New York Times puts gun control editorial on Page 1

[Artisi]

I am glad about this bill and than the Muslim Terrorist will not have guns

I heard even the Mossard shall not use guns when this law is passed

What are you talking about, what bill and what law?

[Publicus]

The Singapore way. Confiscate all guns (or, a buy-back scheme). Automatic death sentence for any crime involving a gun.

There have been a few buyback programs in the US. Wikipedia is used for brevity's sake but here are a couple of examples,

1. Oakland/'San Francisco, CA

Purchased 600 weapons for $200 each = $120,000

2. Maryland

Purchased 13,500 weapons at a cost over $660,000

3. Massachusetts

Purchased 1,000 weapons in exchange for $200 gift cards from Target = $200,000

4. Michigan

Purchased 365 guns for $16,820

There were others but the article provides no cost totals for comparison purposes.

However, looking at this tiny sample, a total of 15,465 weapons were removed from the streets at a total cost of $996,820. An average cost of $64.46 each.

There are an estimated 300 million personally owned firearms in the US. A buyback program would cost $19.2 Billion using the above average purchasing price and I don't know many people that would sell their weapon for only $64.46.

A gun confiscation is yet another story, reinforcing the reason for the 2nd Amendment...protection against a dominating government.

Anyway, thank you for responding.

3. Massachusetts

Purchased 1,000 weapons in exchange for $200 gift cards from Target = $200,000

Since the 1970s Massachusetts has had a law that being found or caught with an illegal firearm(s) is an automatic one year in jail. Mandatory.

It's been tough on the capacity and capability of the jails and prison systems so it has become selectively enforced. Tough on the public purse and budget as might be expected anywhere that migh enact such a law. So there is of course selective enforcement which is of course a common occurrence in law enforcement and in civil government in general.

So if it is for example you, they'd confiscate the firearm(s), record your name etc and put you on a list. You keep being found however, you're going up the river, sooner or later. If it's a more savory character, it's not so easygoing. (Massachusetts does of course have a certain readily comprehensible sensitivity to crackpot lunatics with guns.)

The $200,000 expenditure noted in the post is a healthy amount even for a state such as Massachusetts which has a large budget with extensive and deep tax resources and revenue (Taxachusetts as the Republicans there call it ).

Still, if the distinguished poster might have any data of the total cost of funerals of the thousands of people who have been killed by guns in the USA, that might be revealing information. Tragic besides. The private cost of funerals to the families of the deceased killed by guns for any reason might be a good focus. Say since the Commonwealth paid out the referenced $200,000 for the gun "buyback" program it executed.

The total cost of police work nationally investigating gun killings would also be helpful information. Just as one specific focused instance, it might also be informative if the enlightened poster could provide info and data of the cost of funerals in Newtown, Connecticut. That might well include the cost to the municipality, county, state, feds, of dealing with the shooter and the mass murders that occurred there.

Thanks in advance for your serious and material research in these matters. After all, you do seem to have a consistent record of doing detailed (if not sometimes obscure) research on so many issues pertaining to economic and financial costs to the society and to taxpayers.

Not to be too burdensome, one would also hope it would not be too great a task to provide the total amount in settlements paid by municipal governments throughout the country to the surviving families of persons wrongfully killed by the authorities in blue with the badges, guns and racist jokes such as in Ferguson PD but not necessarily limited to that entity.

Think you could find your way to doing these material and serious projects? Much appreciated thx.

[Linky]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&ved=0ahUKEwiPmdGRlsrJAhXGqaYKHW7oDqQ4ChC3AggSMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPfjJjOTTXZs%26autoplay%3D1&usg=AFQjCNEFhQZ6R3QrKdAYhJRgOzDSqMGC9w

[Publicus]

 

Actually he doesn't. It is just the same old right wing NRA gibberish. The NRA actually rates politicians on their pro gun conduct in Congress. You think they do this for the benefit of American society. A person would need his head read. Firstly it's about the money, secondly it is about the money. Recently the Republicans voted down a Bill that would see arms sales to terrorists with 'no fly' flags on them and the mentally ill. Do you think that was in the best interest of the American public? Of course not, it is about Republicans bought and paid for by the NRA. As plain as gumboots on a duck. What you need to check is your contempt for common sense.

Everything you said was a fine enough rebuttal, but like a narcissist Freudian signature that demands to be printed, leftists are incapable of suppressing their "contempt" for others with pejoratives somehow working into their analysis- always personal, always character based, invariably showing their own weakness.

I don't see how presenting a well thought out and articulated response becomes 'a narcissist Freudian 'signature'(?) that demands to be printed'. I am not sure who leftists are, nor do I have 'contempt' for anyone personally. I certainly have contempt for regurgitated NRA diatribe that the Republican right wing parrot endlessly. To suggest that the NRA has no power on the issue of gun control is simply absurd. Even a Crocodile couldn't swallow that.

Republicans vote down a Bill that would restrict weapons sales to people on terrorist 'no fly' list and the mentally ill. Why? Fact is any politician that votes in favour of ANY legislation that affects weapons sales will be de funded by the NRA and targeted for special attacks in their electorate. Once again Congress acts in the best interest of Corporate America and not the people they are elected to represent.

You talk about the NRA like it is some all powerful organization from outer-space or something, when it is in fact one of the largest voluntary membership organizations in the United States. Its issue happens to be guns and supporting gun owners rights and there is nothing wrong or nefarious about that. It is no different than other organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, or AARP in that it represents the views of its members and of course supports politicians who agree with them, opposes those that don't, and lobbies the government on legislation regarding guns that affect its members.

So sorry, just putting the letters "N" "R" "A" in every post isn't gonna convince anyone of the merits of your argument.

No reason to apologise.

The vast majority of NRA members support gun control legislation in various and signficant measures and on a wide front. So it is true that very many NRA members are not from some evil planet such as the home planet of the Klingons.

It's not so much the NRA membership as it is the leadership of NRA. Most specifically, there is the ugly face of the NRA, its executive director Wayne La Pierre.

The data provided is proof positive the leadership of the NRA are the ones from an alien planet. They are from the planet of the apes.

A sizable 89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales. Similar surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup have also found background checks to be by far the most popular gun control proposal in the aftermath the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/28/strong-majority-of-americans-nra-members-back-gun-control

74 percent of NRA members support criminal background checks on all potential gun buyers as opposed to current law, which requires background checks only on those who buy from licensed gun dealers;

79 percent of NRA members back requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees;

71 percent of NRA members would bar those on the FBI's terroristwatch-list from buying and owning guns;

64 percent of NRA members support requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/274381-house-dem-pushes-gun-reforms-backed-by-nra-members-

NRA members are indeed from planet earth. It are the NRA leaders and their fanboyz, advocates, supporters, who are from the alien planet.

Let us take you to our leader.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Actually, no, he rebuts your "point beautifully." Any person who assigns a value to others that they seek to profit off mass murder disqualifies themselves as having no real contributions in the public space. I too have grave character doubts about the motivations of those who espouse gun control but people like me try to check our disdain and wrap our contempt around the issue offered, the means of the politics, and the behaviors as a political movement to enact gun control- deception, crisis manipulation, fear mongering, etc. You actually illustrate the point in opposition to you, beautifully, in fact.

Actually he doesn't. It is just the same old right wing NRA gibberish. The NRA actually rates politicians on their pro gun conduct in Congress. You think they do this for the benefit of American society. A person would need his head read. Firstly it's about the money, secondly it is about the money. Recently the Republicans voted down a Bill that would see arms sales to terrorists with 'no fly' flags on them and the mentally ill. Do you think that was in the best interest of the American public? Of course not, it is about Republicans bought and paid for by the NRA. As plain as gumboots on a duck. What you need to check is your contempt for common sense.

Everything you said was a fine enough rebuttal, but like a narcissist Freudian signature that demands to be printed, leftists are incapable of suppressing their "contempt" for others with pejoratives somehow working into their analysis- always personal, always character based, invariably showing their own weakness.

Hot Air.

Speaking of which.....

NRA vice-president Wayne La Pierre, the ugly face of the ugly leadership of the ugly gun whackos.

Laughably Paranoid Claims From NRA's Wayne LaPierre At CPAC

LaPierre: Americans Buying Guns Because Of "Reckless Government Actions" And Because The "Entire Fabric Of Society" Is In "Jeopardy"

LaPierre: On How The National Media Is One Of America's "Greatest Threats"

And this precious one referring to the upcoming election of the next POTUS

"[T]hey're laying the groundwork to put another Clinton back in the White House. They fully intend to finish the job, to fulfill their commitment, their dream, of fundamentally transforming America. Into an America that I guarantee you won't recognize. But mark my words -- the NRA will not go quietly into the night. We will fight. I promise you that."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/06/five-laughably-paranoid-claims-from-nras-wayne/198385

The government is the enemy rhetoric really started with the New Deal election of President Franklin Roosevelt. The media as the "liberal media" started when LBJ got through congress the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and when for a decade before that the media extensively and consistently covered the persistent police brutality against the Black Civil Rights Movement.

Now the MSM also covers extensively and regularly the gun nuts and their own evil works, those whack jobs who use the guns for mass murder of the population of the United States. MSM moreover reports consistently on the extremists who are themselves gun nuts who protect the more extreme gun nuts.

[arjunadawn]

Very compelling rebuttal, "hot air." Can depth even be teased from a statement like this?

Watching Hillary Clinton talk to George S in an interview she is asked about gun control. Since places like CA and Paris already have some of the strictest gun control laws... She makes an argument that gun control and counter terrorism are not mutually exclusive. I don't approve of radical gun control but from her perspective she is correct, the two can be pursued at the same time. But it hearkens clearly to the progressive "crisis" politics. Always govern by crisis and never let a crisis go to waste. It is a good opportunity to otherwise pass laws they would not have been unable to pass. She and Rahm Emmanuel can be found online actually saying these things previously. Indeed, the entire Obama legacy has governed by fear and crisis.

What she could speak to, however, was the US No Fly List. Why should people on the No Fly List be able to purchase guns? She then takes US republicans to task. She specifically adds the No Fly List has international and domestic terrorists on it. Well, this is a bold faced lie. She cannot name one US "terrorist" on this list. "Terrorist" is a legal definition. Which brings us to the red herring of the No Fly List and Mental Health lists they want congress to pass no guns for.

There is no clear mechanism whereby an American is put on the No Fly List. There is no means to even determine if one is on it, it must be conjectured by non authorization to fly. Once this happens, the gov will still not admit and deny it, and there is only a labyrinthine process to try and get off of it. There have been children, old people, wrong people, etc., on this list. Adding to this mechanism the forfeiture of an enumerated Constitutional Right is indisputably a slippery slope. It is not a good idea to deny the liberties of one in pursuit of questionable ends. There is no categorical imperative.

The Mental Health lists Clinton and others want to also ban guns to exists now as a patchwork of voluntary additions to state and federal database. However, the primary people on this list are veterans who are incompetent for financial reasons. Unlike all other jurisdictions where a competency hearing must take place before a fiduciary is assigned due to mental health issues the Department of Veterans Affairs has skirted this issue as it does its own in house tools to ensure veterans are provided for if their math skills suck, they are housebound, etc. However, now that this list is the prime foundation for a Mental Health list these people are being denied their right to protect their life and property. In other words, these people, without hearing of incompetency or such, have made their way onto an expanded database where they were the seeds and are now being denied fundamental Rights.

Should those with mental health issues be prohibited from buying guns? Of course, but the argument currently is false. There is no intention to change the system as it is evolving and this is intentional, and this is exactly why it is opposed both for the No Fly List and the Mental Health issue. Both seem like smart approaches; they are not. As government has increasingly assigned to itself the prerogative to assign domestic terror threats and have increasingly labeled Constitutionalists, those who live Off The Grid, veterans returning from war (no kidding), 2nd Amendment advocates, Home Schoolers, Christian this or that... as potential threats- all except islamic... anything. There are no islamic threats listed on the HS bulletins released to local law enforcement in years; they have been excised for years; when there was they were a threat listed behind returning veterans. Therefore, there is no reason at all to believe the No Fly List and Mental Health legislation may be a bad idea. It is a bad idea. Government should never have an extra judicial tool to label Americans and thus deprive them of their Rights by fiat! A cursory look at the American landscape reveals the issue is less guns rather who possesses them.

[MiKT]

Winston Churchill once said Americans arrive at the right course of action after exhausting all other options.

Perhaps you are not aware the rest of the world regards the American attachment to the Second Amendment as irrational, if not insane.

When are you going to grow up? Keep going the way you are, and the USA will be in a death spiral.

Out of curiosity did ole Winston make this profound commentary before or after begging the US to come bail out the Great British Empire?

The American public really doesn't give a rats rear end what the Aussies, Euros or any other continent thinks.

Old Winston had an American mother, mother.

[jpinx]

Very compelling rebuttal, "hot air." Can depth even be teased from a statement like this?

Watching Hillary Clinton talk to George S in an interview she is asked about gun control. Since places like CA and Paris already have some of the strictest gun control laws... She makes an argument that gun control and counter terrorism are not mutually exclusive. I don't approve of radical gun control but from her perspective she is correct, the two can be pursued at the same time. But it hearkens clearly to the progressive "crisis" politics. Always govern by crisis and never let a crisis go to waste. It is a good opportunity to otherwise pass laws they would not have been unable to pass. She and Rahm Emmanuel can be found online actually saying these things previously. Indeed, the entire Obama legacy has governed by fear and crisis.

What she could speak to, however, was the US No Fly List. Why should people on the No Fly List be able to purchase guns? She then takes US republicans to task. She specifically adds the No Fly List has international and domestic terrorists on it. Well, this is a bold faced lie. She cannot name one US "terrorist" on this list. "Terrorist" is a legal definition. Which brings us to the red herring of the No Fly List and Mental Health lists they want congress to pass no guns for.

There is no clear mechanism whereby an American is put on the No Fly List. There is no means to even determine if one is on it, it must be conjectured by non authorization to fly. Once this happens, the gov will still not admit and deny it, and there is only a labyrinthine process to try and get off of it. There have been children, old people, wrong people, etc., on this list. Adding to this mechanism the forfeiture of an enumerated Constitutional Right is indisputably a slippery slope. It is not a good idea to deny the liberties of one in pursuit of questionable ends. There is no categorical imperative.

The Mental Health lists Clinton and others want to also ban guns to exists now as a patchwork of voluntary additions to state and federal database. However, the primary people on this list are veterans who are incompetent for financial reasons. Unlike all other jurisdictions where a competency hearing must take place before a fiduciary is assigned due to mental health issues the Department of Veterans Affairs has skirted this issue as it does its own in house tools to ensure veterans are provided for if their math skills suck, they are housebound, etc. However, now that this list is the prime foundation for a Mental Health list these people are being denied their right to protect their life and property. In other words, these people, without hearing of incompetency or such, have made their way onto an expanded database where they were the seeds and are now being denied fundamental Rights.

Should those with mental health issues be prohibited from buying guns? Of course, but the argument currently is false. There is no intention to change the system as it is evolving and this is intentional, and this is exactly why it is opposed both for the No Fly List and the Mental Health issue. Both seem like smart approaches; they are not. As government has increasingly assigned to itself the prerogative to assign domestic terror threats and have increasingly labeled Constitutionalists, those who live Off The Grid, veterans returning from war (no kidding), 2nd Amendment advocates, Home Schoolers, Christian this or that... as potential threats- all except islamic... anything. There are no islamic threats listed on the HS bulletins released to local law enforcement in years; they have been excised for years; when there was they were a threat listed behind returning veterans. Therefore, there is no reason at all to believe the No Fly List and Mental Health legislation may be a bad idea. It is a bad idea. Government should never have an extra judicial tool to label Americans and thus deprive them of their Rights by fiat! A cursory look at the American landscape reveals the issue is less guns rather who possesses them.

Thanks for that nice piece, very well laid out and clear to anyone who actually wants to contribute to the solutions, as opposed to spouting off more hot air.

The most worrying thing that you highlight is "crisis government". This is a bit off topic here, but is the root reason the world is in this mess now, not just USA.

[Publicus]

Very compelling rebuttal, "hot air." Can depth even be teased from a statement like this?

Watching Hillary Clinton talk to George S in an interview she is asked about gun control. Since places like CA and Paris already have some of the strictest gun control laws... She makes an argument that gun control and counter terrorism are not mutually exclusive. I don't approve of radical gun control but from her perspective she is correct, the two can be pursued at the same time. But it hearkens clearly to the progressive "crisis" politics. Always govern by crisis and never let a crisis go to waste. It is a good opportunity to otherwise pass laws they would not have been unable to pass. She and Rahm Emmanuel can be found online actually saying these things previously. Indeed, the entire Obama legacy has governed by fear and crisis.

What she could speak to, however, was the US No Fly List. Why should people on the No Fly List be able to purchase guns? She then takes US republicans to task. She specifically adds the No Fly List has international and domestic terrorists on it. Well, this is a bold faced lie. She cannot name one US "terrorist" on this list. "Terrorist" is a legal definition. Which brings us to the red herring of the No Fly List and Mental Health lists they want congress to pass no guns for.

There is no clear mechanism whereby an American is put on the No Fly List. There is no means to even determine if one is on it, it must be conjectured by non authorization to fly. Once this happens, the gov will still not admit and deny it, and there is only a labyrinthine process to try and get off of it. There have been children, old people, wrong people, etc., on this list. Adding to this mechanism the forfeiture of an enumerated Constitutional Right is indisputably a slippery slope. It is not a good idea to deny the liberties of one in pursuit of questionable ends. There is no categorical imperative.

The Mental Health lists Clinton and others want to also ban guns to exists now as a patchwork of voluntary additions to state and federal database. However, the primary people on this list are veterans who are incompetent for financial reasons. Unlike all other jurisdictions where a competency hearing must take place before a fiduciary is assigned due to mental health issues the Department of Veterans Affairs has skirted this issue as it does its own in house tools to ensure veterans are provided for if their math skills suck, they are housebound, etc. However, now that this list is the prime foundation for a Mental Health list these people are being denied their right to protect their life and property. In other words, these people, without hearing of incompetency or such, have made their way onto an expanded database where they were the seeds and are now being denied fundamental Rights.

Should those with mental health issues be prohibited from buying guns? Of course, but the argument currently is false. There is no intention to change the system as it is evolving and this is intentional, and this is exactly why it is opposed both for the No Fly List and the Mental Health issue. Both seem like smart approaches; they are not. As government has increasingly assigned to itself the prerogative to assign domestic terror threats and have increasingly labeled Constitutionalists, those who live Off The Grid, veterans returning from war (no kidding), 2nd Amendment advocates, Home Schoolers, Christian this or that... as potential threats- all except islamic... anything. There are no islamic threats listed on the HS bulletins released to local law enforcement in years; they have been excised for years; when there was they were a threat listed behind returning veterans. Therefore, there is no reason at all to believe the No Fly List and Mental Health legislation may be a bad idea. It is a bad idea. Government should never have an extra judicial tool to label Americans and thus deprive them of their Rights by fiat! A cursory look at the American landscape reveals the issue is less guns rather who possesses them.

Kindly document and cite the claims plse thx.

The far out marginal right says a lot of things that it pulls out of its nether regions, such as the Birthers do/did.

Posts have been made under a username that the Obama Administration sends teams into cities and communities to organise radical racist opposition to white Americans and to foment civil disorder to harm white Americans. Ferguson Missouri was given as such an instance at the time of the homicide killing there of Michael Brown.

The claimed existence and work of the alleged teams that were grossly misrepresented by the poster currently being addressed in this post supposedly came from the Department of Justice. The grossly erroneous poster also claimed at the time the DoJ was being run by a person the poster repeatedly and over time accused of being a racist, Eric Holder. And that AG Holder was in cahoots with another supposed racist who happened to be his boss.

The statements in the post back then concerning DoJ teams were 100% erroneous if not fraudulent, as this poster pointed out specifically as the response to the post. This poster was never refuted by the poster whose username is Arjundawn.

A DOJ team did go to Ferguson, as authorised by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The team works in stricken communities to bring all elements of the community to meetings to dialogue and express their concerns and issues. Such teams have long has been and are of a legally authorised DoJ program that seeks to calm and heal severely divided communities as humanly and as effectively as possible. The facts were presented by this poster and, as stated herein, were never refuted or even addressed by the completely off base poster.

So kindly document and prove the claims in the post plse thx. Each point made, and thoroughly and completely kindly plse thx.

The only alternative to a thorough documentation is to state the post is based on the poster's objective and non-political personal experience, of the mental hygiene aspects of it especially and in particular. Still, a rare and unprecedented factual documentation of the entire post would be welcome.

[jpinx]

My goodness -- what a lot of expertise has arisen in this thread Looking for confirmation of every point made is asking for a lengthy legal treatise that even this forum would baulk at. People must make up their own minds, based on what they want their life to be. Witch-hunting amongst politicians is a boring past-time, since they all lie in one way or another. Decide on the life-style you want - - with guns or without -- and live it. No need to try to convert the people who do not share your view. If everyone wanted the same thing, the world would be a very dull place.

[up-country_sinclair]

precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

Solve the problem? Sadly, that ship has already sailed. There are so many guns in the US, that the problem will never be solved. However things can be done to reduce the senseless carnage:

1. If someone is on the no-fly, terrorist watch list, then they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun.

2. Close the gun show loophole which allows anyone to buy a gun without a criminal background check.

The are two common sense proposals that only hyperpartisans would object to.

Edited December 8, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[jpinx]

precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

Solve the problem? Sadly, that ship has already sailed. There are so many guns in the US, that the problem will never be solved. However things can be done to reduce the senseless carnage:

1. If someone is on the no-fly, terrorist watch list, then they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun.

2. Close the gun show loophole which allows anyone to buy a gun without a criminal background check.

The are two common sense proposals that only hyperpartisans would object to.

Number 2 is spot on!

Number 1 is dodgy, since those lists are made up in some badly regulated way that catches some grannies but not all bad guys.

[up2u2]

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

[KarenBravo]

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.

Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Yeah......love to see US citizens facing down the US government military forces.

Hand-guns and rifles against cluster bombs, mines, tanks, cruise missiles, artillery, air power etc. etc. etc.

Edited December 8, 2015 by KarenBravo

[up2u2]

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

[chuckd]

precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

Solve the problem? Sadly, that ship has already sailed. There are so many guns in the US, that the problem will never be solved. However things can be done to reduce the senseless carnage:

1. If someone is on the no-fly, terrorist watch list, then they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun.

2. Close the gun show loophole which allows anyone to buy a gun without a criminal background check.

The are two common sense proposals that only hyperpartisans would object to.

Number 2 is spot on!

Number 1 is dodgy, since those lists are made up in some badly regulated way that catches some grannies but not all bad guys.

I have no problem with requiring background checks on gun show sales. However, it should be noted that licensed gun dealers are required now to run background checks even on sales at gun shows. Only unlicensed sellers are exempt from the background checks.

The ridiculous no-fly list proves nothing and is, like nearly all federally run programs, it is administered by bureaucratic idiots. Following are a couple of articles you might find interesting about the no-fly list.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

OBAMA NOW WANTS GUNS FROM THESE 47,000 PEOPLE

Not even Marines, air marshals, congressmen, journalists and babies safe from scheme

Published: 8 hours ago

If the federal government doesn’t want the 47,000 people on its No-Fly List to board airplanes, those individuals should be banned from ever owning guns, President Obama argued in his Sunday address from the Oval Office – but if his proposal ever becomes law, America could see U.S. Marines, congressmen, journalists and even federal air marshals mistakenly stripped of their firearms.

“To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a No-Fly List is able to buy a gun,” Obama said Dec. 6. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to but a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

But while San Bernardino, California, terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook managed to fly to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia under the radar of federal authorities in 2014, thousands of innocent people have been mistakenly linked to U.S. terror watchlists. Some experts and critics contend the federal list process contains many errors and relies on an overly broad standard of reasonable suspicion.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/obama-now-wants-guns-from-these-47000-people/#HSwzhTfVQsyolySq.99

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The no-fly list that could become the no-gun list, explained

Updated by Dara Lind on December 7, 2015, 2:20 p.m. ET

The Obama administration puts it bluntly: If the federal government doesn't allow you to board an airplane, it shouldn't allow you to buy a gun.

By relying on the federal no-fly list as a measure of who's too dangerous to own a gun in America — or on related terrorist watch lists, as Senate Democrats unsuccessfully proposed last week — the president is bringing the no-fly list itself back into the spotlight, and it's not exactly uncontroversial. When gun control is at stake, though, the typical positions are reversed — with Democrats arguing that the war on terror trumps individual liberties, and Republicans saying due process needs to be protected.

It's hard to know how seriously to take Republicans' concerns that using the no-fly list to restrict gun purchases will prevent numerous law-abiding Americans from owning guns. That's because we still don't know a ton about the no-fly list as it exists today — and what we do know has been revealed over the strenuous objections of the federal government.

Read more here: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865756/no-fly-list

[DM07]

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.

Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Yeah......love to see US citizens facing down the US government military forces.

Hand-guns and rifles against cluster bombs, mines, tanks, cruise missiles, artillery, air power etc. etc. etc.

...but...but...but guerilla- warfare...

[chuckd]

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.

Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

Your "facts" are somewhat dated.

The "114% higher" claim links to a site dated October 2006.

The "generally lower in states"claim links to a site dated January 2011.

The "recent study" links to a site dated April 2013 but covering a period from 1981 to 2010.

Your other post reflecting Myth #1 is unattributed.

[notmyself]

[OMGImInPattaya]

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.

Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

So, what's your point? Is this some great insight...that places with more guns will have more people killed by guns...seems like common sense to me.

[movieplay]

Are you serious? I have an AK-47 (it's hungarian with a very nice stock) back in the USA that I bought in the 90's for about $400, it's not atomatic, its semi-automatic but it appears to be convertible..are you saying I can get $30,000 for it!? if that's the case i'm flying back and cashin in as long as the buyer isn't named mohumad ..

anyways US homes are not safe if guns are illegal, most of them are easy to break into and the fact that you will very possibly get shot if you break in to someones house is the major factor keeping the home invaders at bay.. i would not feel safe if im in a typical american neighborhood if we couldn't have guns, how are we supposed to defend our properties when there are already so many guns in circulation.. its not like being here and liveing in a security provided gated community or living in a highrise condo.. gun bans are just talk and are totally unrealistic for america.

im not willing to put my self at risk because of a statistic that says people with guns are more likly to kill people with guins or more guns means more deaths by gun..

at the end of the day it would be me defenseless on my property

Unfortunately, both sides are right.

There obviously needs to be more gun control, but, criminals don't play by the rules. Therefore only the criminals will have guns.

The time for effective gun control is long past. There are just too many guns in the USA.

Maybe they should start controlling the ammunition? At least that has a shelf life.

The very least they can do is ban fully automatic weapons like assault rifles and machine pistols.

"Unfortunately, both sides are right.

There obviously needs to be more gun control, but, criminals don't play by the rules. Therefore only the criminals will have guns."

I agree with parts of that.

"The time for effective gun control is long past. There are just too many guns in the USA.

Maybe they should start controlling the ammunition? At least that has a shelf life."

Ammunition has an indefinite shelf life if properly stored. People are still shooting ammo that was manufactured for WWII. Hoarding of ammo has become a national sport and store shelves have sold out immediately ever since Obama was elected. Also, millions of people reload their own ammo and they have gobs of supplies i.e. powder, primers and bullets. Count me among them as reloads can be tuned to the gun making it more accurate and the cost of reloading is about 1/3 of the price of new ammunition. It's also fun and relaxing to do.

"The very least they can do is ban fully automatic weapons like assault rifles and machine pistols."

That's already the case. The manufacture and sale of assault rifles and pistols has been illegal since the 1990's. Only those who are willing to get a very difficult and expensive federal license, and then buy specific liability insurance if they can find it are allowed to own an assault rifle.

Only those assault rifles which were in private hands before the federal assault rifle ban can be privately owned. That causes the prices to skyrocket even after a person has a license and tries to find a gun to buy. Those guns are called "pre-ban" and will cost you about US$30,000 when you find one for sale.

Next, if you want to shoot it you have to feed it. The rate of fire of an M-16 is 800 rounds per minute. At 40 cents per round it's going to cost you $320 per minute to pull the trigger. That's certainly not for everyone.

Cheers.

PS None of these mass shootings (that I know of) have been done with this type of weapon. They aren't the problem.

Edited December 8, 2015 by movieplay

[Linky]

Its funny that most gun nutters are quite strident that you will not take away their guns just because a few nutters kill people.

But these same gun nutters want all muslims expelled from the US because of the actions of a few.

Quite hypocritical.

[55Jay]

Its funny that most gun nutters are quite strident that you will not take away their guns just because a few nutters kill people.

But these same gun nutters want all muslims expelled from the US because of the actions of a few.

Quite hypocritical.

Removing muslims won't stop muslim terrorist attacks. That's a foolish, knee jerk reaction. Muslim doesn't equal terrorist.

Removing guns won't stop gun violence. That's a foolish, knee jerk reaction. Gun owner doesn't equal "nutter".

It's equally foolish to assert that gun owners want muslims expelled.

Edited December 8, 2015 by 55Jay

[55Jay]

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.

Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Yeah......love to see US citizens facing down the US government military forces.

Hand-guns and rifles against cluster bombs, mines, tanks, cruise missiles, artillery, air power etc. etc. etc.

...but...but...but guerilla- warfare...

History disagrees with your premise.

[Publicus]

precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

Solve the problem? Sadly, that ship has already sailed. There are so many guns in the US, that the problem will never be solved. However things can be done to reduce the senseless carnage:

1. If someone is on the no-fly, terrorist watch list, then they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun.

2. Close the gun show loophole which allows anyone to buy a gun without a criminal background check.

The are two common sense proposals that only hyperpartisans would object to.

Number 2 is spot on!

Number 1 is dodgy, since those lists are made up in some badly regulated way that catches some grannies but not all bad guys.

I have no problem with requiring background checks on gun show sales. However, it should be noted that licensed gun dealers are required now to run background checks even on sales at gun shows. Only unlicensed sellers are exempt from the background checks.

The ridiculous no-fly list proves nothing and is, like nearly all federally run programs, it is administered by bureaucratic idiots. Following are a couple of articles you might find interesting about the no-fly list.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

OBAMA NOW WANTS GUNS FROM THESE 47,000 PEOPLE

Not even Marines, air marshals, congressmen, journalists and babies safe from scheme

Published: 8 hours ago

If the federal government doesn’t want the 47,000 people on its No-Fly List to board airplanes, those individuals should be banned from ever owning guns, President Obama argued in his Sunday address from the Oval Office – but if his proposal ever becomes law, America could see U.S. Marines, congressmen, journalists and even federal air marshals mistakenly stripped of their firearms.

“To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a No-Fly List is able to buy a gun,” Obama said Dec. 6. “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to but a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”

But while San Bernardino, California, terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook managed to fly to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia under the radar of federal authorities in 2014, thousands of innocent people have been mistakenly linked to U.S. terror watchlists. Some experts and critics contend the federal list process contains many errors and relies on an overly broad standard of reasonable suspicion.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/obama-now-wants-guns-from-these-47000-people/#HSwzhTfVQsyolySq.99

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The no-fly list that could become the no-gun list, explained

Updated by Dara Lind on December 7, 2015, 2:20 p.m. ET

The Obama administration puts it bluntly: If the federal government doesn't allow you to board an airplane, it shouldn't allow you to buy a gun.

By relying on the federal no-fly list as a measure of who's too dangerous to own a gun in America — or on related terrorist watch lists, as Senate Democrats unsuccessfully proposed last week — the president is bringing the no-fly list itself back into the spotlight, and it's not exactly uncontroversial. When gun control is at stake, though, the typical positions are reversed — with Democrats arguing that the war on terror trumps individual liberties, and Republicans saying due process needs to be protected.

It's hard to know how seriously to take Republicans' concerns that using the no-fly list to restrict gun purchases will prevent numerous law-abiding Americans from owning guns. That's because we still don't know a ton about the no-fly list as it exists today — and what we do know has been revealed over the strenuous objections of the federal government.

Read more here: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865756/no-fly-list

Only unlicensed sellers are exempt from the background checks.

Only. Well that is a relief.

NOT

Universal Background Checks & the “Private” Sale Loophole Policy Summary

Posted on September 10, 2015

The most dangerous gap in federal firearms laws today is the “private sale” loophole. Although federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to perform background checks on prospective purchasers and maintain records of all gun sales, it does not require unlicensed “private” sellers to do so. An estimated 40% of all firearms transferred in the U.S. are transferred by unlicensed individuals.1

(emphasis added)

According the U.S. Department of Justice, because federal law does not require universal background checks, “individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions.”2 “The private-party gun market,” one study observed, “has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes.”3 Although the private sale loophole is frequently referred to as the “gun show” loophole (because of the particular problems associated with gun shows), it applies to all private firearm sales, regardless of where they occur.4

http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/

Third Way and Americans for Responsible Solutions, What a Difference a Law Makes: Online Gun Sales in States With and Without Background Checks (Sept. 2013), at: http://www.thirdway.org/subjects/15/publications/744.

States that Require Permits for Private Purchasers After a Background Check44

Hawaii

Illinois

Iowa (handguns only)

Massachusetts

Michigan (handguns only)

Nebraska (handguns only)

New Jersey

North Carolina (handguns only)

Edited December 8, 2015 by Publicus

[MiKT]

Well Mr Thrump is going to ban all muslims flying to the US, so the rest of the world will ban Americans from flying to their countries, so there will be no no-fly list. Oh dear that means sombody will need to come up with a better idea. The sooner the better, utter morons.

[arjunadawn]

precisely what bill would you propose be passed to solve the problem?

Try to be specific. Generalizations will get you nowhere, as you all must know by now.

Anybody?

Solve the problem? Sadly, that ship has already sailed. There are so many guns in the US, that the problem will never be solved. However things can be done to reduce the senseless carnage:

1. If someone is on the no-fly, terrorist watch list, then they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun.

2. Close the gun show loophole which allows anyone to buy a gun without a criminal background check.

The are two common sense proposals that only hyperpartisans would object to.

Number 2 is spot on!

Number 1 is dodgy, since those lists are made up in some badly regulated way that catches some grannies but not all bad guys.

I am a strict Constitutionalist. I believe government should be shackled tightly in a constitutional prison. I have no idea why on earth people must get background checks (OK) but then can buy weapons at gun shows. If government has any tools to at least manage the types of weapons (and it does) why on earth would this area be off limits. How is this place the line in the sand for 2nd Amendment advocates? The fact is, it is just an arbitrary point where proponents just wish to concede no further. You see, the abuse of the second amendment is a "progressive" incremental aim toward something very unpleasant. Along the way the promised returns on decreased violence, etc., increased police ability, etc., have never materialized. It is just two steps left, no steps right. So, they draw the line in the sand at gun shows. Yet this seems a fair enough place where there should be oversight as well.

Regarding 1. No! No America should have any Right violated because he is placed on a List by non elected, non judiciary, appointees. Indeed, the 2nd Amendment is second only because the 1st Amendment is a more profound tool of freedom. If the 2nd Amendment can be mitigated by extra judicial boards why not the 4th, the 5th? Why not the first under the cover of (Loretta Lynch) "disagreeable speech," or speech that inflames (a standard not anywhere in evidence short of the crowded theater litmus test). No, the No Fly List and Mental Health Lists are just two more adjuncts currently thrown out in talking points to make the deck appear stacked so the opposition will cave into at least something. However, both of them are red herrings and utterly contemptuous lists.

(A mental health mechanism is a must but the seeds of this ability were gutted years ago when the progressives empties the psych wards, etc., of big cities and enshrined this population with a presumptive status will all other citizens. We need a mental health program that specifically precludes people who are incompetent for reasons of fiduciary and veterans assigned an incompetency status by non judicial veterans service officers in the grade GS7-GS12).

Some posted earlier the sense that in fully developing and posting on this topic (or perhaps others) its so easy to spill into the unrelated (Paraphrase). Why is this? Because all of these disparate events are agonal symptoms of the same pathology, a culture in intentional decline. The same mechanics who prescribed the remedies that are causing so much angst and suffering are now dusting the same mantras off the shelves and prescribing... more of the same prescriptions. What we do not need is more of the same inexorable march toward socialism in the US.

[arjunadawn]

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.

Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Not true. Legislation that increasingly labels, registers, and then "outs" gun owners is in essence the same thing as "coming for your guns." The double standard is hilarious were it not so tragic. No single group should be labeled on account of solitary or even RICO like terrorism but all gun owners who legally behave are fair game because of the acts of the few. The contrast is glaring. Specifically, calls for outright confiscation are in no less a place than the Leftist Huffington Post today. The idea that [they] are not coming for guns is pure fiction, the record reflects otherwise. Asserting "they're not coming for your guns" demands to be labeled as either ignorant of facts or intentionally misleading. I will presume the author just has been recently updated. The citations refuting the previous post are TNTC (Too Numerous To Count) but I cite a few.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/guns-mental-health/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/california-gun-confiscation-bill_n_3117238.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428108/new-york-times-front-page-gun-editorial-embarrassment

If these were widgets and not guns it would be apparent that over the past decades your right to own and carry a widget is remarkably infringed upon. People calling for the removal, confiscation, registration, or otherwise limitation of widgets are part of the common public discourse. Yet you have never sold an illegal widget. you don't throw your widgets at others. In fact, you don't even like to take your widget out except to clean it or go widget gaming. But you are branded equally because other people use their widgets poorly. Such a double standard. This alone disqualifies the left from an honest seat at the table of constructive ideas.

Since my position is well known I would like to take a Devil's Advocacy of the reasons behind the 2nd Amendment. It is at least worth an honest look. If the premise of the 2nd Amendment was to empower citizens to have the final means to protect themselves, not regarding just life, and property, but liberty from an oppressive government, then we should ask whether the horse has left the barn?

The power of the central government is so vast, so overwhelming, so omnipotent and omniscient that the argument that the 2nd Amendment is designed to retain the final means to overthrow an oppressive government is factually outdated. There is no amount of weapons, no means of resistance, no tools regarding firearms, that could under any circumstances resist a government gone awry. It may be unpalatable to say so but the premise simply no longer applies. A government determined to inflict its will upon a population might lose its legitimacy but it would never lose the aggression. No amount of guns in barns could stop it.

I support the 2nd Amendment irrespective because it is a Natural Right, but our previous arguments (mine included) as to the real nature of this Right effectively overlook the fact that the moment in time where it could possibly have made a difference has passed. This does not change the validity of the Right, only the pretext upon which we continue to argue its merit.

Edited December 8, 2015 by arjunadawn

[55Jay]

to all the americans who complain about the tragic loss of life on the roads in thailand and see absolutely nothing being done about it the same can be said of gun control in the usa. thousands of people needlessly killed and no one doing anything about it.

Americans are the minority in Thailand so all that complaining is coming from, uh, others.

Nice try though.

[Publicus]

No judge has said the no-fly list has no basis in law or in the Constitution.

The beef of the US District Court judge in Oregon quoted below is with "inadequate means for appealing" being on the list. There is no prohibition in law or in court decisions to the USGovernment establishing, having, enforcing a no-fly list. The list itself and per se is not illegal. Nor has the existence of the list been declared unconstitutional.

ACLU which brought the suit said the appeals process concerning the list is "unfair." Fair is fair. Feds can make a no-fly list and the people placed on it need a better process of appealing their being put on the list.

Neither did the federal judge stop the USGovernment having or operating a no-fly list.

Mistakes get made as with anything. We know however, errors do occur and that mistakes always need to be minimised.

JUNE 24 2014

A federal district judge in Oregon ruled today that the federal government violates the Constitutional rights of individuals on the so-called "no-fly list" by providing inadquate means for appealing their status.

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown ordered the government to come up with a new way for the 13 plaintiffs to contest their inclusion on the list that prohibits them from flying in or through U.S. airspace.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/06/no-fly_list_appeals_process_un.html