Obama releases gun-control proposals.

[hoosiercubsfan]

There is no room for discussion, when only 12% of the country thinks that universal checks are a bad idea. This one is going to pass.

Given that great divide, I just don't see where we can have a rational discussion. You think it can't happen. The public is for it.

I would have to see the data and how the question was asked for only 12 % of the country being against universal background checks. I am sorry I just don't believe that is truly the case that an overwhelming majority of the country is fine with being funneled through a gun dealer for the private sales of guns. So I still hold to my belief that universal background checks are probably not ever going to make it out of the House.

[dbroncos78087]

The popularity in polls is irrelevant to Congress unless you can convince them that people in their district feel that same way. Let's say that 60% of the American people favor an assault weapon ban. Let's further say that I am a conservative congressman with an A+ rating from the NRA and an 83% approval rating in the 5th district from Alabama. I know that my constituents are supporters of guns and won't be in-line with the entire country on the assault weapon ban. Why would I vote for it? I am not accountable to the entire country, certainly not the much lower % of people in my district who support such an assault weapon ban.

Quoting the entire country's answers to polls doesn't do much to make the point to people who come from a district that isn't the equivalent of the entire country.

[stephkyle7]

the give an inch take a mile doctrine is one of the reasons we can never get anything done in Wash.

The supreme court has already indicated the constitiutionality of ownership, all these other arguments seem to find flaws in the logic of the effort but cant simply communicate one single reason why they should be denied.

over and over again ,dressed in differnt clothes, we have "its not going to make a difference".

Ok, we heard that opinion, now let us TRY.
What every firearm proponent refuses to acknowledge is that Crimes, are almost secondary in nature to the effort of stemming the flood of firearms in this country.

Yes, a psycho will "find a way", because of that we should make it AS HARD AS POSSIBLE for them to get their hands on a firearm, not throw our hands up and say,nothing we can do.

In addition,all the "crime" stats that you guys keep throwing up ignore all the accidental killings,and accidental shootings,and serious injuries, loss of sight,loss of hearing,brain injury,spinal cord injury,

The reason why your "sources" exclude these stats is becasue once you factor them in there is a clear and definitive corelation to the presence of firearms in a society making it MORE DANGEROUS, not safer.

The reason we should ban semi-autos isnt because the "rare" mass shooting,anymore then the argument for them should be about the almost equally as rare home invasion scare tactic.

The reasons are revenue stream and personal enjoyment, versus public health and safety, if we cant even properly frame the dialouge then whats the point?

[Hawkeye15]

I have to say I think this ban will have little effect. (little is better than nothing) What would have an effect is a national tracking database for guns, and giving the ATF some goddamn teeth.

agreed. I mean, the ban on alcohol seemed to work, weed too, even illegal immigration seems to be running smoothly.....

Banning certain guns simply means the only people who will have them are criminals. Tracking and actual enforcement are the only way, but since when has our government ever enforced anything that doesn't bring them revenue?

[hoosiercubsfan]

The popularity in polls is irrelevant to Congress unless you can convince them that people in their district feel that same way. Let's say that 60% of the American people favor an assault weapon ban. Let's further say that I am a conservative congressman with an A+ rating from the NRA and an 83% approval rating in the 5th district from Alabama. I know that my constituents are supporters of guns and won't be in-line with the entire country on the assault weapon ban. Why would I vote for it? I am not accountable to the entire country, certainly not the much lower % of people in my district who support such an assault weapon ban.

Quoting the entire country's answers to polls doesn't do much to make the point to people who come from a district that isn't the equivalent of the entire country.

Very good point here. Also wouldn't it go a step further? That people in said district would be far more interested in seeing their Congressman stand up for guns and in the way of any proposed legislation? That is why I don't think any types of significant legislation is going to make it through he House. That any legislation brought up will die before it ever makes it out of committee.

[dbroncos78087]

Very good point here. Also wouldn't it go a step further? That people in said district would be far more interested in seeing their Congressman stand up for guns and in the way of any proposed legislation? That is why I don't think any types of significant legislation is going to make it through he House. That any legislation brought up will die before it ever makes it out of committee.

I will give the non-committal maybe. If you look at the fiscal cliff bill, it proceeded in a manner that would be contradictory to how you suggest because it had such massive support from Democrats and the senior leadership for the GOP felt it need to be done despite their members.

But that was brought on by the fact that legally it was going to happen no matter what the Republicans did.

[flips333]

agreed. I mean, the ban on alcohol seemed to work, weed too, even illegal immigration seems to be running smoothly.....

Banning certain guns simply means the only people who will have them are criminals. Tracking and actual enforcement are the only way, but since when has our government ever enforced anything that doesn't bring them revenue?

This has nothing to. Do with why it won't work. The government has a few success stories here as well as your mentioned failures. When's the last time you heard of scene using qualudes? They were rampant in the 70s but have pretty much disappeared due to a ban on the ingredients to make it.

And the reason why they don't enforce the laws has more to do with the NRA getting legislation passed that is stopping them from enforcing it than anything else. Really people who sell guns do not have to do inventories... The government can not mandate that people that sell deadly weapons have to do inventories? The government can't have a national tracking database? That is asinine.

[dbroncos78087]

I really would like to see one controversial executive order that Obama put into place with regard to this issue. I posted all of them and I want to hear one person tell me that even one of them is controversial and why.

[hoosiercubsfan]

I will give the non-committal maybe. If you look at the fiscal cliff bill, it proceeded in a manner that would be contradictory to how you suggest because it had such massive support from Democrats and the senior leadership for the GOP felt it need to be done despite their members.

But that was brought on by the fact that legally it was going to happen no matter what the Republicans did.

The fiscal cliff bill had a much more dire result if it had not been passed. The fact that there was a direct tangible feeling with the failure of the bill passing put a much larger priority on it. Without the fiscal cliff every single person drawing a paycheck would have seen their checks smaller. If the bill had not been passed the GOP members knew that if it hadn't passed they would have felt the full brunt of blame for its failure. So there was no incentive at all for any member of the GOP to stand in the way and block any such bill.

Now as far as any gun related bill there is no such emphasis on passing such a bill for the GOP. There is not an impending crisis that would be noticed by a vast majority of American's if no gun control bills are passed.

[dbroncos78087]

The fiscal cliff bill had a much more dire result if it had not been passed. The fact that there was a direct tangible feeling with the failure of the bill passing put a much larger priority on it. Without the fiscal cliff every single person drawing a paycheck would have seen their checks smaller. If the bill had not been passed the GOP members knew that if it hadn't passed they would have felt the full brunt of blame for its failure. So there was no incentive at all for any member of the GOP to stand in the way and block any such bill.

Now as far as any gun related bill there is no such emphasis on passing such a bill for the GOP. There is not an impending crisis that would be noticed by a vast majority of American's if no gun control bills are passed.

I agree with you but I'm just saying that it is possible for something like that to be passed. A bill can be brought to the House floor if the minority can get a certain number of votes. Even though they didn't force it with the fiscal cliff bill, they could have because enough GOP members would have been willing to sign onto it.

[Hawkeye15]

This has nothing to. Do with why it won't work. The government has a few success stories here as well as your mentioned failures. When's the last time you heard of scene using qualudes? They were rampant in the 70s but have pretty much disappeared due to a ban on the ingredients to make it.

And the reason why they don't enforce the laws has more to do with the NRA getting legislation passed that is stopping them from enforcing it than anything else. Really people who sell guns do not have to do inventories... The government can not mandate that people that sell deadly weapons have to do inventories? The government can't have a national tracking database? That is asinine.

While I think the NRA is archaic, they are the biggest reason we aren't disarmed as citizens at this point. But I do agree with the rest of your opinions on this issue.

[Longhornfan1234]

William Clinton has some wise words for his party.

“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,”

“A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things, I know because I come from this world."

“All these polls that you see saying the public is for us on all these issues — they are meaningless if they’re not voting issues,”

“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”

[stephkyle7]

William Clinton has some wise words for his party.

“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,”

“A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things, I know because I come from this world."

“All these polls that you see saying the public is for us on all these issues — they are meaningless if they’re not voting issues,”

“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”

LOL,
so You like clinton as long as he agrees with your point of view, then hes a socialist?


as far as Im concerned there are huge swaths of this country that should have no limits on this issue. Many many people abandon the cities for the "free living" of the Montanas, Idahos,Texas' and Louisianas off our nation.Hunting is a way of life,I have a good friend in the Houston area who has taken his sons deer hunting since they were 10 and 11.

It is the suburbs and cities that are the issue.Not to much hunting going on In Boston these days.Neither in Dallas.That is where there needs to be some reasonable accomodation from the Pro gun people.Hand guns and single shot rifles are as about as exotic as should be allowed in population centers.

[Pacerlive]

LOL,
so You like clinton as long as he agrees with your point of view, then hes a socialist?


as far as Im concerned there are huge swaths of this country that should have no limits on this issue. Many many people abandon the cities for the "free living" of the Montanas, Idahos,Texas' and Louisianas off our nation.Hunting is a way of life,I have a good friend in the Houston area who has taken his sons deer hunting since they were 10 and 11.

It is the suburbs and cities that are the issue.Not to much hunting going on In Boston these days.Neither in Dallas.That is where there needs to be some reasonable accomodation from the Pro gun people.Hand guns and single shot rifles are as about as exotic as should be allowed in population centers.

This is my issue with pro gun people as well. Many that support gun rights aren't dealing with gun violence. Take my farther for instance. He has worked on guns and hunted for most of his life but he has not been in a city with a big gun problem since 1981 (which is Indianapolis).

When a minority marginalizes a problem and dictates policies thats when I get ticked off. Most of all when then hinder research of the problem its out right criminal to me.

[flips333]

While I think the NRA is archaic, they are the biggest reason we aren't disarmed as citizens at this point. But I do agree with the rest of your opinions on this issue.

I would have no problem with the NRA if they were reasonable. It's the hypocrtical nature of their statements.