Obama releases gun-control proposals.

[flea]

I'll read the article though when I'm not just putting off doing other things later today or tomorrow.

[Steel Curtain]

I'm sorry, I took your "commie" reference to refer to the POTUS since he was the last person mentioned in that topic. It certainly was not apparent to me that you were talking about Feinstein.

But even so, and in view of your subsequent posts, don't you think you should withdraw the absurd accusation that she's a "commie"? She's as much or as little a "commie" as the POTUS or any other member of Congress or government. It really is so utterly distasteful when Americans accuse Dem. politicians they disagree with of being "commies", since there is no more emotionally charged and mis-used term in the American political dictionary than "commie".

Now, I don't call all people I disagree with "commies", but I consider politicians who want complete firearm bans to have Communist tendencies, or at least Socialist, because most Socialist countries have strict gun bans.

[Pacerlive]

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.

As I stated before Arms is always implied as guns but who is to say I shouldn't as a Biologist protect my home with a flesh eating bacterium. You think my neighbors would object? I guess they would be uneasy to see a sign posted in my front lawn reading (Home protected with a aerosol flesh eating bacterium enter at your own risk).

People act like bans do nothing but no pro gun person on here can argue that a ban on automatic weapons hasn't done anything for gun crimes. IF we lifted that ban we would see more criminals using automatic guns becuase the "public" market would be flooded with a more dangerous and effective weapon. The black market is directly affected by gun laws on personal selling of guns. No record no background check and no responsibility.

The problem is that as a nation we do a better job tracking car sales and than we do with tracking guns. I don't care who you are something is wrong with that fact.

[stephkyle7]

that isnt an accident pacer, that is the work of the gun lobby...it is a scientifically proven fact that the presence of guns increases the likelihood of injury.

it is also proven that capitalism increases mental health issues.

[GGGGG-Men]

As I stated before Arms is always implied as guns but who is to say I shouldn't as a Biologist protect my home with a flesh eating bacterium. You think my neighbors would object? I guess they would be uneasy to see a sign posted in my front lawn reading (Home protected with a aerosol flesh eating bacterium enter at your own risk).

People act like bans do nothing but no pro gun person on here can argue that a ban on automatic weapons hasn't done anything for gun crimes. IF we lifted that ban we would see more criminals using automatic guns becuase the "public" market would be flooded with a more dangerous and effective weapon. The black market is directly affected by gun laws on personal selling of guns. No record no background check and no responsibility.

The problem is that as a nation we do a better job tracking car sales and than we do with tracking guns. I don't care who you are something is wrong with that fact.

Ha, well said.

[Tongue-Splitter]

As one of the people that has argued against gun control on these forums, I see nothing wrong with these proposals whatsoever. I still think the automatic weapon ban will do absolutely nothing to remove assault weapons from criminals, but on paper there is nothing wrong with trying. I agree with every proposed change listed in this. Still, I'm nervous about seeing what the next five to ten years will bring as far as the precedent this will set.

[AmsterNat]

Now, I don't call all people I disagree with "commies", but I consider politicians who want complete firearm bans to have Communist tendencies, or at least Socialist, because most Socialist countries have strict gun bans.

It sure is good to know that you don't call everyone you disagree with a "commie". Perhaps we could find a medal for you. If there is any kind of logic in this whatsoever, it totally escapes me. This is the kind of simplistic and misguided crazy right wing thinking and rhetoric that brings so many Americans into disrepute with rational people. Western European democracies also have strict gun laws, so you may as well call her a social democrat. But no, you choose the worst pejorative in the right wing's dictionary, despite the fact that communism as we knew it is more or less dead.

Whatever Feinstein may want in theory, her bill is not even remotely close to a complete ban, so your reaction is beyond grotesque.

[AmsterNat]

As one of the people that has argued against gun control on these forums, I see nothing wrong with these proposals whatsoever. I still think the automatic weapon ban will do absolutely nothing to remove assault weapons from criminals, but on paper there is nothing wrong with trying. I agree with every proposed change listed in this. Still, I'm nervous about seeing what the next five to ten years will bring as far as the precedent this will set.

Please go and share this insight with the unrepentant gun nuts in the General forum topics. I'd love to see their reaction to hearing this from one of their own.

[AmsterNat]

Here's some interesting input that touches on points made by numerous posters.

States aren't likely to prevent many shootings by requiring mental health professionals to report potentially violent patients, psychiatrists and psychologists say.

The approach is part of a gun control law passed in New York yesterday in response to the Newtown, Conn., shooting a month ago. But it's unlikely to work because assessing the risk of violent behavior is difficult, error-prone and not something most mental health professionals are trained to do it, say specialists who deal with violence among the mentally ill.

"We're not likely to catch very many potentially violent people" with laws like the one in New York, says Barry Rosenfeld, a professor of psychology at Fordham University in The Bronx.

Such laws "cast a very large net that will probably restrict a lot of people's behavior unnecessarily," Rosenfeld says. "Maybe we'll prevent an incident or two," he says. "But there are other ways that would be more productive."

Better alternatives include reducing the total number of guns and improving access to mental health care, Rosenfeld says.

One reason even experienced psychiatrists are often wrong is that there are only a few clear signs that a person with a mental illness is likely to act violently, says Steven Hoge, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. These include a history of violence and a current threat to commit violence.

Without either of these, Hoge says, "an accurate assessment of the likelihood of future violence is virtually impossible."

"The biggest risk for gun violence is possession of a gun," says Hoge. "And there's no evidence that the mentally ill possess guns or commit gun violence at any greater rate than the normal population."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013...paign=20130117

So, even mental health experts appear to agree that the best way to reduce gun violence is to reduce the number of guns available.

I strongly urge you all to read the following link, it is highly illuminating.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

Have you read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns? Probably not. I hadn’t, until the other day, when I was stunned to find that the decision is hardly the blanket protection for gun ownership that the National Rifle Association and adamant gun rights people claim. Nor is it the sweeping defeat that those who want gun control lament. Reading it, in fact, offers some real hope that a reasonable middle ground may be possible as America gropes in these polarized times for a solution to gun violence that protects the rights of gun owners and public safety.

There is no question that District of Columbia v. Heller was precisely the sort of judicial activism the conservative justices of the Supreme Court promised not to do. In a 5 to 4 decision those justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self-defense, despite the amendment’s opening language - “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ” - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds back then). Gun rights advocates cheered. Gun control advocates cried foul.

And here the words of Scalia himself, which I had not read before today - something of an eye-opener.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-...ht-to-own-guns

I have on several occasions pointed out that the immortal, omniscient (in the eyes of the many strict constitutionalists) founding fathers were, in fact, slave owners (yes, Cab, I read the article you linked). I saw an excellent article on this subject months ago, will try and find it again.

[GA16Angels]

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.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I definitely think we should be conducting studies that aim to discover what causes a person to do terrible acts of violence and I think we should be actively trying to find a way to offer help to those who need it. However, I don't think simply doing a study, which could take years to conduct, is the most prudent solution to the problem of mentally unstable people having access to guns. The most prudent and direct method to attack that issue with is to make guns less readily available to those who may abuse their right to owning a weapon. And since it's not necessarily easy to determine who might or might not abuse the privilege of owning a gun, a restriction that applies to everyone will have to be put in place. Not everyone who is mentally unstable will actively seek help even if it is offered, so I think something has to be put into place to protect the people that person might possibly harm. And I don't think I really need to explain to you the difference between a mentally unstable person having access to a gun and a mentally unstable person having access to just a knife.

[GA16Angels]

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

When has JFK ever been the "liberal's god." If anything, that title belongs to FDR.

[AmsterNat]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I definitely think we should be conducting studies that aim to discover what causes a person to do terrible acts of violence and I think we should be actively trying to find a way to offer help to those who need it. However, I don't think simply doing a study, which could take years to conduct, is the most prudent solution to the problem of mentally unstable people having access to guns. The most prudent and direct method to attack that issue with is to make guns less readily available to those who may abuse their right to owning a weapon. And since it's not necessarily easy to determine who might or might not abuse the privilege of owning a gun, a restriction that applies to everyone will have to be put in place. Not everyone who is mentally unstable will actively seek help even if it is offered, so I think something has to be put into place to protect the people that person might possibly harm. And I don't think I really need to explain to you the difference between a mentally unstable person having access to a gun and a mentally unstable person having access to just a knife.

Bravo sir, a splendid piece. Well said!

[Longhornfan1234]

When has JFK ever been the "liberal's god." If anything, that title belongs to FDR.

My bad... I forgot y'all praise that socialist.

[Steel Curtain]

It sure is good to know that you don't call everyone you disagree with a "commie". Perhaps we could find a medal for you. If there is any kind of logic in this whatsoever, it totally escapes me. This is the kind of simplistic and misguided crazy right wing thinking and rhetoric that brings so many Americans into disrepute with rational people. Western European democracies also have strict gun laws, so you may as well call her a social democrat. But no, you choose the worst pejorative in the right wing's dictionary, despite the fact that communism as we knew it is more or less dead.

Whatever Feinstein may want in theory, her bill is not even remotely close to a complete ban, so your reaction is beyond grotesque.

I didn't say it was in her bill, I just said she said it. She won't put that in a bill, no one would support it. But she did say that she would ban them all if she could. http://gunsforeveryone.com/diane-fei...ll-if-i-could/

Now I am not some government conspiracy theorist about citizens going to war against them to protect our liberty or whatever, but I support the 2nd Amendment and Feinstein's comments are clear attacks on the 2nd Amendment.

[cabernetluver]

My bad... I forgot y'all praise that socialist.

Does it bother you that Socialism started in our country with the signing of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 set up the very first government run business!