Obama releases gun-control proposals.

[C-ross12]

I truly believe Obama means well, but none of this will make much difference, positive or negative. None of these proposals are "disarming" anyone but criminals will still get guns if they want them. But it's this kind of paranoia that gives us conservatives bad reputations.

Good post. I doubt these moves do a whole lot in curbing violent episodes like Sandy Hook.

[Pacerlive]

For the people who say a ban on certain guns won't be effective answer this. Was the ban on fully automatic weapons effective?

Part of the problem is that people can see the forest from the trees. Why don't the majority of criminals use fully automatic weapons? IS there no black market?

[GoCrew5]

While it's all fine and good that Governor Walker wants to go through the process of discovering what drives a person to commit acts of violence, it again is an attempt to deal with the issue in an indirect method. While I agree that in the long run we should be developing studies examining the circumstances that culminate in a person choosing to act violently, I don't think it would offer much of a remedy for the issue. The issue is that dangerous weapons are too easily available to those who cannot handle the responsibility. Simply doing a study will not hinder mentally unstable people from purchasing guns. The only way to do it is by dealing with the issue head-on and making it more difficult or illegal to purchase guns. Walker pointed out that there are people who want to "go very far" on gun control and there are people who want to "go far" in putting armed security in schools. Between those two groups, who is it that's dealing with the issue in the most direct fashion? The answer should be relatively obvious.

And this is just an add in because I just found this out, but the United Kingdom had an intentional homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 people over the course of 2012 while the US had a homicide rate of 4.8 per 100,000. Just thought that was an interesting fact given that a lot has been said about the UK and their crime rate during the gun control discussion.

I disagree. I think fining out what causes a person to kill is more important. I think both are needed to stop violent crime, because it is too easy to acquire guns right now, but that's not the problem. The problem is that these people have no way to get help right now. They need to find out what causes them to snap, and help them fix their problem before they decide to go on a huge killing spree. Just because you make it harder to get guns, doesn't mean they don't go stab people, or run people over with their cars in a crowded area, or develop a bomb that can kill even more people than a gun would.

But giving them help before they do this could stop any violent crime before even occurring.

I personally don't really disagree with Obama's proposal. but it's not going to stop these things from occurring because there are so many ways people can acquire these guns, and it's not going to help them get the help that they desperately need. So I just think it's a waste of money.

[Pacerlive]

I disagree. I think fining out what causes a person to kill is more important. I think both are needed to stop violent crime, because it is too easy to acquire guns right now, but that's not the problem. The problem is that these people have no way to get help right now. They need to find out what causes them to snap, and help them fix their problem before they decide to go on a huge killing spree. Just because you make it harder to get guns, doesn't mean they don't go stab people, or run people over with their cars in a crowded area, or develop a bomb that can kill even more people than a gun would.

But giving them help before they do this could stop any violent crime before even occurring.

I personally don't really disagree with Obama's proposal. but it's not going to stop these things from occurring because there are so many ways people can acquire these guns, and it's not going to help them get the help that they desperately need. So I just think it's a waste of money.

The mass killings are a fraction of the problem. The majority of gun deaths are suicides but after that a lot of guns are acquired by criminals are from the black market which the NRA has greatly increased by suppporting private gun sales which requires no background check or even a bill of sales.

[cabernetluver]

A majority of the executive orders I don't have any issues with. Also don't think many of them aren't already being done anyway without the executive orders.

Now as far as the proposed legislation. Lets be honest here most of them don't stand a snow ball's chance in hell of being passed. Even if they are passed would they would stand a Constitutional challenge that you know would come the moment the bill was signed. So to me we haven't moved the ball at all. Instead we got to watch a dog and pony show today.

I wanted to give myself some time before I answered. Let me share with you what I have in fact am now able to put down in words.

In my opinion, in President Obama's first term, he would do a lot of self negotiation, trying to come up with something he felt most would agree on. Without going into long arguments, understand the PPACA was not what liberals wanted. It was to the right of what liberals wanted. Later, he would propose "deals" that were intended, from his position, to be agreed on. The last debt ceiling increase deal negotiation was that. When John Boehner said he got 95% of what he wanted, he was not kidding.

Which brings me to this subject, I have noticed a new strategy from President Obama. He now approaches negotiations the way that is based on a more traditional model. I ask for more than I expect. You ask for more than you expect. We meet somewhere between the 40 yard lines, not so much on my on 5 yard line.

I think what he really wants is universal checks (getting rid of the so called gun show loophole) giving doctors leeway in reporting, without running afoul of HIPPA, and a limit to the size of clips. I think the rest of it is meant to be given away in the negotiating. This is not to say that he would not want to get it all, just that he is approaching it in a different way.

On the other hand, I am not in his inner, or as far as I can tell, his outer circle, so I could be wrong and you could be right.

[cabernetluver]

I just read this a fascinating article on the history of the 2nd amendment.

The underlying thesis was that it was added to get slave states to agree to the Constitution. The purpose was to continue to allow these states to continue to have slave patrols.

I am going to have to do more reading on the subject, but, if true, I would have to give serious thought about this.

Please do me a favor and read the article, before you attack it.

[FlakeyFool]

the great, mythical ronald reagan wanted an assault weapons ban

[The Schmooze]

the great, mythical ronald reagan wanted an assault weapons ban

He also gave anmnesty to illegal aliens, eventually yearned for a nuclear-weapons-free world, and raised taxes.

Filthy liberal socialist communist....

[Longhornfan1234]

the great, mythical ronald reagan wanted an assault weapons ban

Liberal's God JFK was a member of the NRA, and lowered taxes for the rich.

[homestarunner93]

Although, one facepalm really doesn't do this stupidity justice. If I could, I'd post the classic Star Trek 'double facepalm' to show just how facepalm-worthy I find this deliberate misinterpretation of reality. Even if all pending legislation were to pass, which it won't, there would still be over 900 - that's NINE HUNDRED different guns available.

Join a secessionist movement, or go live in Mississippi.

Please. Instead, why don't you just spend your time in Europe all the time, since it's so super fantastic over there?

[flea]

I just read this a fascinating article on the history of the 2nd amendment.

The underlying thesis was that it was added to get slave states to agree to the Constitution. The purpose was to continue to allow these states to continue to have slave patrols.

I am going to have to do more reading on the subject, but, if true, I would have to give serious thought about this.

Please do me a favor and read the article, before you attack it.

It sounds like reductionist BS to me. Regardless, you don't strike me as of the "originalist" camp of legal scholars even though the argument made in this article is one borne of originalism. Exactly why, if true, would this give you cause to reconsider?

[GGGGG-Men]

Was the ban on fully automatic weapons effective?

This is an interesting point. We talk about the "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!" being "taken away", but there's always restrictions to WHAT arms you can own. I don't think taking away assault weapons (which by their very name imply attacking humans) its really much of a reach and falls in line with auto bans. .....firing an AR-15 is fun though....when its a paper target that is.

the great, mythical ronald reagan wanted an assault weapons ban

He also gave anmnesty to illegal aliens, eventually yearned for a nuclear-weapons-free world, and raised taxes.

Remember when they pulled the curtain back to reveal the grand Wizard of Oz...

Liberal's God JFK was a member of the NRA, and lowered taxes for the rich.

There's the "I know you are, but what am I" topic dodging statement that makes political discourse so much fun. Well played.

[cabernetluver]

It sounds like reductionist BS to me. Regardless, you don't strike me as of the "originalist" camp of legal scholars even though the argument made in this article is one borne of originalism. Exactly why, if true, would this give you cause to reconsider?

It has to do with the categorization of rights, by that I mean there is a special level of rights called fundamental rights (speech as an example). When a right is categorized as a fundamental right, the level of need to limit it is higher than a right that is not categorized in that manner. If it was in fact what the author wrote, which was highly persuasive, (did you read the article?) (if you did, I would like to read your specific criticism on specific points) then in my mind, it slips from the fundamental category to the lesser category. It is still a right, just not at the same level as speech.

I have a problem with the "originalist" label, because, in my world, an originalist would be looking at the underlying meaning, not the words themselves. I find those who label themselves originalist tend to look at the words for a "plain meaning" as opposed to the underlying meaning. For instance, freedom of the press, in their world would not include broadcast media. In my world, it would.

[flea]

It has to do with the categorization of rights, by that I mean there is a special level of rights called fundamental rights (speech as an example). When a right is categorized as a fundamental right, the level of need to limit it is higher than a right that is not categorized in that manner. If it was in fact what the author wrote, which was highly persuasive, (did you read the article?) (if you did, I would like to read your specific criticism on specific points) then in my mind, it slips from the fundamental category to the lesser category. It is still a right, just not at the same level as speech.

I'm not a Constitutional Law expert, and especially not a 2nd Amendment, but it's my understanding that it's not really a fundamental right. I know there's a very recent decision about the Chicago law that could be read to say that 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right. As I understand it though, incorporation doctrine and fundamental rights are two separate things that can overlap but don't have to. I would have to think that, even though that case was clear in applying the incorporation doctrine to the 2nd Amendment and in turn to the states, that doesn't mean that it's now a fundamental right - especially since there are still a lot of regulations.

However, you caught me. I haven't read that article nor have I read the case about Chicago's handgun law. I still sort of put recent Constitutional law decisions in a special category of "well this is a very conservative court and I don't all their precedents will last."

[stephkyle7]

Loved Gov. Scott Walker's comment today:

On Wednesday, Gov. Scott Walker said, "We're going to be meeting in about a week or so, meeting with mental health professionals, law enforcement folks, others who work in areas like this, to give us feedback, particularly when it comes to the simple question how do people get to a point like this, whether as we saw yesterday with a chemical type device, or whether it's a firearm or any other weapon out there, how do people get to the point where they become so disturbed that they're capable of making sorts of poor choices, tragic choices. We're going to spend the majority of our time looking at mental health services, what can and may be done to improve that."

Walker's comments about the chemical device referred to a man who was arrested at the Capitol Tuesday with four Molotov cocktails in his backpack.

Walker said, "What I said originally after Connecticut was there are some people who want to go very far on gun control, there are other end of the spectrum people that want to go far in putting armed security into the schools. My view is that either of those two don't get at the heart of the issue, which I still think is how do such a limited number - this is still such a limited number - of having people in those conditions get to the point where there is that level of mental disturbance that they're able to make a decision like that. I think it's best that we address how they get to that point."

Walker said it's important to help troubled people before they reach the point of committing violence.


That should be the way to go. Look at why people do these things, and get them help before they commit such acts. Not do nothing to help them, and send 500 M on something that won't work.

1st, walker is a tyrant of the tallest order, not because his policies,but because he lied about them, hid them from people until he was in office, that was Crazy what he did in WI.

2nd, the discussion on mental health is BS.Its a diversion by the gun industry to reframe the argument so nothing gets done,and the money keeps rolling in.

No one wants to address the mental health aspect of this issue,because it has already been studied to a great degree.
two things beyond genetics and upbringing contribute to mental health issues.
Population density and CAPITALISM.

Now, most of you ,all or nothing ,its black or white,posters are going to cry that Im a socialist or commie, but this is a fact.

The RT media loves adding people to the scary list and mental health issues are their new boogey man.Mental Health experts have long already known that only 2% of people with MH issues,are violent.

The biggest complaint i keep hearing is Obamas ideas "wont work"...ok...so what?Let them not work,whats the problem?This constant intransigence by the RT is stupid and childish.If all these little ideas will be worthless...prove it...let them have a go at it.

and if mental health was so important then why did Rs legislate the closure of MH clinics nationwide?