You sure he doesn't want to take our guns?

[CitizenBBN]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.............

[DanISSELisdaman]

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]

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]

All my guns have been stolen. Damn dirty shame.

[CitizenBBN]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[dan_bgblue]

Guns Where are they Now

[CitizenBBN]

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]

Guns Where are they Now

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Illinois Violence Tax

[CitizenBBN]

Illinois Violence Tax

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]

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]

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?

[suncat05]

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]

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]

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?

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?