NRA members! Watch out for Joe Biden!

    By erica20 on Wed, 12/19/2012 - 4:36pm |

    Well, I checked and it looks as if, even after Newtown and some stores pulling the gun off the shelves, sales of the Bushmaster rifle are up. Go figure. 

    Reluctantly I have to agree with DF that at least some of this is fueled by people who believe that the gun will be outlawed, and that it is counter-productive.

    If I were Joe Biden and I had to come up with recommendations next month, I'd let it be known that future gun laws might just focus right in on the idea that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Gun experts have made it pretty clear that style of weapon doesn't matter so much as whose hands it's in. Fair enough.

    So except for a very serious restriction on magazine capacity (with some sort of timeframe for getting the current magazines traded in) it makes sense pretty much leave the question of "which guns" alone.

    But then, boy, ol' Joe should hold gun owners' and sellers' feet to the fire. Maybe anybody can get a gun, but prove yourself anything other than a responsible owner, and you'll lose 'em right quick, and pay for the privilege of having us get rid of them for you.

    Stringent rules about safe weapons storage. If you can't afford to store your guns safely, maybe you should consider safer guns, (i.e. not semi-automatic) or a knife-throwing or karate class. This ain't beanball, kids.

    Stringent rules about alcohol and guns. You want to drink? Don't drive, and sure as hell don't pick up a gun. Sorry about those beery hunting expeditions, fellas. You'll have to shoot your buddy in the foot while sober.

    Stringent rules about young people and guns. Anyone who allows a young person access to weapons and is lucky enough to survive if it goes bad, is gonna have Joe to deal with. (I know Nancy Lanza was in a tough spot with her troubled son and all, but if Adam Lanza had not ended her life, I'd have very little problem with locking her up for the rest of it, given her significant lapse in judgment.)

    Stringent rules about violence and guns. Domestic abusers take note. Neither you nor your spouse will have access to guns for much longer. We're done with that.

    Stringent rules about background checks, FFLs, etc. Sorry guys, "I think his name was Bob" doesn't cut it. 

    If the "responsible gun owners" are as responsible as they say they are, they should welcome these changes, and even after they get done weeding out the bad apples, there should be lots of them left to protect us from the government when that day comes.

    Right?

    Comments

    I would replace stringent rules with simple rules. Stringent rules sounds repressive, like lightbulb regulations. Stringent rules are unappealing even if you agree with them. Simple rules sounds straightforward, like "Three strikes, you're out." Simple rules are appealing even if you disagree with them.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 12/19/2012 - 4:56pm

    The claim is that most gun owners are "law abiding citizens."  That would mean abide by the law.  Break certain laws and one should forfeit one's ability to own a gun until one can prove otherwise.  Domestic violence would definitely be one of those.  Not only a DUI but intoxication in public. 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/19/2012 - 4:57pm

    Yup. Get into a bar fight, sorry, we don't need you to protect us from the apocalypse. It's a simple rule.

    (Michael, thanks--I like simple rules.)


    by erica20 on Wed, 12/19/2012 - 5:13pm

    we don't need you to protect us from the apocalypse

    That's over with on Friday anyways!

    BTW, interesting that in China some of the PTB think their school attacker (the one with the knife that also attacked 20 kids) was one of the Apocalypsers (Apocalyptics?) If that's what they're thinking here, I guess you could call their roundup a pre-emption  effort on the violently mentally ill front?


    by artappraiser on Wed, 12/19/2012 - 10:23pm

    Okay.

    So you are involved in a 'domestic dispute' we get your guns!

    So you are involved in an assault, we get your guns.

    That is all right.

    You have a dui and you cannot drive a car for awhile.

    That is straight thinking.

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 12/19/2012 - 7:11pm

    I will preface this comment by stating that yes, I doubt it will ever happen, but....

    I think that gun owners should have to register all their guns - implement a federal law that all have 90 days to complete simple registration forms (i.e. name, address of owner, DOB with proof of identity presented much like driver's/marriage license; type of gun and serial number).  This would all be inputted into national database for law enforcement access if weapon used in crime, etc.

    If after the deadline any are found to be in possession of unregistered gun, they not only forfeit that one, but any and all others they possess and pay large fine.

    Of course, all sales or gifts of guns must adhere to same process but with background checks etc.

    It's just common sense.


    by Aunt Sam on Thu, 12/20/2012 - 8:57am

    Addenda: "NRA and Congressional Friends! Watch Out for Michael Bloomberg!"

    [....] One of the world’s wealthiest men, Mr. Bloomberg plans to spend millions of dollars over the next two years to aid political candidates willing to oppose the gun lobby. He said he would not wait until 2014: the mayor’s “super PAC” is already looking at special elections next year, including governor’s races and an open House seat in Illinois.

    Within days of the Newtown shootings, Mr. Bloomberg was on the phone with conservative senators, urging them to change their views. To his surprise, he said, some were willing to consider it.

    “You could hear in their voice, ‘Enough is enough,’ ” he said.

    The mayor plans an advertising campaign featuring Hollywood stars. And he has spoken with the White House, conferring with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. about the presidential task force on gun policy that Mr. Biden will lead. [....]

    Another excerpt from the article:

    The latest chapter in the mayor’s gun crusade began a few minutes before 11 a.m. last Friday, when Mr. Bloomberg, leaving a meeting with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in Manhattan, glanced at his iPhone. A CNN news alert flashed across the screen: Students at an elementary school in Connecticut had been shot.

    “Another disaster,” Mr. Bloomberg remembered thinking.

    Three miles downtown, at City Hall, the mayor’s advisers began drafting a statement, but decided to delay its release until after President Obama had spoken. Mr. Bloomberg, aides said, wanted to see if the president would call for action — and to criticize him if he did not.

    The mayor’s statement, issued just after 4 p.m., was blunt. “President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown,” Mr. Bloomberg wrote, adding, “What we have not seen is leadership — not from the White House and not from Congress.”

    The goal was to put immediate pressure on Washington for change. “The Democrats were unwilling to do it, and the Republicans didn’t want to,” said Howard Wolfson, the mayor’s chief communications strategist.

    Mr. Bloomberg, meanwhile, took to the phones, calling members of Congress to urge the passage of an assault-weapons ban. To prepare his pitch, he instructed aides to find out how many Americans had been killed by guns since the Arizona shootings in 2011, when Mr. Obama last promised changes in the firearm laws. By Saturday, the mayor was on his private jet to Washington to push his case in an interview on “Meet the Press.”

    It was a hectic weekend, and the culmination of six years of work by Mr. Bloomberg, who founded his national coalition, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in 2006, galvanized by a series of grisly police shootings in New York.

     


    by artappraiser on Thu, 12/20/2012 - 7:46pm

    Latest Comments