legal abortion?
Mandatory 48 hour waiting period, parental permission, a doctor's note verifying awareness of gun issues, and a mandatory video watching about the effects of gun violence.
Mandatory 48 hour waiting period, parental permission, a doctor's note verifying awareness of gun issues, and a mandatory video watching about the effects of gun violence.
188
You forgot the equivalent of a mandatory ultrasound. Why not send every gun buyer to forensic psychologist specially trained in the types of people most likely to be mass murderers, but also domestic violence, suicide, criminals and have too short of a fuse.
While we're at it, wny are guns easier to get and keep than a car? Maybe we need to have registrations, exams and "driving test" that includes proof of a safe place to store them in the home and inspections like we do for immesions. Registering and making sure the person who bought the gun continues to own it is part of ownership.
None of this would be against the constitutional or amendments.
While we're at it, wny are guns easier to get and keep than a car? Maybe we need to have registrations, exams and "driving test" that includes proof of a safe place to store them in the home and inspections like we do for immesions. Registering and making sure the person who bought the gun continues to own it is part of ownership.
None of this would be against the constitutional or amendments.
2
and full and proper training and a license with a large fee.
why not open more mental hospitals?
I have no problem with more stringent background checks or universal registration, but suing manufacturers is just plain stupid. I know it makes a certain type all acquiver with anticipation of huge punitive damage awards, but where would it stop? Do you want to sue knife manufacturers when there is a stabbing?
Secondly, changing gun laws through exucutive order? Seriously? Who does she think she is. Obama? The office of president is not for making laws, contrary what our supposed constitutional expert president seems to think.
Hilary has just again revealed herself as a candidate who will say anything she thinks voters want to hear. If only she had some of her own honestly held beliefs.
Secondly, changing gun laws through exucutive order? Seriously? Who does she think she is. Obama? The office of president is not for making laws, contrary what our supposed constitutional expert president seems to think.
Hilary has just again revealed herself as a candidate who will say anything she thinks voters want to hear. If only she had some of her own honestly held beliefs.
23
Executive Orders are completely within the power of the executive, perfectly legal. They are only objectionable, to you, when made by a Democrat. Republican executive orders would be okey dokey.
2
There is a lot of technology that could be used to make guns safer. Why not make the gun manufacturers adopt it? We did it with cars. And it saved lives.
2
Without laws that demand a safer product, it would be silly to sue manufacturers. However, that is where this should begin. We need to demand safety as we have done with countless other products from cars to Christmas tree lights. Dangerous and potentially dangerous products need warning labels, training and licensing to use (e.g. cars, herbicides), and as a society we need to mandate upgrades relative to safety mechanisms and certain standards, as well as warnings and recalls when those are not met. In addition, certain potentially dangerous products should not be allowed unless the person carries liability insurance (cars, use of poisonous material, medicines, even mental health practitioners have to carry insurance).
1
This "Republican-led" Congress is bent on blocking everything and anything in an effort to undermine the legitimacy of our national government. Executive action may be needed to overcome the criminal conspiracy that would enslave the majority of Americans in the name of freedom.
2
There are 10,000 deaths by gunfire every year. Yet we only hear about gun laws when there is a mass shooting--which always seems be committed by a person with mental health problems. We need laws that prevent criminals who kill one or two at a time from getting such easy access. All of us probably know of someone who is a recluse, withdrawn and may be somewhat scary. Do we report them?
There needs to be a limit as to the number of guns an individual can own or at the very least a threshold where a particular number of guns becomes a collection. These collections must be registered and tracked. Regardless of how responsible and law abiding gun owners think of themselves, nobody considers what happens to all of those responsibly owned guns when the owner dies. All of those guns find their way into the secondary market where they are up for grabs to any idiot who can scrape up some cash and sidestep existing restrictions. I applaud Mrs. Clinton for taking this on. She is not afraid to come up with real ideas and proposals.
57
mdnewell. You have hit the nail right on the head. Excellent statement.
Question: How do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Like illegal drugs, drug addicts always find a way to get drugs. The same with guns. How will law abiding citizens be able to defend themselves against a criminal with a gun? Baseball bat? Knife? Broom stick?
Do you have an idea for what constitutes a "collection"? A well-armed soldier goes into battle with two weapons and about 300 rounds of ammunition, a quantity which avid recreational shooters would exhaust in one day at the range, so context and the person carrying the weapons matters incredibly.
I applaud Hillary's frank support of gun legislation that a majority of Americans say they want. But I just don't think that EAs are the way to go. Why add fuel to the fire of such a contentious subject?
Leaders should lead by bringing people together, not jumping in to promise an EA even before being elected. EAs should be the last resort, not the first. By raising the topic, the only thing she's doing is inflaming the other side.
If the majority of Americans want some sane gun changes on background checks and the like, harness that public opinion and lead. A shared consensus will always be more effective than an Executive action.
Leaders should lead by bringing people together, not jumping in to promise an EA even before being elected. EAs should be the last resort, not the first. By raising the topic, the only thing she's doing is inflaming the other side.
If the majority of Americans want some sane gun changes on background checks and the like, harness that public opinion and lead. A shared consensus will always be more effective than an Executive action.
35
I agree with you in principle, but in reality that approach requires an unraveling of gerrymandered congressional districts, which can't possibly occur before 2020 and even then will require enormous political lifting. My point is that the GOP majority in the House is almost a sure bet for at least the next decade or two, unless there is some sort of unprecedented political shift (highly unlikely). Are you willing to wait?
1
The problem is that most people DO support these changes, even NRA members, just not the leaders of the NRA , who are beholden to the manufacturers, who have the money.
So in theory, you're right, but it hasn't worked so far because of my first paragraph.
So in theory, you're right, but it hasn't worked so far because of my first paragraph.
2
Republican "leaders" refuse to lead, time and time again.
3
Boy, she's really an expert on everything.
I say pass federal legislation which requires that all guns be issued Certificates of Title like with cars and that gun owners be required to maintain liability insurance with high deductibles to indemnify people harmed by their guns.
Like with cars, impose strict vicarious liability upon gun owners for their direct or otherwise negligent conduct.
As far a bullets go, the eggs I buy are imprinted with a traceable code. Do that with bullets.
This will not eliminate all gun violence but it will cut it back and provide at least some remuneration for victims.
As far as I can see, none of this in any way conflicts with that pesky 2d Amendment.
I say pass federal legislation which requires that all guns be issued Certificates of Title like with cars and that gun owners be required to maintain liability insurance with high deductibles to indemnify people harmed by their guns.
Like with cars, impose strict vicarious liability upon gun owners for their direct or otherwise negligent conduct.
As far a bullets go, the eggs I buy are imprinted with a traceable code. Do that with bullets.
This will not eliminate all gun violence but it will cut it back and provide at least some remuneration for victims.
As far as I can see, none of this in any way conflicts with that pesky 2d Amendment.
3
Mike, it's the passing of any federal legislation having to do with any kind of control over gun ownership that is the problem. I think all of your suggestions are very good ideas, but it's the passing of federal legislation that is the road bump - or, rather, road block.
Good for Hillary. Republicans will likely continue to control the House of Representatives in the next Congress, regardless of who wins the Presidency or Senate. Since Republicans refuse to do anything to help reduce gun violence, executive actions may be the only possibility for instituting common-sense gun control measures. More effective measures, dependent on Congressional action, can follow but are clearly dependent on better organizing and education, and turning Republicans out of Congress.
2
why does executive action seem so threatening that only the most dire public emergency of death and destruction can justify it? What kind of warped democracy is this?
Just when does anyone think the Repubs might be turned out of congress, this generation?
It may take a revolution...they are entrenched by too many factors, such as big media monopolies, big money donors, and redistricting tricks. How do we overturn these barriers? Citizens United sealed the deal. We are stuck. If afraid to use exec action of a common sense president, god forbid, then we're doomed for more death.
Just when does anyone think the Repubs might be turned out of congress, this generation?
It may take a revolution...they are entrenched by too many factors, such as big media monopolies, big money donors, and redistricting tricks. How do we overturn these barriers? Citizens United sealed the deal. We are stuck. If afraid to use exec action of a common sense president, god forbid, then we're doomed for more death.
The problem with guns is not the passing of laws; it is a childish infatuation with the possession of guns, buttressed by a misreading of the Second Amendment. No law can command love and respect. Indeed, there would be cause for shame living in a country where respect and manners were enforced by law. But where respect is lacking, there violence ensues. On the other hand, we could model love and respect, and manners, in our daily behaviors, at home and in the schools, and such respect would counter the violent tendencies of hatred and disrespect. Not a quick solution, but one that is more sure to obtain the desired results. Lack of manners is a sign of lack of care for others, especially our neighbors. We show this in the filth of our barrios and the uncouth language we use against people we dislike, in the lewd behavior we tolerate in our public shows, in the noisy assault we allow in our cities; we take all of this for granted, without realizing the effect it has on the inculcation of uncaring and, eventually, violence. It does not cost money to be civil, only effort; no budgets need be changed if we behave courteously, especially in the schools (and especially in the cafeterias and playing fields). Who will be the first presidential candidate to propose the learning of manners as a national project?
2
@ Ignacio Gotz: How sad it is, how disillusioning to note the almost complete absence of "recommended" checks on your wise comment.
I gather it will be allowable for a future president to stop all abortions via Executive Action?
A troubled path to govern the nation by Executive Action.
A troubled path to govern the nation by Executive Action.
1
It won't work.
Americans have decided as a society that the right to unlimited gun ownership, including by children, the mentally ill, terrorists and criminals, is more important that protecting the life and safety of their children.
The drill is and will remain:
1) Grieve the victims of mass shootings;
2) Condemn the killers;
3) Deny that gun control is an appropriate discussion. Ever.
4) After the next shooting repeat 1) through 3).
I don't even read about, or follow news stories, about mass shooting anymore.
That would be a waste of time.
Americans have decided as a society that the right to unlimited gun ownership, including by children, the mentally ill, terrorists and criminals, is more important that protecting the life and safety of their children.
The drill is and will remain:
1) Grieve the victims of mass shootings;
2) Condemn the killers;
3) Deny that gun control is an appropriate discussion. Ever.
4) After the next shooting repeat 1) through 3).
I don't even read about, or follow news stories, about mass shooting anymore.
That would be a waste of time.
4
Bullet-Riddled Bodies Do Not Lie. Guns Kill. Get them off the streets of America. WE must demand that EVERY gun in America be registered on a national database, licensed and fully insured for liability.
51
There are 300 million guns out on the street as I type. Our government can not stop illegal drug sales or illegal immigration so why do you think it can manage this?
Your proposals won't prevent a single shooting. Thanks for playing, please try again.
Good luck with that. I have a sibling who lives in Colorado and he goes to gun shows. He said that a lot of these gun sellers by-pass all laws (assuming Colorado has gun laws) by selling their guns out side the gun shows - from the trunks of their cars parked in the parking lot. No background checks.....nothing.
52
It's time to reduce the number of guns in America. Reinstate the "assault rifle" ban. End gun shows. Require stricter background checks at the state and federal level. Require greater justification for owning a handgun and limit the number that can be owned. Impose a six month or longer moratorium on domestic sales of guns to civilians until stronger laws to protect our society are in place. Offer state and national buyback programs and impose greater penalties for owning illegal guns and magazines.
It's time to turn guns into plowshares.
It's time to turn guns into plowshares.
97
Hillary and Obama voice their concern about guns but are willing to give Iran the atom bomb.
Top retail gun sales and gun shows. The people making their living with gun shows should be retrained and shifted to new jobs. Business has over decades deprived millions of workers in a myriad of jobs after sending thousands of factories to Asia, so let's start depriving gun sellers of their jobs. Train them in something of use to society.
If Mrs. Clinton could use administrative authority to make anyone selling a substantial number of guns declared “in the business” of firearms dealing, and subject to the same rules as retailers, why can't President Obama do that right now?
51
Well, either one of them could issue such an EO as President but it's extremely doubtful it would stand any legal scrutiny as it has no basis in law.
There's also the practical matter of determining how many firearms a private individual sold during any period of time as there is no record of such sales.
There's also the practical matter of determining how many firearms a private individual sold during any period of time as there is no record of such sales.
When should the executive order be used or not? This is not about guns it is about the use and abuse of our government. There is no mistake that those who are most bent on lessening restrictions on guns are FOR restrictions on the President. This gets at the core of the gun lobby's intent. Gun ownership to NRA types is about infringement of their executive authority. Their guns say they are the boss. The President is "Big Daddy" who threatens their total control over their executive authority. This is the reason why use of the executive order is the perfect tool to end not only the stalemate over gun laws in our country but the stranglehold a few who with the electorial equivalent of an ill gotten gun collection have over congress.
I see little difference between the stand off at Waco and the couple of dozen in congress, holed up in their gerrymandered districts, funded with PAC money not unlike terrorist laundered money except that it's legal, holding hostages in this case the entire population of the United States in a stand off refusing to pass desperately needed legislation like putting people back to work. Instead, like demanding a jet and cash, they demand defunding of Planned Parenthood and investigations into Benghazi and Hillary's e-mail.
How can we expect those who treat our government like mass shooters treat their community to act any different? This is about authority. Take it away from the children who think because they have a gun they are the boss.
I see little difference between the stand off at Waco and the couple of dozen in congress, holed up in their gerrymandered districts, funded with PAC money not unlike terrorist laundered money except that it's legal, holding hostages in this case the entire population of the United States in a stand off refusing to pass desperately needed legislation like putting people back to work. Instead, like demanding a jet and cash, they demand defunding of Planned Parenthood and investigations into Benghazi and Hillary's e-mail.
How can we expect those who treat our government like mass shooters treat their community to act any different? This is about authority. Take it away from the children who think because they have a gun they are the boss.
2
to KL .... You ask the best question...why is Obama, outraged and sincere as he is, not able to take 'executive action', whatever that means in our warped govt? What does Obama's outrage mean then? Could some enterprising, daring reporter ask Obama this at the WH press conferences? Could the NYT call the WH and ask him?
Hillary is becoming more progressive every day Bernie Sanders gains on her. She will become more regressive each day if she is elected.
29
New gun laws haven't failed to be passed because of "gridlock in Congress." They've failed because there isn't a majority supporting them. Those who do are upset that their position isn't supported by a majority of the public or in the Congress, but that's not gridlock.
33
After the Newtown massacre of children and their teachers, polls consistently showed that about 80% of Americans favored stronger background check laws. Charles Rangel has said that the NRA is such a powerful bully that even when 90% of the people in a district favor sensible gun control legislation, it is impossible to get passed. The people's thoughts on these matters clearly are not reflected by congressional inaction on them.
7
The majority wants more gun regulations. The problem is that none of the proposals seem to offer much chance at change or relief from america's gun epidemic.
3
Wrong. Wrong. Very wrong.
New gun laws have not passed because of the evil, insidious and pervasive power of the NRA and the total lack of backbone shown by some people in the US Congress.
Too many guns and too many crazy people with too many guns.
New gun laws have not passed because of the evil, insidious and pervasive power of the NRA and the total lack of backbone shown by some people in the US Congress.
Too many guns and too many crazy people with too many guns.
10
“Here’s what the other side counts on,” Mrs. Clinton said. “They count on really having an intense, dedicated group that scare politicians and say, ‘We will vote against you.’ ”
Hillary Clinton nailed it with that comment in regard to politicians. That same group -- the NRA -- that owns the politicians then plays on the fears of the paranoid in society who think they see an "enemy" on every corner and who also at the prodding of the NRA purposely misinterpret the meaning of the Second Amendment which speaks of a "well-regulated militia" and which does not advocate gun ownership for every yahoo who "thinks" he needs a gun. Note that the people who perpetrate the mass killings never have just one gun -- they have an arsenal of guns and they have that arsenal because we allow them to have it because the government has not stepped in and passed laws that make it difficult to purchase weapons of mass destruction -- which is what every gun is -- a weapon that destroys life and the lives of the victims' families and friends.
Hillary Clinton nailed it with that comment in regard to politicians. That same group -- the NRA -- that owns the politicians then plays on the fears of the paranoid in society who think they see an "enemy" on every corner and who also at the prodding of the NRA purposely misinterpret the meaning of the Second Amendment which speaks of a "well-regulated militia" and which does not advocate gun ownership for every yahoo who "thinks" he needs a gun. Note that the people who perpetrate the mass killings never have just one gun -- they have an arsenal of guns and they have that arsenal because we allow them to have it because the government has not stepped in and passed laws that make it difficult to purchase weapons of mass destruction -- which is what every gun is -- a weapon that destroys life and the lives of the victims' families and friends.
71
Sherr29 - "Note that the people who perpetrate the mass killings never have just one gun -- they have an arsenal of guns"
Also note that they were/are all suffering from some form of mental illness. Ban the mentally ill from obtaining guns. Register the mentally ill. Require strict medical checks, by qualified psychiatrists, on all who wish to purchase firearms. Keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and the number of mass shootings will decrease. Then we will only have to worry about armed criminals.
Also note that they were/are all suffering from some form of mental illness. Ban the mentally ill from obtaining guns. Register the mentally ill. Require strict medical checks, by qualified psychiatrists, on all who wish to purchase firearms. Keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and the number of mass shootings will decrease. Then we will only have to worry about armed criminals.
1
I think that in the U.S. more has to be addressed about the 'gun culture'. The fact that violence is so prevalent in our society, from video games to everyday promotion of 'tough guy' to TeeVee, where every other show is a 'shoot em up'. Machismo seems to be our mantra. Kicking butt needs to be addressed.
26
A number of mass shootings? You could put it like that. In fact in the three years since Newtown there have been 994 mass shootings defined as 4 or more people killed or wounded which seems reasonable since survival is purely a matter of chance. It may have gone up since the OR shooting was the 994th. Some of these involved crime but the vast majority were "Routine" workplace, campus, domestic violence incidents.
32
Why must these crazy people, like Hillary Clinton, come out of the wood work every time there is a mass shooting and blame it on the lack of gun controls? Mass shootings are not a major cause murder or death in our country and in the Oregon case the State did have gun control laws and the guns where purchased within those laws. When we start to look at the numbers of people killed or injured in mass shootings we will find the numbers are very small and not deserving of the attention being paid to them. Of course they are tragic for those shot to death, but the numbers are very small. I do agree we should have a federal law requiring background checks and even waiting periods to ensure the checks are done properly but beyond that, such as holding manufacturers responsible for what people do with guns that is illegal is crazy. is foolishness.
6
The number of people killed by guns in this country is huge. Many times larger than any other country in the civilized world. Much larger than the number killed by terrorists and we do nothing about it. You need a license to own a dog. It is more difficult to register to vote than it is to obtain a gun. Something needs to change. Even in the Wild West you had to leave your guns in the Sherriff's office.
6
If ONE person's life (and it might be yours) is saved because of regulations on guns those dreaded laws have done their job and by extension are absolutely necessary in a civil society.
9
"Mass shootings are not a major cause murder or death in our country and in the Oregon case the State did have gun control laws."
In terms of the math, you are correct. But in other ways, you are way off base.
I know that when I take the Belt Parkway and Southern State to visit my aunt, I run the risk of getting killed in a car accident. If you could see the way some people speed on those curves, you'd understand. We know that aggressive, sometimes doped-up or distracted people get into their cars and murder people. More and more accidents clog our highways.
But I can adjust my own driving, as far as possible, to try to avoid a car accident.
With guns, though, it's a little different. A dozen movie goers, two-dozen schoolchildren, nine or ten people in a church, scores of college kids, a dozen in a shopping mall, or in grocery stores, commuters on a Long Island train, deliberately gunned down; many in their beds struck by stray bullets . . . . It's the randomness, the fact that we can't adjust our behavior to fit those circumstances, that gnaws.
Guns are designed for killing. If a man wants a good rifle or even two because he lives in the country far from the local sheriff and worries about burglars, or because he likes (and perhaps needs) to hunt in order to put food on his family's table, I say let him own one or two.
But he doesn't need a dozen, and he doesn't need fifty. Nor does he need to fire a hundred bullets in two minutes.
Let us be sensible.
In terms of the math, you are correct. But in other ways, you are way off base.
I know that when I take the Belt Parkway and Southern State to visit my aunt, I run the risk of getting killed in a car accident. If you could see the way some people speed on those curves, you'd understand. We know that aggressive, sometimes doped-up or distracted people get into their cars and murder people. More and more accidents clog our highways.
But I can adjust my own driving, as far as possible, to try to avoid a car accident.
With guns, though, it's a little different. A dozen movie goers, two-dozen schoolchildren, nine or ten people in a church, scores of college kids, a dozen in a shopping mall, or in grocery stores, commuters on a Long Island train, deliberately gunned down; many in their beds struck by stray bullets . . . . It's the randomness, the fact that we can't adjust our behavior to fit those circumstances, that gnaws.
Guns are designed for killing. If a man wants a good rifle or even two because he lives in the country far from the local sheriff and worries about burglars, or because he likes (and perhaps needs) to hunt in order to put food on his family's table, I say let him own one or two.
But he doesn't need a dozen, and he doesn't need fifty. Nor does he need to fire a hundred bullets in two minutes.
Let us be sensible.
13
I strongly support Hillary Clinton's principled position on closing gun loopholes. Congress is a confederacy of dunces and the rest of us have acted like a nation of sheep by not forcing elected representatives to close these loopholes.
83
If she has an idea she believes will work, why do we have to wait a year or two? She should play the responsible citizen instead of the perpetual politician and take it to the current administration. Surely if it will be legal and effective in 2017, it is now, too.
1
Hillary should take it to the 'adminsitration'? Oh, it's Her responsibility. Otherwise she's an irresponsible perpetual politician? I'm laughing. What a good laugh. What's Obama then? Where's Obama, on this, totally passive? The current chief executive of the US govt???? With all his heartfelt, sincere outrage. He's fed up, but not that fed up, or what?
Not a word on mental health issues. Not a word on the angry disaffected antisocial lunatic manchildren, living in their parent's basements with known arsenals, who commit these crimes, and will continue to do so to the "complete surprise" of those around them. Or-- better yet-- to those around them who have known them for years, and knew they were capable of something like this. Great. Just great.
34
@ Mark
Because mental health "Issues" are a McGuffin invented by the pro gun lobby to distract attention from the search for realistic solutions to containing this problem. The solution as every other developed country in the world has already figured out is to block the man children from getting their hands on devices whose sole purpose is to kill people as efficiently as possible.
Because mental health "Issues" are a McGuffin invented by the pro gun lobby to distract attention from the search for realistic solutions to containing this problem. The solution as every other developed country in the world has already figured out is to block the man children from getting their hands on devices whose sole purpose is to kill people as efficiently as possible.
13
That's right because the problem is that we let the insane have guns... it's the guns that gives them the power to act out their fantasies of the slaughter of many.
3
Mark brings up an important point that gun control won't fix: "angry disaffected antisocial lunatic manchildren, living in their parent's basements with known arsenals."
Parents know what's going on. They need to be our first line of defense. We need to require they put their kids on a "no buy" database, and to report it when guns are purchased by their mentally unstable adult children.
The Oregon shooter's mom knew her kid was dangerous/ unstable and knew he had an arsenal. I say she also had a duty to warn the public of the situation. She should be in jail.
Parents know what's going on. They need to be our first line of defense. We need to require they put their kids on a "no buy" database, and to report it when guns are purchased by their mentally unstable adult children.
The Oregon shooter's mom knew her kid was dangerous/ unstable and knew he had an arsenal. I say she also had a duty to warn the public of the situation. She should be in jail.
1
I do not want to sound insensitive but every weekend more than 9 people are shot in Chicago and it does not attract the attention of the politicians.
If people want to kill another human being, there are many alternatives. Countries with very stringent gun laws (Honduras, Panama for example) also have very high crime rates with Honduras being number one in the world.
Illegal drugs are also prohibited and heavily regulated yet they are plentiful in our society. More laws will not reduce crime until we fix what is causing people to use those guns.
If people want to kill another human being, there are many alternatives. Countries with very stringent gun laws (Honduras, Panama for example) also have very high crime rates with Honduras being number one in the world.
Illegal drugs are also prohibited and heavily regulated yet they are plentiful in our society. More laws will not reduce crime until we fix what is causing people to use those guns.
11
First, why are you holding up Honduras as any kind of societal standard? I think we can do better, no? Second, setting aside obvious differences between inner-city gang shootings and what happened in rural Oregon, the city of Chicago is at the mercy of gun runners trafficking from other counties and states.
4
There is no reasonable argument in relation to the the necessity for a well-regulated militia as to why a 26 year-old should have a right to own 14 guns
153
I absolutely agree with you, as well as @fact or fiction.
It is instructive, and sobering, to read the convoluted argument by Justice Scalia to "prove" that the 2nd Amendment is NOT constrained by membership in a state Militia.
http://rantingsofgrumpyoldguy.blogspot.com
It is instructive, and sobering, to read the convoluted argument by Justice Scalia to "prove" that the 2nd Amendment is NOT constrained by membership in a state Militia.
http://rantingsofgrumpyoldguy.blogspot.com
3
He didn't, his mother did. There is no reasonable argument as to why you get to restrict my constitutional right tow own firearms as long as I am law abiding. 1 3 or 30, might right as long as I obey the law.
Mrs. Clinton shows leadership by promising to use executive action to close the gun show loophole. This is a necessary step at a time when most states are failing to act. But the citizenry must also engage locally to have local common sense gun control laws enacted, including licensing of gun owners, the registration of firearms and restrictions on the types of weapons and the size of ammunition magazines that a person can own.
United States case law supports these controls. Scalia wrote in the Heller opinion: “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding…laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
United States case law supports these controls. Scalia wrote in the Heller opinion: “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding…laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
13
What is wrong with Hilary because she can not apply common sense to the problem of mass shootings. Mental illness is the cause, so laws need to be changed to get the mentally deranged off the streets. Hold parents liable for criminal acts of their minor or adult children living at home.
Further, pass laws to require all gun free facilities to have an approved self defense plan approved by the state dept of public safety. Require gun free zones to have armed security and allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry weapons in gun free zones. Advertise that zones are now armed.
Don't vote for Hilary, she is way too flawed.
Further, pass laws to require all gun free facilities to have an approved self defense plan approved by the state dept of public safety. Require gun free zones to have armed security and allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry weapons in gun free zones. Advertise that zones are now armed.
Don't vote for Hilary, she is way too flawed.
42
Yes, do all that and limit access to guns as well which is perfectly compatible and complementary to your suggestions.
7
What you describe as "common sense" is viewed by the more civilized countries (Australia, the U.K., Canada) without constant mass shootings as a derangement.
15
Your English composition is flawed.
4
All the Democratic candidates should be seeking the advice of the police unions on how to enact more reasonable gun controls. After all, it's the police are always there cleaning up these horrifying messes.
21
At what point do we, as a society, reject the current distorted, anachronistic interpretation of the 2nd amendment — the sole purpose of which was actually to ensure that state governments had the ability to field armed militia in the event the nascent central government couldn't field an army?
131
Your history is inaccurate. "In the event...?" There was no standing army in 1789, or for many decades thereafter. The military academy at West Point wasn't founded until 1803, and it was decades more before there was anything which might be called a "federal" service, which was still tiny even at the start of the Civil War 1861. So militias were all there was for the first "four score" of our country's history.
The Bill of Rights lists individual liberty guarantees, not collective ones. Individual ownership of firearms was considered the ultimate check on the abuse of centralized authority which many (Jefferson prime among them) feared would happen over time, regardless of the 10th Amendment. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" is Jefferson's well-known view.
The Bill of Rights lists individual liberty guarantees, not collective ones. Individual ownership of firearms was considered the ultimate check on the abuse of centralized authority which many (Jefferson prime among them) feared would happen over time, regardless of the 10th Amendment. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" is Jefferson's well-known view.
"Background checks are not required ... over the Internet with private sellers."
This is a twisting of the facts that leads to an absolutely and categorically false conclusion. While you can buy a firearm interstate over the internet without any checks, it MUST be sent to a federally licensed dealer who will then perform the checks required by law. In fact, it is not up to the buyer to request that a firearm be sent to a licensed dealer, the seller HAS to have a copy of the recipients FFL prior to shipping. It can only be sent to the address on that license.
I know that the "buy guns over the internet without any checks" meme has appeal to the Times and it's readers but it is completely false and could be checked in a thrice if the involved reporters and editors cared more for accuracy than for promoting a political agenda.
This is a twisting of the facts that leads to an absolutely and categorically false conclusion. While you can buy a firearm interstate over the internet without any checks, it MUST be sent to a federally licensed dealer who will then perform the checks required by law. In fact, it is not up to the buyer to request that a firearm be sent to a licensed dealer, the seller HAS to have a copy of the recipients FFL prior to shipping. It can only be sent to the address on that license.
I know that the "buy guns over the internet without any checks" meme has appeal to the Times and it's readers but it is completely false and could be checked in a thrice if the involved reporters and editors cared more for accuracy than for promoting a political agenda.
19
How about we inject some common sense into the entire gun issue and make it illegal to sell any guns over the internet thereby removing one more "convenient" means of anyone getting a gun.
47
Sherr29 - "..."convenient" means of anyone getting a gun."
"Common sense?" There is no difference between buying a gun at a gun store and buying a gun over the internet. The buyer IN BOTH CASES has to go to a federally licensed gun store the pick up the gun after all state and federal laws have been satisfied.
Statements like yours do not help in the fight against illegal guns in our society. Reading comprehension and the understanding of all 20,000+ gun laws within the United States is a start to better gun control.
"Common sense?" There is no difference between buying a gun at a gun store and buying a gun over the internet. The buyer IN BOTH CASES has to go to a federally licensed gun store the pick up the gun after all state and federal laws have been satisfied.
Statements like yours do not help in the fight against illegal guns in our society. Reading comprehension and the understanding of all 20,000+ gun laws within the United States is a start to better gun control.
Give me a break, who is regulating that these required things are actually taking place? The so-called "licensed dealer". Yeah.
3
Anything and anyway to curb the the national health emergency in this country by the endless gun massacres has my support and should be welcome by all. I was struck by three facts that emerged from The Times' analysis of the types of guns used and how they were obtained. First, in many cases their was a failure of the existing background check system to prevent the sale. The system clearly needs to be improved to prevent those sales. Second, psychiatrists and mental health providers and even parents should be allowed to indicate those unstable individuals who should not be able to purchase a gun. And finally, most of the weapons used were handguns so a focus needs to be placed on handguns sales to young men. I hope Secretary Clinton's proposals will address these issues. The lives of our loved ones are at risk and someone needs to take action if the Republican Congress is unwilling to take their blood-soaked hands off the trigger and start protecting the American people and not the gun manufacturers.
66
As a Range Safety Officer, I have no issues with Mrs. Clinton's two proposals (closing loopholes on large private sellers and the 3 day loophole). That said, there is so much money in illegal drugs, I am confident they will always be able to buy or steal whatever guns they need to continue their trade. And legalizing drugs further degrades our societal values and should never be considered. The only viable solution, IMO, is better parenting so children resist the temptation to use drugs or participate in their distribution.
2
How about better parenting so children resist the urge to use guns?
13
Really, the only solution is a better, more inclusive economy for all (which is something Democrats are always for, and Republicans against), where everyone has the ability to go to school (if they want to) without having to come up with thousands of dollars to do so; and where everyone is paid a decent amount of money for whatever job they do (via raising the minimum wage).
I guarantee you that then there would be far fewer disenfranchised, marginalized young people who end up selling drugs and engaging in other criminal activity because they basically have no other option (If you were living in an area/culture where the only job you could get didn't even pay you enough to get by--which our current minimum wage jobs don't--what incentive would you have to work after all?).
I guarantee you that then there would be far fewer disenfranchised, marginalized young people who end up selling drugs and engaging in other criminal activity because they basically have no other option (If you were living in an area/culture where the only job you could get didn't even pay you enough to get by--which our current minimum wage jobs don't--what incentive would you have to work after all?).
27