Contributors

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

Actually Having Ideas

I can almost here the mouth foam oozing out of the mouth of the gun rights folks after this little ditty.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

Of course, that's not even the best part.

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.

One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.

Now, when we say Michael Bloomberg, we really mean Lord Voldemort. Let's just get that out of the way first:)

What I find very interesting about this particular idea is how the support for this could be shored up through places like Wal Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods. As I have said previously, the best way to solve the gun side of this is the money. Already we've seen some gun shows and retail outlets not carrying guns like the Bushmaster. If that loophole is closed and it results in more sales at retail operations, then you get the buy in from the business community.

But, really, the best part of all these ideas is that they actually have them as opposed to the gun lobby. Moreover, they are looking at this from a variety of angles and are going to pursue many different avenues that don't have anything to do with guns. The mental health aspect of this issue is one such example. Had Adam Lanza (along with all of these other spree shooters) had better access to mental health care, things may have turned out differently.

I get the real sense the gun lobby better come up with something better than what they have now or risk being shut out of the process and clearly seen as part of the problem...which, for now, they are. They've been the "Big Daddies" for quite some time now and I think they are a little too comfortable. They won't be after this...

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)

Anonymous said...

Thus it is that mainstream reporters can now matter-of-factly describe the White House's mission on gun control this way:

----------

Obama's advisers have calculated that the longer they wait, the more distance there is from the Newtown massacre and the greater the risk that the bipartisan political will to tackle gun violence will dissipate.

"This is not something that I will be putting off," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in an interview broadcast last Sunday.

At the White House meeting, [Sheriff Richard] Stanek said, "the vice president indicated that there was a very short timeline for him to get back to the president with his recommendations because the American public has a short memory."

----------

Think about that. The president and vice president of the United States are urging immediate action on gun control, pre-empting all debate about the measures' constitutionality; and their justification for this urgent, anti-constitutional action is that "the American public has a short memory." In other words, this is not a real crisis (i.e., an ongoing threat), and the public will soon realize that, and carry on with life as usual; therefore, we must act before that happens.


Obama's Disarming Haste

Anonymous said...

I came to the realization that, while I will never get off on guns, they are, in fact, a personal liberty just as anything else is in this country and if I am going to be against things like the Patriot Act, then I have to be against gun control. Besides, it's not guns that are the problem anyway. It's Americans that are the problem. And Americans like Kevin, and the others that post on his site, are very responsible gun owners.
— Markadelphia

So now you're just fine with trampling all over what you called "a personal liberty*"? And that now you think guns are the problem?

(* Actually, it's a Right, no less so than the Right to Life. Oops, I forgot. You don't think that's a Right either.)

Mark Ward said...

The problem we are having here, NMN, is your perception. Everything I said in the statement above I still believe today. Americans have the right to have rifles, shotguns, handguns. It is a personal liberty. They do not have the right to own weapons of a military grade that are specifically used to kill as many people as people. These weapons are not used for defense. How these weapons will be categorized is going to be a matter of debate.

Further, as I said above, Americans, not guns, are the problem. Some people should not be allowed to own guns. These would be people who have been convicted of a violent crime, people who have a mental illness, or minors. This does not include responsible gun owners like yourself (although if you and the others go Alex Jones and start shooting, well, that right will be taken away).

So, the problem isn't me, it's you. And the media for allowing you guys to wrap all of this in the Constitution. We don't have a tyrannical government, NMN, so you don't need to have military grade weapons for defense. In short, you are being paranoid.

Anonymous said...

They do not have the right to own weapons of a military grade

1) Did you read what Haplo9 posted about the superiority of the AR-15 for home defense?

2) Is the Constitution a law?

3) What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)

Sheesh, why am I even bothering to argue with a guy who both says there is a right to the tools of defense and wants to take away those tools, yet cannot see the self contradiction?

Anonymous said...

These would be people who have been convicted of a violent crime, people who have a mental illness, or minors


Done, done and done. Can we stop talking about further restrictions now?

We don't have a tyrannical government, NMN, so you don't need to have military grade weapons for defense

How does one defend oneself from a tyrannical government? Oh, you just answered that - 'military grade weapons'.

Second step of logic - how does a tyrannical government come into being? Has it been in existence since the earth was created or does it form from, descend from or takeover a current form of non-tyrannical government?

Third step of logic - Will a tyrannical government 'allow' it's citizens the 'military grade' weapons necessary in order to defeat it?

Put it together - 'Military grade' weapons can defeat a tyrannical government. A tyrannical government can come into existence within any government. Once a government is a tyranny it is too late to purchase 'military grade' weapons with which to defeat it.

You call it paranoia. I call you naive.

Mark Ward said...

Show me out of the bubble evidence (not Alex Jones, btw) of this tyrannical government. Show me the re-education camps, the indoctrination, etc...show me it. Everything I have seen so far is a paranoid fantasy.

Anonymous said...

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
— George Santayana

Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
— Sir Edmund Burke

You're supposed to be a social studies teacher, Mark. You're supposed to actually know history. (That you don't doesn't surprise me at all.)

There's a question you keep ignoring that speaks directly to your challenge. What was it again?

What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)

You can only make such demands by ignoring this question and its ramifications. Which, of course, must be why you keep ignoring it.

Anonymous said...

They do not have the right to own weapons of a military grade that are specifically used to kill as many people as people. These weapons are not used for defense.
Really? The colonists defeated the best military on earth with bows and arrows?

Your entire argument is built on a false premise. No wonder you are exasperated and flailing and you aren't alone thanks to poor schools and teachers who don't understand history. Understand why the second amendment was put in place and your argument above evaporates.

Mark Ward said...

You're supposed to actually know history

That knowledge doesn't include leaping to paranoid fantasies. You know, your comments here made me think of an incident at the club where I work out. I was having a discussion with the Reverend Edward (essentially a carbon copy of you) and he was going on about communism and Obama. Someone walked up to us from Hungary and told Edward that he grew up under communist rule and was massively offended by the correlation he was drawing between communism and Democrats. He basically told Edward that he was nuts. He was. And so are you.

Anonymous said...

It's not a paranoid fantasy to look at history and see that oppression is common. Freedom is what is unusual.

Nor is it a paranoid fantasy to recognize that full blown tyrannies can occur in countries that were once free.

Based on your arguments, you have decided that tyranny cannot happen here, therefore any suggestion that there is even a possibility of it happening is a "paranoid fantasy". But what basis do you have for thinking that it cannot happen? The closest you have ever gotten to answering that question is a variant of "because I, the great and powerful Markadelpha, say so! Now go away peon."

So what did the guys who DESIGNED our system of government think of that possibility? The answer is the answer to this question:

What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)

Larry said...

Nor are semi-automatic rifles actually "military grade", Mark. No military issues semi-auto rifles to troops except for some "sniper" rifles (also known as "hunting rifles" to American sportsmen). M-4 carbine, M-16, AK-47, AK-74, G3, FAL, FAMAS, L85, and many, many others are all full-auto.

How come all these "new ideas" you're touting are exactly the same ideas libs have been pushing for decades now? Were you asleep for the last 20-30 years?

Juris Imprudent said...

we really mean Lord Voldemort.

I never took Voldemort as a low-brow comic caricature. But if that works for you.

Everything I have seen so far is a paranoid fantasy.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- T. Jefferson

I guess Jefferson was just some paranoid right-wing-nut, huh M?

Now as to Biden et al - everything being floated by Dems from CA to NY are things that would have absolutely zero effect in Newtown. Here's a great take down on the rampant stupidity behind "assault weapon" fear.

Juris Imprudent said...

How come all these "new ideas" you're touting are exactly the same ideas libs have been pushing for decades now?

Progressives are really into recycling.

Juris Imprudent said...

I was having a discussion with the Reverend Edward

Oh my, giving the voices in your head names now?

Anonymous said...

Typical progtard! I didn't say it was imminent or anything resembling that did I? I said that is why the second was put in place. FACT.

Just because you don't like it, think that may happen, or any other dumbass reason means absolutely ZERO. It is there for a purpose and it contradicts your 'fantasy' completely.

Anonymous said...

Oops, sorry NMN.

Unknown said...

Markadelphia puts a post up a few days ago saying that small people talk about other people, now he's right back talking about "the right". It's all he does.

Rob (formerly rld)

Juris Imprudent said...

It is there for a purpose and it contradicts your 'fantasy' completely.

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Anonymous said...

Oops, sorry NMN.

For what?

Anonymous said...

Giving him the answer. :)

It is an open book question you know.

Anonymous said...

I gave him the answer, too. Two nights ago, in the school prayer thread, below.

It won't change anything. He correctly answered my question about whether or not he could guarantee no one would ever need military grade weapons to stay alive. Then he immediately turned and advocated for making sure no one could get them anyway, even knowing that people would die as a result.

The cognitive dissonance in his head must be astounding.