PDA

View Full Version : You sure he doesn't want to take our guns?



CitizenBBN
09-08-2012, 12:21 AM
Used that phrase b/c it's IMO a bit trite and definitely a "sound bite" thing, and like every sound bite only partially accurate, but bringing our discussion over here from the Fast and Furious thread, here's part of the 2012 Democratic Platform:

. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

So it states right in the platform they want to ban certain classes of weapons altogether, ban magazines with more than 10 round capacity, and the "gun show loophole" is nothing more than allowing individuals to sell guns to each other in a designated location. There's no "loophole" per se.

That's just what's in the written platform, a series of laws that will in fact take guns off the market.


FWIW, this is a change from the 2008 platform on guns where they said:

We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.

You know why? B/c it isn't working in Chicago. Murder is up 30% over last year, and it is the gun violence and murder capital of the country despite having by far the most restrictive gun laws. The mayor is Obama's former Chief of Staff and they have fought the SCOTUS decision that they have to allow gun ownership tooth and toenail. There are numerous lawsuits pending trying to break down all the regs they've put in place to stop ownership.

So this is Obama's Chief of Staff supporting to the bitter end a complete ban on handgun ownership, and many rifles and shotguns, in a city that now has so many murders it has a shot at having a higher murder rate than Bogata Columbia.

So yeah it may be trite, and a sound bite, but the Democratic platform makes it clear it's not necessarily untrue.

Oh, fwiw, "assault weapons" are responsible for about 1% of gun violence in the US. It's hard to believe they want to ban these guns to reduce gun crime since these guns aren't used to commit gun crime. In Chicago for example, 4 times more people are being killed by bare hands than ALL rifles which includes "assault weapons".

Also, gun violence wasn't impacted by the last ban, and gun violence is falling steadily since the ban was lifted in 2004, except in areas that have enacted these laws on the state level. Again, what's the motive here when it's empirically proven the law didn't work last time?

So they want to enact a law we know doesn't work, and doesn't address the weapons used in 99% of gun related crimes, at a time when there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and falling gun violence rates nationally.

At some point why can't people say they're wrong and change their view? I did it on drugs, where I argued for years against legalization. Why can't Obama and Feinstein do it on guns, when his home city that has followed all of his views on gun laws is turning into a third world city?

BigBlueBrock
09-08-2012, 12:31 AM
Why can't Obama and Feinstein do it on guns, when his home city that has followed all of his views on gun laws is turning into a third world city?

Because it's too inconvenient given the general POV on this issue amongst his constituency. Personally, whether assault weapons are legal or illegal is irrelevant to me, I never plan on owning one. I don't know why anyone else would have to have one, but I also don't care if they do. The simple fact is the problems with gun violence in this country have little to nothing to do with what weapons are available and everything to do with the War on Drugs and a generally ignorant populace. Switzerland is very lax on gun control and has almost no gun related violence or accidents because its citizens are well-educated (in fact, military conscription is required for adult-aged Swiss men. You're required to serve a set number of years in the Swiss militia) about the use of firearms. There are countries where guns are illegal, but there are more non-gun-related deaths in some countries than there are total deaths in America. There is no correlation between gun laws and gun violence - at all.

Make a stronger effort to educate people on guns and stop the War on Drugs and you'll see gun-related accidents at home and gun-related violence on the street take a dramatic fall.

CitizenBBN
09-08-2012, 12:47 AM
This is also a good place to post something I wanted to comment on for some weeks.

I went to a seminar where the former deputy director of ATF was there to instruct on some ATF issues and answer questions. A key focus of the seminar was on what is called in the industry "straw buying", where someone buys a gun from a dealer for someone else who couldn't pass the background check themselves.

that's a crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail and a $250,000 fine. Very serious penalties.

So here's how it works for those who don't know. Person goes in to buy a gun from a dealer they have to fill out a form 4473, which is an ATF form where you answer whether you're a felon, etc. (about 15 questions) and sign that you have given honest answers. That includes signing that you are the intended use and not buying it for someone else (straw purchase).

The dealer then runs the background check through NICS, which is the FBI's database center established by the Brady Bill (which I support fwiw). It takes a few minutes, they check a series of databases (got trained on that process by the chief FBI Liaison officer for firearms dealers, very informative) and either approve or disapprove the check.

Here's the thing. If you answered the questions correctly, that call doesn't get made, and if you answered them correctly you probably are approved. NICS knows immediately if it came back b/c you're a felon, etc. so if NICS got a call and it was denied b/c of a felony there's a VERY high chance they just committed another felony by misrepresenting info on the 4473. VERY high.

There have been about 1 million denials from NICS. Guess how many people per year are even prosecuted for that felony that is the front line of defense against felons getting guns from the system?

400.

So those concerned about gun violence want to enact a national ban on entire classes of weapons, when our law enforcement effectively doesn't even enforce felony offenses to obtain firearms illegally?

This is insanity. The FBI through NICS by definition knows every single felon who misrepresented on a 4473 the instant it happens. You know more than 400 of these dumba$$es a year try it. That doesn't even count any investigations they should do on their own.

For example, ATF requires dealers report any sales of multiple handguns by a single buyer over a 5 day period. This is another whole layer of paperwork on the dealers. One guy there had full time employees JUST to do the ATF paperwork tracking.

They can't be submitted electronically. Only by mail or fax. We were told by the former ATF people that the ones sent by mail just get stacked up in boxes. All that paperwork designed to help them identify people of interest that goes nowhere.

There is almost no federal enforcement of the laws to prevent criminals from getting guns, there are vast paperwork requirements that do little, and the political solution is to enact laws that impact law abiding citizens instead of focusing on the criminals who are the entire problem whether they are using guns or not.

It was an eye opening experience, and it was interesting to watch the reactions of the ATF people there. It would be wrong to say they were "dumbfounded" by the idea of prosecuting criminals versus regulating dealers to death. It was a combination of defensiveness and embarrassment. The guy who gave us the 400 number had that "admission of guilt" tone in his voice like when you got caught by your parents as a kid.

IF we wanted to stop gun violence in this country we could do it without having to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. I don't think these gun laws have a THING to do with gun crime. If they did why pass laws against guns that aren't used in gun crimes and all but refuse to prosecute those who are trying to obtain guns illegally that are the main source of guns used in gun crimes? Why do they continue to hold their views when Chicago has been a long term empirical study on gun regulation and shown it to be a horrid and complete failure? Are they just that stupid, or is there something else to their thinking?

CitizenBBN
09-08-2012, 12:51 AM
Brock -- I agree we need to look at the sources of violence and crime in this country b/c whether it's guns or whatever the problem we face is crime. The war on drugs has been a debacle of epic proportions.

Great how you tied them together as well b/c the National Firearms Act was the first major federal regulation of guns, and it was created from use of Tommy guns and other weapons by crime syndicates created during prohibition. The war on alcohol led to that gun violence and that gun regulation, and now the war on drugs is doing the same thing.

the parallels are amazing in their detail.

re "assault weapons", that includes the 10 round magazine restriction, and LOTs of non "assault" weapons are included in that group. Even what qualifies as an "assault weapon" is really unclear as technically an assault weapon would be full auto and we already don't allow those. All that is out there are semi auto versions that look like military guns but functionally aren't really different from any semi-auto hunting rifle.

that's why the NRA claims it's a ban on "semi-auto weapons". Not all SA weapons, for now, so that's misleading of them, but since "assault" is an arbitrary term based more on the look of a gun than its functionality, really any gas operated rifle with a removable mag could fit the definition.

It's not clear what would be included in the ban this time around. There was tremendous debate about the details last time.

A LOT of voters think "assault weapons" are the full auto military weapons they see on TV. Those guns have been regulated extensively since the 30s. So are short barrel rifles and shotguns and silencers. You can get them but they are strictly regulated.

The magazine restriction is beyond absurd. Almost no one even killed by a handgun is killed by the 11th round in the magazine. Most are killed by handguns that are already sub-10 round capacity b/c they're smaller concealable guns.

I have an answer to my question of why they want to ban guns that aren't contributing to gun crime in any meaningful way, but I'll wait a while to put out my tin foil hat theory.

Regardless, I don't want to rely on Feinstein's or Schumer's definition of what constitutes a dangerous weapon. My Leatherman would be in trouble if they were making the decisions.

CitizenBBN
09-08-2012, 12:57 AM
One other note -- I do support the Dem platform call for improving background checks. I doubt they mean what I mean, but the FBI has difficulty getting cooperation from state and local agencies to get the details on criminal records they need to do their job well.

I would fully support laws requiring state and local agencies to properly maintain records on felons so we can keep them from buying guns. The FBI has a very tough job b/c the federal restrictions dont' line up 1:1 with how every state law system works so they have to do some reviewing and could use support from those agencies.

So this isn't just "anti-Obama" or anti-democrat. I doubt their version of strenghtening the checks is in the gory details of the record keeping, but probably in broadening who can get one, but hopefully not and if not I'll support it. that kind of legislation focuses on criminals not getting guns, which is the right approach.

BigBlueBrock
09-08-2012, 01:00 AM
The thing is, and this is truer the older I get, there comes a point when the most correct and pragmatic solution is the one you choose. What good is having gun control laws that can't be enforced? What good is having drug laws that can't be enforced (and which do more harm than good)? What good is passing legislation to round of 15 million illegal immigrants with the purpose of deporting them when you will never EVER find and deport them all?

Pragmatism says you decriminalize drugs and spend your money on rehab and healthcare.
Pragmatism says you stop trying to enforce registration, tracking, et al on guns and spend the money educating people.
Pragmatism says you create a path to citizenship and get all these undocumented people put into the system so they can pay some GD taxes and stop leeching.

Ideologues, on both sides, are the reason this country is in the shape it's in. No one wants to find common ground and it is, quite frankly, disgusting and disheartening.

CitizenBBN
09-08-2012, 01:10 AM
With you on all 3 of those things Brock. I think pragmatism is an ideology in some ways, but one which very few seem to share.

I have no problem with the background check system, support it strongly. In fact there are some things I'd change to make it more effective. However, this country simply has too much freedom and too much size to effectively ban anything the people want to have, from booze to drugs to guns. Don't even try, as you said focus on education and using resources to address hard crimes and move on from the rest.

suncat05
09-08-2012, 09:17 AM
Good, common sense discussion here, and I happen to agree with both of you point for point.
I fear though, CBBN & Brock, that the gun control laws they want to enact and use for their purposes is not, and will not be for the good of the nation, just for the good of the government to use against its citizens. Pretty sad state of affairs when the government is more interested in subjucating its law-abiding citizens and refuses to recognize that it is the criminals that are the people that need to be dealt with. But as per usual, if the government is involved the entire situation is going to be FUBAR, and not operate even remotely like it should.
Just like what the ICE policy is right now in dealing with illegal foreign nationals in the U.S. Take all of the Level 1 & 2 illegals and give them a report date at the nearest immigration center, but take all of the Level 3's(the criminals that have finished doing either state or federal prison time)and deport them all as soon as their prison time is completed. THAT PART of the ICE policy I agree with, but the treatment of the Level 1 & 2's is dumb, IMHO. They've already broken our law(s) by being here illegally. So we give them a "hall pass" with their "promise" that they'll show up for their check-in date at the federal immigration center(s)? A good many of these people do not show up, they just disappear. But the answer when we catch them AGAIN is to do the same exact thing instead of putting them in custody to ascertain if they should really be here. I know this because the agency I work for houses these people for ICE and I have a good working relationship with the ICE agents. Even they don't agree with the policy as it now is, but, like all good soldiers, they must follow the orders of their superiors in D.C., that bastion of pragmatism that was just alluded to in both of CBBN's & Brock's posts.
But hey, I'm just a dumb street cop that doesn't know up from down.............:confused:

DanISSELisdaman
09-08-2012, 12:16 PM
The bottom line is this: If they start prosecuting criminals that have guns, the crime rate goes down. If the crime rate goes down, they have a hard time justifying banning guns. They want to ban guns because an un-armed public is much easier controlled and much more unlikely to rebel over having crap shoved down their throats by the Gov.

badrose
09-08-2012, 04:26 PM
The bottom line is this: If they start prosecuting criminals that have guns, the crime rate goes down. If the crime rate goes down, they have a hard time justifying banning guns. They want to ban guns because an un-armed public is much easier controlled and much more unlikely to rebel over having crap shoved down their throats by the Gov.

Bingo.

ukblue
09-08-2012, 04:30 PM
All my guns have been stolen. Damn dirty shame.

CitizenBBN
09-09-2012, 12:25 AM
All my guns have been stolen. Damn dirty shame.

I hear that from an alarmingly high number of people. When we do the gun auctions I talk to a lot of gun owners and a lot of them have had guns stolen over the years and it seems like more all the time.

It is absolutely a dirty damn shame. I despise theft, and guns stolen from individuals often have meaning to them far beyond the gun itself. Wish we'd flog thieves in the public square.

Darrell KSR
09-09-2012, 06:34 PM
If I don't miss my guess, I think ukblue is stating what some of us might say if they tried to take away our guns. "All my guns have been stolen," dang it.

I probably should've reported it before you asked, but just didn't want to use the resources of our fine police force to go look for my guns. I'll struggle through without them.

CitizenBBN
09-09-2012, 06:47 PM
If I don't miss my guess, I think ukblue is stating what some of us might say if they tried to take away our guns. "All my guns have been stolen," dang it.

I probably should've reported it before you asked, but just didn't want to use the resources of our fine police force to go look for my guns. I'll struggle through without them.

So I'm tired and stupid, what's your point?

It is true though I talk to enough people that have had guns stolen that I am beyond paranoid about it. No doubt if they show up for mine they'll have been lost as well. Just hope no one brings metal detectors. lol.

jazyd
09-11-2012, 09:15 AM
We know what this administration, this president and the democrat party want to do, take away all guns, take away the right to hunt, and there some that even want to take away the right to fish, yes I said fish. This administration, this democrat party has a huge take in money from anti hunters and anti gun people, so why are we surprised when the ultra liberal left push their agenda.

All our guns are being stolen, by the liberal democrat party.

I am surprised that so many of you want drugs to be legally sold and used on a daily basis. Lets just legalize killing more on the hwys, lets just keep doing less at work while people are high, more college students high during class, legalize drugs and legalize more overdoses. Sorry, but when you have family members like I have that have ruined their lives because of drugs, when you have had friends, neighbors, family members who have overdosed, died, stole, killed others all because of drugs, there is no way I would ever vote to legalize it. Only problem with the so called war on drugs is so many are making huge amounts of money off it, and there is so much going under the table to the higher ups, that there is no war on drugs. so brock and company want to legailize it and allow the cartels to sell even more of that crap here and make even more money, and then they can move their operations right here into the country and make it here. That is what we need, more columbian and mexican criminals here making that good stuff for brock and his friends and doing it legally. And dont' give me the crap that it will put them out of business, it won't it will just give them a legal way of conducting their business and making huge amounts of money by introducing i legally to millions of more Americans by saying it is now okay to buy, use the crap. And all that money brock says will be saved, bull, because he says it up front when it says it will go to health care for them and rehab, what rehab because now you will have even more on the stuff and the health bill will go sky high. I always love the justification of liberals, we are going to save this money so we can SPEND more on something else. It is why we have a debt of over $16 trillion dollars and climbing daily and why when you listen to Obama and all he talks about is the new spending he is going to do with the little extra money he wants to take in from taxing 'the rich', classwarfare at its best. It is called tax and spend, spend, spend.
Take away guns but legalize drugs, now that makes a lot of sense,

BigBlueBrock
09-11-2012, 11:16 AM
Ah, the classic "legalized drugs will destroy society" argument. I'm pretty sure that was the original idea put forth when they originally criminalized drugs. Legalized and regulated drugs remove the black market from the equation that is the cause of most/all of the problems associated with drug use. Baby boomers want people to believe drugs and marijuana are some kind of demonic gateway to the end of society, but it's simply not true. In fact, the exact opposite is true as countries that have decriminalized marijuana and drugs have seen a decrease in usage, decrease in STI transmission, and an increase of users in rehab. It's like what happens when you have dry counties - you get bootleggers. They sell the alcohol for a higher cost (because they're buying from liquor stores in the wet counties) to anyone that will buy it, including minors. When alcohol is sold legally, you don't have bootleggers and suddenly minors have a much harder time getting their hands on the product.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91y9KqvVggY

dan_bgblue
09-11-2012, 06:07 PM
Guns Where are they Now (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/09/11/atf-fast-and-furious-guns-appear-in-colombia/)

CitizenBBN
09-11-2012, 08:29 PM
Jazy I abhor drug use, and I'm sure not suggesting we promote its use, but it's already being used as your personal experiences confirm. Now the question is how best to reduce that use, and keeping it illegal has not only not made a dent, drug us is higher than ever and only going up.

The cartels won't make it here, they'll be gone. Criminal conspiracies exist when something is illegal. Alcohol bootlegging is all but non-existent compared to all alcohol sales. No one has to go deal with a crime ring to get pot if you can grow your own legally or buy it with a license at the pharmacy.

I know the thinking is utterly backwards. I agree, but prohibition so closely parallels this situation it's scary, and it showed that alcohol use and the detrimental effects of it declined when alcohol was re-legalized. There were over 100,000 illegal bars in NYC alone, just as now there are crack houses and dealers everywhere.

I want to battle drug use, but I want to battle it the way we have battled smoking and even alcohol consumption effects like DUI. Instead of making it wholly illegal it's illegal to have a DUI, we have public intoxication, etc. It's worked for smoking and has worked to contain the effects of alcohol consumption versus Prohibition, with the bonus that there is almost no criminal activity being driven by or associated with alcohol or tobacco.

I think it's the right approach for reducing use, and the right approach for reducing the massive crime rate in this country which impacts a lot of innocent people as well, as well as sucking a lot of people into criminal activity who would never have done so if not for the drug connection.

CitizenBBN
09-11-2012, 08:35 PM
Guns Where are they Now (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/09/11/atf-fast-and-furious-guns-appear-in-colombia/)

Dan, 100s have been and 100s more will be killed by these weapons, yet Feinstein/Schumer have no outrage, no call for the heads of those who let these guns get directly in the hands of dangerous criminal organizations. Not a peep.

They aren't outraged at the deaths of 100s of Mexicans from innocents to law enforcement, don't want to ban the weapons that produce 80-90% of all gun violence in this country, yet claim moral high ground? Huh?

I'll tell you the reason I think they want this one: they think they can get it, and any gun restriction is a good restriction. With this they also try to divide and conquer. I hear from hunters etc. that they don't care about "assault weapons", so they may be able to get this one done without every gun owner, sportsman in the nation voting against them. So this gets in, then we get the next shooting with grandfathered guns and we go after those, or with another semi-auto not on the list, and we go after that one.

It's a foot in the door. I know the NRA claims that and many dismiss it, and at times it should be dismissed (don't ever take anyone's word for anything 100% of the time), but given the complete lack of logical reasons for their priorities this time they're right.

Shootings in Aurora create the public fear they need to act against this class of weapons even though the total deaths are almost nil compared to any other weapon they could target. They want this b/c they think they can get it, and anything that chips away from the rock is a good thing.

ukblue
09-12-2012, 06:17 PM
Anti gun laws have been passed in Canada and Australia and those are the last two countries that I thought would ever pass anti gun laws.

CitizenBBN
09-13-2012, 02:34 AM
Anti gun laws have been passed in Canada and Australia and those are the last two countries that I thought would ever pass anti gun laws.

Australia's were in reaction to a single Aurora/columbine type shooting. They actually paid people and confiscated guns. The next year after confiscation handgun crime rose 40%.

Canada doesn't shock me, they've become almost Syndicalist with their incredibly high unionization, but Australia sure does.

ukblue
09-13-2012, 07:08 PM
What both countries have in common Citizen is that the majority of their populations are located in cities. Both countries have huge amounts of land that are sparsley populated so the number of people that have weapons are in the minority. No matter what happens a bunch of people still think the polices job is to protect them. That changes just as soon as they become a victim.

CitizenBBN
09-13-2012, 09:18 PM
No matter what happens a bunch of people still think the polices job is to protect them. That changes just as soon as they become a victim.

When seconds count, help is only minutes away. lol

As it should be fwiw. It's mathematically impossible for us to put a police officer on every block of every street, nor do we want to do it. The police will do their best, but they inevitably will take time to respond when your life is threatened. You'd think with all the CSI and police dramas on there people would notice that 90% of those episodes are about dispensing justice for the person who is now dead, not stopping the death in the first place.

Don't have to go around in body armor, but it pays to expect to have to take care of yourself when it hits the fan.

dan_bgblue
10-10-2012, 06:52 PM
Illinois Violence Tax (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/10/illinois-county-considers-violence-tax-on-guns-and-ammo/?test=latestnews)

CitizenBBN
10-10-2012, 08:18 PM
Illinois Violence Tax (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/10/illinois-county-considers-violence-tax-on-guns-and-ammo/?test=latestnews)

Summers said gun violence costs the government in a number of ways, including the $143 a day it costs to keep someone in jail. Further, he said it costs $52,00 on average to treat a gunshot victim without insurance in the taxpayer-backed local hospital.




OK, but what does that have to do with guns and ammo sold to people who are already given background checks (even for ammo in Illinois)? Those people aren't committing the gun violence, and those that are don't pay that tax or any other tax.

This "reduces the number of guns in circulation." You'd think with the toughest anti-gun laws in the nation and the highest murder rate in the nation they'd figure out that reducing the number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals.

It's like raising the tax on cigarettes to curb crack consumption. They have nothing to do with each other.

Either they are the flat dumbest people on Earth or we have to get all conspiracy on the anti-gun folks in Chicago.

CitizenBBN
10-18-2012, 01:25 PM
Well since he said it in the debate can we now agree he does in fact want to take our guns and it's just a debate of which ones?

Anyone trust a guy who supported banning all semi-auto guns, the vast majority of guns in the country, to make a balanced, reasoned choice?

ColonelSteve
10-18-2012, 03:06 PM
Of course they want your guns...the reason is unknown to those with their eyes closed...there is more to the story than you and I know...if they didnt...this wouldnt be necessary...seriously...why does MPs need to know how to drive these?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkFloGtKuLs

suncat05
10-18-2012, 03:52 PM
I was an MP when I was in the Army. FYI, I was taught how to drive and operate a wide range of vehicles and weapons systems. The more knowledge a soldier possesses the more valuable he/she is on the battlefield.

ColonelSteve
10-18-2012, 03:54 PM
I was an MP when I was in the Army. FYI, I was taught how to drive and operate a wide range of vehicles and weapons systems. The more knowledge a soldier possesses the more valuable he/she is on the battlefield.

Yeah but on an interstate though?

dethbylt
10-19-2012, 01:10 AM
Of course they want your guns...the reason is unknown to those with their eyes closed...there is more to the story than you and I know...if they didnt...this wouldnt be necessary...seriously...why does MPs need to know how to drive these?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkFloGtKuLs

With all due respect Steve, that is the most shortsighted, misinformed, tin foil on the head thing I have read on this forum. I have been in numerous training events like this over the last 25 year. This type of vehicle is well suited for multiple types of operations.

The reason MP's drive stuff like this is 1. Nearly every contemporary battle scenario (counter-insurgency and force on force) involves urban scenarios that require this type of vehicle, 2. these vehicles are developed to address the needs and safety of troops in any type of combat and have evolved to meet the current threat, and 3. wouldnt you feel safer knowing that the MP's trained stateside in vehicles like this if the US were ever invaded?

dethbylt
10-19-2012, 01:12 AM
Yeah but on an interstate though?

<FACEPALM> There are interstates all over the world.

Did you know that the US interstate system was originally conceived to support rapid port deployments by the military?

ColonelSteve
10-19-2012, 07:38 PM
With all due respect Steve, that is the most shortsighted, misinformed, tin foil on the head thing I have read on this forum. I have been in numerous training events like this over the last 25 year. This type of vehicle is well suited for multiple types of operations.

The reason MP's drive stuff like this is 1. Nearly every contemporary battle scenario (counter-insurgency and force on force) involves urban scenarios that require this type of vehicle, 2. these vehicles are developed to address the needs and safety of troops in any type of combat and have evolved to meet the current threat, and 3. wouldnt you feel safer knowing that the MP's trained stateside in vehicles like this if the US were ever invaded?

Oh really? You need to look into FEMA camps...something is about to happen that is gonna require martial law...and that is evidence speaking...not a tin foil hat

ColonelSteve
10-19-2012, 07:39 PM
<FACEPALM> There are interstates all over the world.

Did you know that the US interstate system was originally conceived to support rapid port deployments by the military?

It was conceived for a mass evacuation in case of a nuclear attack from the Soviets...actually it mixture of both

suncat05
10-20-2012, 02:29 AM
Yeah but on an interstate though?

The thing is.......when and if the fighting starts, you never know where it is going to go. Fighting on an interstate(or an autobahn)is all part of the training scenario.
And not to toot our own horn here, but this kind of training and what it represents is exactly why an American soldier is the best trained and most well-disciplined soldier in the world. American soldiers adapt well because they're well trained and allowed to improvise as needed on the battlefield.

KeithKSR
10-26-2012, 07:26 PM
If one looks at the trends the best way to decrease gun violence is to pass shall issue CCW laws, pass Castle Doctrine and stand your ground laws, and enforce existing laws preventing felons from purchasing firearms.

More restrictions on firearms result in higher crime rates, and more crimes committed with firearms.

It is stupid to think that passing more laws will make criminals obey laws they are currently breaking.

suncat05
10-28-2012, 04:09 PM
If one looks at the trends the best way to decrease gun violence is to pass shall issue CCW laws, pass Castle Doctrine and stand your ground laws, and enforce existing laws preventing felons from purchasing firearms.

More restrictions on firearms result in higher crime rates, and more crimes committed with firearms.

It is stupid to think that passing more laws will make criminals obey laws they are currently breaking.

All assertions that I, and many, many others with good sense have been making for many, many years now.

dan_bgblue
01-06-2013, 09:41 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/06/obama-is-considering-stronger-giun-control/?test=latestnews

The administration task force led by Vice President Joe Biden is considering such measures as universal background checks for gun buyers, a national gun database, strengthening mental-health checks and tougher penalties for people carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, sources told the newspaper.

CattyWampus
01-06-2013, 09:51 AM
http://markamerica.com/2013/01/06/combating-ignorance-about-guns/

fta:

If this doesn’t make plain the truth of the matter, I don’t think you’re willing to be convinced of the truth. Some people choose ignorance because it’s more comforting than actual knowledge, or because it permits them to take up the support of evil while pretending not to have known better. Either way, readers should understand that there can be no rational argument for stripping the hundreds of millions of guns from the American people for the purposes of crime prevention. The truth is that guns are simply an instrument like any other, and as long as there is man, there will be senseless violent murders, whether guns are available or not. The only thing achieved by banning firearms is to leave millions of Americans virtually defenseless, and that’s immoral. Instead of going after the crazies, the politicians are using this as an opportunity to go after the rights of law-abiding citizens, and for all the reasons you can already guess, you have every reason and right to resist it. Ignorance should no longer be an excuse. Those who advocate the banning of firearms are simply damning many more innocent Americans to deaths from which they might have protected themselves. So much then for “good intentions.”

Darrell KSR
01-06-2013, 10:33 AM
Somebody smarter than me (ok, that eliminates nobody) and better tuned to the issues here, let me know what, if any, of these measures would be helpful in the proposal Dan linked. I have separated each of the 4 proposals in bold in the quote, and have my puny questions in italics.

Please help inform the ignorant (me).




The administration task force led by Vice President Joe Biden is considering such measures as


1. universal background checks for gun buyers,


I'm not a real big fan of "big brother" type measures for law-abiding citizens, but if this is a better measure for keeping guns out of the hands of felons and "bad guys," I guess this would be ok. How would this work, my friends?

2- a national gun database,

This is the one that sounds big brother-ish to me; I jumped the gun earlier, but leaving it in case there are elements in it, too. Would this one help? How?


3-strengthening mental-health checks


A noble idea. How does it work? Why don't we say we'll just "outlaw bad people having guns?" Seriously, how does this work--will a psychiatrist have to certify you are ok to own a gun? Will the Walmart clerk have to give you a test? What does this mean?

(Remember, I confess-I'm ignorant on how these issues work. You'll have to educate me.)


4- and tougher penalties for people carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors,



Well, ok. I'm not really aware of any instances where that would have helped. If they're carrying guns *to* schools and using them, I'm not sure that some big, bad, tougher law against carrying it "close" to the school will help. But again, I'm uneducated on the issue, and I do have an open mind--CBBN and I have talked about this several times, and I do not have a problem with something that will work being implemented, even if it impinges on my idea of ideal. Just tell me what it will accomplish, and how it will do so.

sources told the newspaper.

badrose
01-06-2013, 10:35 AM
It is not the criminals they fear, it's law-abiding citizens whose arms keep them from ripping the Constitution to shreds. I hope Walmart doesn't take the bait.

CitizenBBN
01-06-2013, 01:36 PM
Somebody smarter than me (ok, that eliminates nobody) and better tuned to the issues here, let me know what, if any, of these measures would be helpful in the proposal Dan linked. I have separated each of the 4 proposals in bold in the quote, and have my puny questions in italics.

Please help inform the ignorant (me).


I'm a long way from smarter than you, as are 99% of the American people (you're a tough act to beat), but I am versed in the topic and I'm far more opinionated, so I'll take a crack:

1. universal background checks for gun buyers,


This SOUNDS like a good idea, and as long as the rule stays in place (see #2) that checks have to be wiped so you can't track gun purchases, it's probably the least horrible of all the very Big Brother suggestions out there.

That being said, don't expect it to help prevent guns going to criminals and SURE don't expect it to do anything about these mass shootings.

Re mass shootings, the guns used in Aurora and Newtown were obtained with proper background checks being done. It's easy to find a felon breaking the law, you have a hard criminal record, but what about someone with no record like Aurora or Newtown? That's where improving the mental health system would help, but in Newtown the mother bought them and would have passed anything currently proposed.

Second, while I've proposed prosecuting felons trying to buy guns when they're found out through the background check (NICS - far shorter to type) system, as a percentage of the guns obtained illegally it's not a whole lot of them that are sold from law abiding citizens to criminals.

Criminals get them primarily by stealing them and by straw purchase, getting someone to buy them for them who would clear the check process. Since the straw purchase would work equally well under this proposal ans will stealing them, the impact on criminals getting guns would be relatively small.

Then there is the thing politicians, and sadly most Americans, either don't understand or don't think about: the principle of substitution.

Simply put: people react to changes in their playing field. they don't remain constant. Can't buy them privately without a check? Go to more straw purchases and more theft. Like economic policies, you have to look not at the impact based on current behavior but impact based on the outcome once people adjust to the policy.

So if 30% (way high IMO) Of guns going to criminals come from private sales with unwary sellers, NICS checks won't stop 30% of guns going to criminals. It will stop some lower percentage adjusted for an increase in straw buying and theft. so maybe it's 10% not 30%, maybe 2%.

So it may have some impact, but don't expect it to be anything like what it sounds like it may be.

The huge negative is it's one more step to option #2, which is an incredibly grave risk to the heart of the 2nd Amendment.


2- a national gun database,


This is the nightmare scenario for gun rights. Do we need more proof than what just happened in Connecticut with the names and addresses of gun owners released to the public? That happened purely b/c Connecticut has a gun database. It was easily twisted to become a violation of privacy rights and to create a chilling effect on gun ownership and a serious risk to the safety of everyone in that community, gun owner or not.

We now have empirical evidence of what can happen. It happened again in Carolina with printing of CCDW permit holder's information. How many incidents do we need before we conclude from the data this is a serious risk?

Beyond that, it destroys the 2nd Amendment b/c now the government knows exactly who is a threat to them and who isn't.

Feinstein et al have said flat out they'd CONFISCATE every gun if they could. Yes she sadi that, I'm not exaggerating.

Now imagine if she had a database of those guns. Right now how do you confiscate guns you can't find? The database makes that all the easier. Maybe you don't get them all at once, but you do like Britain and what they're trying here, to chip away one kind of gun at a time.

That's how it's been done elsewhere. They don't say "give us all the guns." they say "give us these dangerous guns, but we're all for 2nd amendment rights." So they take "assault weapons", but then there's a mass shooting with something else so they take that, then finally handguns, leaving hunting rifles and shotguns at most. Then they license those.

Britain and Australia followed exactly that model. Small wonder why anyone educated on the topic, learning the lessons of governmental history in general and on guns in particularly, is terrified of the government knowing the location of every gun.

The entire point of the 2nd Amendment is to create a final, last defense against tyranny. The point at which the US government becomes the enemy. How effectively can you stand against a tyrant who knows where all your arms are kept? How do you win a war when you just gave the enemy the location of your supplies? You can't, which is why they want that list.

Supposedly it's for tracing guns for criminals. Think about it folks. Most guns used in crimes are STOLEN. They'll trace back to the owner from which they were stolen. How does this get them any closer to stopping the criminal or recovering the gun? It doesn't. You may get some straw buyers like they did in Fast and Furious, who get probation, but even the big criminals get a walk 95% of the time. It's useless as a tool against criminal gun use.

So it does almost NOTHING to prevent the use of guns in crimes.

We've had a NICS system for dealer gun sales for almost 30 years. Are we happy with the level of gun crime in the country? How many criminals has the system caught? b/c the guns are stolen or straw bought. The database - tracking system has exactly the same gaping hole.

It's a tired statement, but the law would almost exclusively impact law abiding citizens and not criminals, which makes it a horrible tool for law enforcement but a great tool for tyranny.

Why on earth would we vote for a law that makes tyranny easier and leaves criminals untouched? Even if you see the risk of tyranny as 0.00001% why vote for something that helps it and does nothing useful otherwise?

Of course the answer is the "if it saves one life" argument, which is one of the most dangerous approaches to policy of any kind. If we ban parachuting we can save that one life. If we ban bungee jumping we can save that one life. Ban golfing, that kills dozens. If it "saves one life" it's worth it right?

But no, we think golfing is not the government's business, but what the Founder's saw as a critical check on the tyranny of the government and the majority is no big deal. I just don't get it other than "I like to golf but I'm afraid of guns", a purely personal view that is irresponsible to the whole of the nation and the Great Experiment.

No, it's not worth destroying a Constitutional right and eliminating the final stop against tyranny for one life. Esp. since it won't save that life anyway.



Parts 3 and 4 in next post. No surprise, I've maxed out the limit on characters in a post. My first time. :)

CitizenBBN
01-06-2013, 01:36 PM
3-strengthening mental-health checks


As you said, a noble idea, sounds great, but how does that work? We already limit ownership so those who are declared mentally incompetent can't buy a gun. Do we just raise that threshold? Does the doctor/shrink have to report you if you are depressed, bi-polar, on meds? What's the line there? I'm betting a fair number of folks on here have seen a therapist at one time or another or have been short term or long term on behavioral medications. They aren't a threat to anyone, just people trying to get through their lives. Do they not get guns? What else don't they get?

Nice idea, but another layer of government bureaucrat run health care, and not at all clear how it works. Not saying I'm against it, just saying it's the equivalent of "pass a law to keep criminals from having guns" until we see how it works.

4- and tougher penalties for people carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors,

While not dangerous to the 2nd Amendment per se, this has GOT to be the surest
"feel good" proposal of all on this subject. The logical equivalent of saying "put bigger 'gun free zone' signs out front so the lunatic is sure to see them."

As you said, what does this do to help? Nothing. I'm so sick of "feel good" legislation I could puke. Politicians do it so they can say they did something, people feel like "something was done" so they can go back to watching their sitcoms without the nasty interruption of having to actually think or pay attention or take action.





You'll notice the one thing not in Biden's proposal, or Feinstein's proposal, or the Illinois bill to ban semi-auto guns altogether:

a bill to address actual criminal behavior. A discussion of drug driven violence, a discussion of why the gun charges are dropped routinely when crimes are prosecuted, initiatives to reduce crime through better law enforcement techniques, nada.

Not a SINGLE THING on the causes of 99.5% of gun violence in this country, crime. Nada.

If crime is the problem, and clearly crime is the problem, why not national outrage at the fact we have the highest crime and the highest incarceration rate in the developed world? Clearly what we're doing wrong goes WAY beyond the existence of the 2nd Amendment.

How can I believe this is really about protecting the innocent, and not some conspiracy sounding desire to simply get rid of guns and our ability to defend ourselves (either to create tyranny or more likely to create the need for more government b/c now we have only them to protect us), when no one and I mean no one pushing for action is trying to address what is obviously a modern day plague on our nation?

At least the mental health part is going in that direction, so I'm withholding judgment and hope it comes up with some good ideas, but that still only addresses less than 0.05% of gun violence in the US. Why are we ignoring the 99.5% in every way possible?

Have we given up? Do we think American's can no longer solve any problem to which they dedicate themselves? Kennedy called for us to get to the moon and we did it. FDR called on us to fight a global war on dozens of fronts and we won.

Where is the leader calling on us to deal a death blow to crime in this country? They call for gun bans on people who aren't criminals, they call for money for free cell phones, but they don't call for action on the thing that is the cause of this suffering about which they supposedly care so much.

I'll say it again, and honestly I can't believe it's the case even as a member, but the only proposal on the table to directly address the Newtown situation and preventing another one has been put there by the NRA.

Say you're not a NRA fan. I wasn't and am still not on board with them on a lot of issues. How sad is it that the best proposal out there is from a group you think are gun nuts and obstructionists who don't want to address the problem?

IMO if you don't like the NRA you shouldn't be mad at them on this issue, they're trying to help for a change. You should be mad at Obama and Feinstein trotting out the same failed policies from 20 years ago that we already know don't work.

If you really care about Newtown, demand better than going after laws that impact law abiding Americans 99% and the criminals and lunatics 1%. Don't succumb to feel good laws trotted out by politicians who just want you to SEE them as doing something and not focusing on ACTUALLY doing something.

Demand better. Demand we stop trying the same anti-gun "solution" that hasn't worked to prevent crime or lunatics for our entire lifetimes and focus on the criminals and lunatics.

Educate yourself on the issue. Put yourself in the position of a criminal and try to think about what these laws do for you. Think about how the career burglars interviewed by Fox said how much that gun owner info helped criminals. How they called it "reprehensible." See how these proposals are just more of that approach, an approach the criminals are telling you is only good for them and bad for us.

Go past the easy "guns were used, ban guns" to "people were killed, how do we stop it?". Demand solutions that actually stop the deaths, that actually target the bad guys.

The NRA, despite it's history of being at times very obstructionist, has at least started the discussion. Don't dismiss that opportunity and come to the table already settled on the "solution."

#1 is useless. #2 is a nightmare that makes the Founders shutter in their graves. #3 has possibility but we have to be careful. #4 is as useless as tits on a bull.

Demand better and don't throw your fellow American's rights and choices under the bus out of fear or b/c our leaders refuse to take real action.

CitizenBBN
01-06-2013, 01:38 PM
PS -- Don't EVER assume anyone, you, me, our politicians, NO ONE, is wiser than the Founders. They were one of a handful of unique assemblages of wisdom and vision in all of human history. They created something unique in all of human history: a nation dedicated to the principle that liberty resides with each person, that we are all created equal and endowed with inalienable rights that come from God and Man and not from a King or State.

It was earth shattering, visionary, and they managed to create a government that was beset against itself in so many ways as to not be a danger to the People.

When facing an issue like this, follow their vision. Of all the visions, of all the policies, theirs is one that comes from men of true wisdom. No politician, GOP or Democrat, has ever had the wisdom or timeless understanding of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, nor will they if this nation survives a thousand years.

Heed their warnings, share their fears, understand their reasons for doing what they did. If you do, this issue becomes clear, as does how we now act to address these deaths. No change in the nature of guns will ever transcend their minds. WWFD. What Would the Founders Do. On every issue, not just guns.

dan_bgblue
01-06-2013, 01:59 PM
I doubt the MSM gives this much air time. Might have been different if the perp had killed everyone in the house with an "assault" weapon.

Note to self, buy something bigger than a .38.:winking0011:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/06/georgia-mom-home-alone-with-kids-shoots-ex-con-intruder/

dan_bgblue
01-08-2013, 12:55 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/08/white-house-ramps-up-talks-on-gun-control-measures/

dan_bgblue
01-09-2013, 12:19 PM
Unilateral Action by the White House? (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/vice-president-to-meet-with-gun-safety-groups/?test=latestnews)

CitizenBBN
01-09-2013, 01:49 PM
The NRA is going to be proven right, moreover so are predictions Obama will try to use executive fiat to get what he wants whether it is the legislative will of the nation or not.

The NRA, evil doers as they are, have every year made sure certain points are passed every year as part of budget or other bills. Specifically they prevent creation of a national database among other things. Many scoffed and dismissed those actions. Not looking so dumb to have legal standing against what Obama could claim is "executive action".

Cannot believe we reelected this anti-democratic ivory tower ideologue. He knows it will be tough to get much through the House, so he'll just do it on his own. The only good news is if the GOP can retake the White House those things are easily rolled back and they are subject to court cases.

So yes, he's going to come after the guns, and he's blinded by his anti-gun beliefs to look at other solutions to the problem of violence in this country.

The saddest part is it will mean not just another reduction in our liberties as government expands but we will have missed the chance to have a real focus on addressing crime and yes gun violence in America. Our crime problem is beyond out of control and we pay no attention to it politically, and this is just another side stepping of the root of this suffering.

CitizenBBN
01-09-2013, 01:51 PM
Oh, and the polls still show most Americans think these steps will do little or nothing to address the problem.

CitizenBBN
01-09-2013, 02:02 PM
FWIW I find this all depressing as heck, and not just as a gun issue. Americans hand over their liberties not as the last possible option but as the first thing to try, esp. when they are taking away rights they don't particularly value or exercise. They never think "why were these put here, shouldn't we be beyond careful about doing this?"

Don't think privacy (not even in the Constitution) and the rest of them aren't going to have their turn. When they do, the final protection of those, the 2nd Amendment, will already be gone.

I don't even think it's a grand conspiracy. It's a grand stupidity, a grand hubris of the intellectuals that they know more than the founders and that their thinking is dated and outmoded for the sophisticated world only they really understand. Men like Franklin knew it was the tradeoff between liberty and safety that was so key, and here we are giving up our liberties to the desire for safety be it from terrorists or lunatics.

Even sadder, we do it not for things that are real risks like being robbed or destroyed by drugs but for things that are infinitesimal risks to our safety like a mass shooting or terror attack.

They're selling us down the river of history and we're rowing the boat for them as hard as we can and the reasons we're motivated to do it don't even make sense.

jazyd
01-09-2013, 02:03 PM
What these tragedies did was play right into the Democrat Party play book, never let a crisis or tragedy go to waste.
It has been the agendy for years of the DNC and those like Obama to take away all guns from law abiding citizens claiming that will somehow end violence and of course protect the animals from us nasty blood thirsty hunters.
So they propose raising the tax on ammo, best way to cut out hunters as they can't afford the price so the gun is useless. Raise all these other 'alarms' to scare the population that does not own a gun of any type, and based on that link for the counties i NY more own a gun that I realized.
No where do they talk of actually enforcing current laws, making judges more accountable for enforcing laws on the books that come before them.
No where do they talk of getting guns out of the hands of criminals, drug dealers. The cops know who has them, know who has illegal ones but do we ever hear of a raid on these groups, nope.
No where as there been any uprising about Fast and Furious, we all here know what that was.
Nor do they talk about actually helping the mentally ill even at chidlhood age. I read after the Ct shooting that the budgets for mental health at the state and federal levels have been cut by $1 billion dollars, but we have increased food stamp recipients by over 50% under Obama. The last 3 shootings and most of the school type shootings are done by someone mentally ill and always by males...I think many if not all those males did not have a father in their lives. We all read that thread here about the mom who wrote the blog the night of the shooting bascially crying out for help with her mentally ill 12 yr old son who probably will be the next Adam Lanza. Why can we give away billions in fraud for medicaid so the lowlifes can go to strip clubs but we can't help parents with mentally hurt children, we give away billions in foreign aid to countries who hate us but we can't help our own children and parents.
Many of the proposals Darrell listed are nothing more than a way for this current administration and democrat party to get as much info on each of us as they can. Took longer than 1984 but it ir right around the corner if we don't stop it. Little by little, piece by piece government is intruding totally in our lives.
Most of us here can debate against these gun laws and if we put Citizen up against them they would give up before they died from lack of sleep...love ya guy, keep it up....but he is more informed than any congressmen or women in DC and can whip them any day of the week with information and stats. Most of us here can. It is those that refuse to look up information on their own, refuse to listen to reality, refuse to listen to facts that are huring us in this fight.

And one last question, if the shooter in Ct had been a terrorist and killed the same people, would there be a big national debate on gun control or would all the fingers be pointed at a school dist that did not protect its children and a federal government for hte same reason?

CitizenBBN
01-09-2013, 02:23 PM
Rambling, but there is a term for this kind of thinking, except in the old days it wasn't seen as a national elective thing b/c communications were so much more limited. It was called "mobocracy", when a collective thinking overruns reasonable individual thinking and the group stops questioning the reasons or realities and simply acts for the sake of taking action. it's almost always ignited by a single event that is an outlier and represents little if any real risk to people or to the community.

These things used to happen at the local level, from the Salem witch trials to lynchings and the KKK.

Even the Boston Massacre, an incendiary event on the path to the revolution, was propagandized heavily just as Newtown is today. So mobocracy can be used to affect good or bad change, but that's what we're seeing on this issue, not reasoned discussion or thought. Men like Paul Revere used it to further the Colonial cause just as Obama and Feinstein use this to further their agenda.

Stir up emotions with a shocking incident and get change before anyone can calm down and reflect on it. At least in the case of the Colonial cause it was 5 more years till war erupted so there was plenty of time to think objectively. That's why Obama doesn't want this legislation pushed off till past the debt issues. People will calm down, start to question if these are good ideas and if they will work.

KeithKSR
01-09-2013, 06:50 PM
What these tragedies did was play right into the Democrat Party play book, never let a crisis or tragedy go to waste.

The ideologues are not beyond manipulating circumstances in order to take gain an advantage. What concerns me is the father of the Newtown child who was jovial as he was interviewed after the slayings. This was the father of the same child who mysteriously did not appear in any photos of her class, and was later videoed sitting on Obama's lap.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eHv_RhVgfUQ

It also appeared strange to me that new reporters reported that Lanza used a Bushmaster, then police on the scene reported that Lanza used four pistols. Magically the weapon used became a Bushmaster once again when the coroner gave his jocularity filled news conference after he said he had done autopsies of the victims.

UKHistory
01-10-2013, 01:25 PM
The Second Amendment is sacred. We have the right to freedom of speech, and relgion #1. To help ensure #1 we have #2. A well regulated militia was to be composed of the citizens. Standing armies and police forces like we have were very troubling to the founders.

A fear of government power and its abuses were at the heart of the revolution. We need the guns.

I toured the holocaust museum a couple of years ago. A volunteer of the museum who had once prosecuted nazis was gracious enough to show a handful of us around. After leaving the tour, I was very moved and the first comment to my guide was the following:

"There is no greater example of why we have and must maintain the second amendment than this museum".

dan_bgblue
01-23-2013, 11:37 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/23/does-un-arms-trade-treaty-figure-in-obama-administrations-gun-control-plans/

CitizenBBN
01-23-2013, 07:58 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/23/does-un-arms-trade-treaty-figure-in-obama-administrations-gun-control-plans/

It's beyond any doubt. The entire angle Feinstein was taking in her last round of legislative gun control was based on guns going to Mexico. Fast and Furious happened when the US joined these talks, and that's when Feinstein developed her next round of "reports" behind her introduction of legislation. The Mexican President began calling for US gun control including the assault weapons ban and a national gun registry.

I'm not a conspiracy guy, but this isn't a conspiracy. It's blatant. We have written documents from Feinstien justifying gun control on the basis of sales to Mexico, where she worked with ATF who started F&F by their own statements to document gun running to Mexico. Forget the illegal parts, they were trying to make a case for US gun control based on gun running to Mexico. They have SAID it right up front. That's not a conspiracy.

The Small Arms Treaty demands the US government control such things as guns crossing the border to Mexico. Now who here thinks Feinstein will argue that to comply with the treaty and control those guns we need to have a national registry and ban certain weapons and license everything? She already SUBMITTED a report arguing for those things based on guns going to Mexico. Again, that's not predicting anything. She's already done it. It just didn't resonate to get the votes, but clearly she'd be happy to get gun control based on international gun running.

With the treaty Mexico, which is calling for the same controls, can appeal to the UN claiming the US is in violation of the treaty b/c of these guns crossing the border. The perfect justification Feinstein was already trying, but this one with force of law and not dependent on Americans voting for it.

FWIW the nations pushing it don't really care about US civilian gun ownership. They want to make it illegal for the US to supply rebels and other groups, including Israel.

It's the anti-gun zealots like Feinstein and Schumer and Obama who want to use it to turn against our own citizens. They can't win politically, as Feinstein says she can't get the votes. They are currently at least losing in the courts. Their best remaining hope is to win in the UN where Americans don't get a vote and then force it on us.

Anyone who doesn't see this coming is being naive. That's b/c it's already been tried, but ATF agents blew the whistle and it undermined the Mexican issue as a salable reason.

This treaty would be a nightmare for the 2nd Amendment but also for our foreign policy. Israel will be an early target. Notice how little Obama thinks of Israel?