Obama Names Task Force for Gun Law Changes

President Obama has named Joe Biden to lead a new task force on gun violence.

Obama said Wednesday that he supports the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, and highlighted the nation’s strong tradition of gun ownership. Yet, he said, the country’s leaders need to find ways to keep “weapons of war” out of the hands of the irresponsible few.

“There is a big chunk of space between what the Second Amendment means and having no rules at all, and that space is what Joe’s going to be working on to try to identify where we’ll find some common ground,” Obama said.


He added, “If we’re going to change things, it’s going to take a wave of Americans — mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals and, yes, gun owners — standing up and saying enough on behalf of our kids.”

Why Biden?

Obama said he tapped Biden to lead the administration’s efforts in part because of his role during more than three decades in the Senate as a leading advocate of gun legislation.

Biden helped author the 1994 crime bill, which included an assault weapons ban.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 became effective on September 13, 1994 when it was signed by President Clinton. It was the first Omnibus Crime Bill to be passed by Congress since 1988. Here's what else it did.

In 2008, I analyzed Obama's record on gun control for Denver's 5280 Magazine. See also here on TalkLeft, Where is Obama on Gun Rights?

From the Obama-Biden 2008 Urban Policy Plan:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Senators To Zero Dark Thirty Filmmakers:Your Film Is Inaccurate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    All I want to know is, how do we keep (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 06:59:48 PM EST
    "weapons of war" out of the hands of our leaders?

    I'm sorry, but I'm stuck on all the children and women and innocents whom we have killed with drones.

    And, hello?  It's almost 2013, so color me unimpressed with Obama/Biden's work on keeping the gun-control-related promises of the 2008 election.

    Meanwhile, for Obama not to recognize the tidal wave of Americans speaking out against gun policies that make mass shootings more likely, well, it feels like he's leaving himself an out for when all that comes out of the "commission" are "suggestions:" we just didn't want it bad enough.

    Hell yeah.... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:29:07 AM EST
    I was at my niece's Holiday concert last night at her elementary school, watching her rock her cello and sing in the choir...of course my mind drifted to Newtown and thinking what kinda animal could walk into a beautful place like this and start shooting.  Then my mind drifted further to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen...and thinking what kinda uber-animal could make death rain from above like a video game.

    Maybe our psycho shooters are just following the lead of the psychos in charge.


    Isn't the Pres. saying, make me do it, (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:57:22 PM EST

    That's not leadership, but if it was, (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:04:06 PM EST
    it shows a shocking ignorance of what huge numbers of Americans have made quite clear they want.

    Sadly, that's an observation that can be made on any number of subjects.


    You guys still don't get it (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:20:15 AM EST
    we have to have as many $ lawyers and lobbyists as the NRA, Ted Nugent, and the secessionists do before anything substantial gets accomplished.  

    Supposedly, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:50:48 AM EST
    it was the event - the slaughter of children in Connecticut - that was motivating Obama. Tears, Bible, and the appearance of sincerity.

    Now, he is saying that it is we who must do the motivating.
    That gives him a nice loophole in that if he does nothing, or finds "common ground" that accomplishes nothing, he can always say or infer that there just weren't enough mothers and fathers and sons and daughters and parsons and health professionals standing up.


    Yup. (none / 0) (#10)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:48:32 PM EST
    If you're annoyed with a call for action just appoint a commission.

    I (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:20:25 AM EST
    may not be remembering this accurately, but I seem to recall that after the election of 2006 - in which a democratic majority was elected to both House and Senate with a mandate to end the war in Iraq - Bush appointed a "commission" to "study" and make recommendations.

    They made recommendations.
    He followed none of them.
    The "majority" whimpered its acquiescence, and six more years of carnage ensued.


    Knocks me out (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:01:59 AM EST
    "try to identify where we'll find some common ground"

    'Let's make a deal'

    Sick of it.

    I have little faith anything of substance will happen because this is coming from a man who's demonstrated he's only interested in making a deal in spite of the content.

    A question for the commander in chief. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:16:23 AM EST
    Obama said, "the country's leaders need to find ways to keep "weapons of war" out of the hands of the irresponsible few."

    I ask - why does anybody - responsible or not - need access to "weapons of war"? What "responsible" citizen ineeds an assault weapon?

    I have a friend In Germany (3.00 / 3) (#24)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:17:36 AM EST
    a guy I went to HS with who now lives over there. He made the comparison of American to Nazi Germany because as he sees it we have become so right wing.  He meant it as a warning against Militarism/fascism. In reality he was making the case for citizens to be armed with weapons of war. I am sure, had the citizens, particularly the Jews of Germany known what was going to happen they would have armed themselves to the teeth against Hitler and his forces, their government.
    How about the people of eastern Europe?  Do you think the people of Poland, the Ukraine etc... might have liked to have blown a few Russians off their front porches before they were forced in to the Soviet Union?

    All of that happened only ten years before I was born and during the early years of my childhood.  We are kidding ourselves if we think it can't happen again.  THAT is why some people feel they have a right to, want to and need to have these weapons.  
    Dismiss them as crazy survivalists and right wing gun nuts.  But most gun owners are not that at all.


    By some estimates, 20th century governments (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:04:59 AM EST
    have "legally" murdered four times as many people as have died in war.  

    But even without guns our own government has plenty of ways of suppressing dissent.  

    The really offensive stuff doesn't even use gunpowder.  It runs on electricity. There are truck mounted "area denial" devices that can blanket a crowd of people in microwave radiation, burning the epidermal skin layer.  Effect: everybody runs away. There are sonic cannons, basically loudspeakers driven by humungous amplifiers, blanketing an area with a subaudible frequency which induce uncontrollable nausea and vomiting and if cranked up, can rupture internal organs.  Again, if not barfing or dead, the crowd runs or limps away.


    Re: (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    I am sure, had the citizens, particularly the Jews of Germany known what was going to happen they would have armed themselves to the teeth against Hitler and his forces, their government.

    Individuals having guns would not have prevented efforts as highly organized as the Third Reich's (you recall people "disappeared," massive propaganda, etc.).  I'm (...reasonably) sure had they known what would happen they would not have allowed Hitler to gain power to begin with.  What a hypothetical.


    You reminded (none / 0) (#53)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:28:54 AM EST
    me of a book I read a long time ago: "It can't happen here" by Sinclair Lewis.

    It was chilling.

    It can happen here.
    It is happening here in stages imo - only the people manipulating events are more sophisticated than they were 70 years ago.

    But still, a revolver or rifle is one thing.
    These things with 7 million rounds that spray bullets everywhere is another thing.


    Is the AR15 a weapon of war? (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:07:41 AM EST
    Sure, they invented (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:27:56 AM EST
    a gun that fires 30 rounds in 15 seconds for "sport shooting" and hunting..

    That's exactly what they had in mind. No one ever thought it could  be used to kill people.


    provides semi-automatic weapons, like the AR15, to their soldiers. Clearly automatic weapons are the guns of choice.

    That said, should a citizen be forced to defend themselves against an enemy, a semi-automatic AR15 would certainly be more effective against automatic weapons than throwing rocks.


    weapons of war (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:22:47 AM EST
    When the 2nd amendment was written the founders were talking about weapons of war and the right of American citizens to arm themselves with them. Just keep that in mind when making your arguments. Some one should have advised our constitutional Scholar president of that fact before he used that phrase.

    So by your logic, ... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:52:23 PM EST
    ... American have a constitutional right to own/possess "weapons of war".  Do I have a right to own:

    1. a fully automatic weapon (M-16, etc.)?
    2. a grenade?
    3. a T.O.W. missile?
    4. a fighter jet (armed, of course)?
    5. a mortar/artillery gun?
    6. Serin nerve gas?
    7. anthrax?
    8. nuclear bombs?

    Etc, etc.

    If the Second Amendment protects your right to own "weapons of war", why draw the line at semi-automatic small arms?  Do you think the Founding Fathers could even imagine these weapons, let alone have them in mind?


    Exactly, Yman (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:08:50 PM EST
    Do people really think, if our government decides to unleash its whole arsenal against us, that semi-automatics will do a whole he!! of a lot of good against a Hellfire missile, or even tanks coming against them?

    delusional "Red Dawn" magical thinking.. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:14:19 PM EST
    underwrtten by Smith & Wesson, Remington, assorted body armor manufacturers and Ted Nugent.

    And (none / 0) (#106)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 06:42:11 AM EST

    Sure, why not? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:19:45 PM EST
    just remeber: nobody's taking anybody's hunting rifle away, nobody's taking anybody's antique Colt's Dragoon away..

    Try to get a grip.


    have been shot dead by enemy forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, etc.

    The Taliban also has machine guns, ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:20:50 PM EST
    ... mortars, RPGs, etc.

    Why limit yourself to semi-automatics?


    Good question! (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:31:36 PM EST
    False analogy (none / 0) (#94)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:25:40 PM EST
    Do I think that the government would not suffer if it went against its own citizens?  Of course it would, and many of the government troops would, indeed, die.
    But they really never unleashed their whole arsenal against either Iraq or Afghanistan to its fullest extent.  Nor did they have our entire military in either country.
    Do you really think that the average, even heavily-armed, citizen in this country would be able to stand against the full might of the government in this day and age?
    I'm not saying that citizens could not make it difficult.  But the devastation would be unimaginable, and in the end, if the government truly wanted to suppress us, it would be ugly, and if even they did not "win" in the end, it might well take years and years and years.
    How many years did the Soviet Union manage to suppress their citizens, after all?  And how many of their own people did they kill and imprison before they finally fell?  

    I'm not going to debate doomsday scenarios (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:11:26 PM EST
    with you. Against oppression from our gvt or a foreign gvt, resistance from armed citizens would be a significant factor. That's the reality when the 2A was adopted and also the reality today.

    It may have been applicable in 1789 (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    when the U.S. had no standing army. It is certainly not applicable now. The military industrial complex, with its intelligence apparatus and overwhelming firepower of myriad kinds, plus Homeland Security toys (like the electro-shock burners mentioned in an above comment), plus the coordination of increasingly powerful police forces...well, let's just say I find your theory far-fetched. But your scenario is very reminiscent of a few popular, semi-popular, and downright stupid movies and TV shows. So, apparently, some may want to entertain the entertainment value of it.

    Ya, my theory is that against oppression (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:20:43 PM EST
    from the US or a foreign gvt, an armed citizenry would be a significant factor. You should hope the citizenry is armed, as your tinfoil hat will afford you little protection...

    Tin foil hat? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:53:52 PM EST
    Look in the mirror, Clem.

    The "reality" ... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:49:41 PM EST
    ... when the 2nd Amendment was adopted was that "arms" consisted of muskets and swords.  If your argument is that the "right to bear arms" has evolved with weapons technology and the 2nd Amendment now includes the right to own semi-automatic assault weapons, why wouldn't that same logic apply to other weapons?  Machine guns, mortars, grenades, tanks, anthrax, nuclear weapons, etc., etc.?

    warships, cannons, etc., etc., did not yet exist when the 2A was adopted?

    Of course it isn't (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:57:31 PM EST
    And you know it, which is why you failed to answer my question, "overlooking" the majority of my examples (machine guns, tanks, anthrax nuclear weapons) - along with my point - all of which were obvious.

    Let me spell it out for you in simple terms.  If the Founders were designing the 2nd Amendment to allow individuals to protect themselves against oppression from a government, and the definition of "arms" has evolved beyond muskets and swords, why can't we get the same weapons the government uses?  So you don't get diverted again, I'll give you some more examples they didn't have in the 18th century - depleted uranium shells, Hellfire missiles, Stinger missiles, cluster bombs, F-18s, Barrett M82 .50 calibre rifles, TOW missiles, nuclear attack submarines, M1 Abrams tank, nuclear bombs/artillery shells, etc, etc., etc.

    These are the weapons that would be most effective in defending ourselves from an oppressive government, if that was the Founder's intent, and they wanted the definition of arms to evolve to include modern weapons of war.  Why draw the line at semi-automatic rifles?

    BTW - I have to agree with your point, however.  As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd Amendment does indeed protect your right to possess all the 18th century cannons and warships you can dig up (or salvage from the ocean, as the case may be).


    of conjecture, presumption, inference, magical devination and wild ass guesses you've managed to cobble together.

    As I have stated multiple times previously in this thread, my "point" is that against oppression by the US or a foreign gvt, an armed citizenry would be a significant factor.

    Regardless, there are many varying and often conflicting opinions of what "arms" means in the 2A, and there are varying and often conflicting opinions of what the 2A means to us today.

    The only opinion that really matters, though, is that of the SCOTUS.


    What I find oppressive is having (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:28:34 PM EST
    to be stressed worrying for the kids in this country and myself while we wait for the next self-appointed champion against oppression with an AR 15 to go off due to a sudden chemical imbalance, or because his wife left him.

    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:41:48 PM EST
    It's just basic logic (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 10:31:50 PM EST
    Sorry if you have trouble with it.

    Still can't answer the question, huh?


    Is anyone working to patent an (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:33:59 PM EST
    anti-personal Drone shield?

    No, but I've a fine tinfoil hat... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Lora on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    Oh, that's good (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by sj on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:03:01 PM EST
    it might help to shield you from drone surveillance in the USA.

    No but companies are making a mint (none / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:28:59 PM EST
    selling so called bullet-proof children's backpacks even though they don't stop bullets from assault rifles.

    Firms selling bullet-proof children's gear - including Disney Princess and Avengers backpacks lined with Kevlar-type sheeting - are reporting a massive surge in sales in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

    At least three companies that make armored backpacks designed to shield children caught in a shootings also are reporting a large spike in sales and interest.

    The body armor inserts fit into the back panel of a child's backpack, and they sell for about $150 to $300, depending on the company.

    The armor is designed to stop bullets from handguns, not assault rifles like the one used by the Connecticut shooter. The manufacturers and some parents say that while they don't guarantee children won't be killed, they could still be used as shields.

    Of course, they were also talking about... (none / 0) (#29)
    by unitron on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:44:22 AM EST
    ...the kinds of weapons of war that had been used in the, to them, most recent war, the kind that would let you kill one person and then get beat to death by his family while you fumbled with your powder horn, not the bullet hoses of 2 centuries later, and also back then the biggest cities were almost villages compared to their current size and population per unit of area.

    And the only reason for not infringing on the right to keep and bear to which they got near in the wording wasn't hunting or self-defense, it was defense of the state and the country, as a member of an orderly militia and not just an armed mob, from invasion, insurrection, and unrest.

    I suspect it was a cheap way around the expense of keeping a standing army, not to mention that their experiences with a standing army (King George's), as well as the lessons of history, involved them being used for oppression and policework imposed from without.


    I'm not sure I'm getting the point here (none / 0) (#37)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:15:27 AM EST
      Why can't the  "arms" be   "weapons of war" and have other utility as well? It was cetainly known to the drafters the drafters when they chose to use the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendement that firearms were used for purposes other than waging war.

      Similarly, today the same weapon can obviously be a weapon used in war or for other purposes.

      I'm not sure where this is meant to lead in terms of argument about regulation.


    TeresaInPa, to whom I was responding, said... (none / 0) (#107)
    by unitron on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:58:35 AM EST
    ..."When the 2nd amendment was written the founders were talking about weapons of war and the right of American citizens to arm themselves with them.", and I was pointing out that saying the people had a right to keep and bear weapons of war 21 or so decades ago is not equivalent to saying that same thing now, because of the considerable difference in the efficiency of the weapons of war today.

    I seriously doubt the authors of the Second Amendment foresaw the bullet hoses that would be available two centuries hence, and included them in their thinking.


    Remember, groups of people could form (none / 0) (#39)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    their own "orderly militia" back then. An entire town or extended family group could defend itself against other marauding groups. Given the population increase since the founding of this country, I'd say the 2nd Amendment is still pertinent to the availability of automatic weapons in the event of a major catastrophe. Many reasonable will still see the need for these more effective weapons to protect themselves after a major disaster.  

    That really doesn't clarify to me (none / 0) (#41)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:31:38 AM EST
     what anyone in this sub-thread is trying to say.

      Are you attempting to suggest that because there was a much narrower range of firearms in existence in the late 18th Century and the 2nd only uses the word "arms" that you believe the 2nd amendement proplerly construes prohibits any restriction on the right of individuals to possess any type of "arm" in existence today?

      Or are people trying to suggest the 2nd referred only to weapons of war?

      Or that the 2nd was intended to allow arms to be borne only with in the context of a well regulate militia?

      I'm only saying no one is making an argument that can be followed by me..


    SCOTUS DC v. Heller decision says (none / 0) (#57)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:40:01 AM EST
    that the 2nd Amendment protects an our right to possess and use a firearm for self-defense unrelated to our service in a militia. In our lifetimes we've seen atrocities on a scale that should make any sensible person maintain a healthy distrust of the abuse of power. If we turn over all authority to the  government, we risk being victims of the age old adage "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." h/t Lord Action

    Even if you trust the government and the people/corporations that have bought out government, during a natural disaster, and single shot weapon isn't much defense against rioters in groups of five or more. I don't think people are going to give up automatic weapons without a fight, so to speak, and the Supreme Court might agree that people have a right to keep and use effective defensive weapons, not just single shot pistols and rifles.

    I think the Task Force delay tactic will result in a lessening of the current call for a ban on assault weapons. Maybe they'll suggest throwing more money at safety measures, like bullet proof glass in schools, better locks, more on-site security staff (cops in schools).



    I think you're right... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:21:25 PM EST
    security theater is what we will end up with...much like the response to 9/11, the shoe bomber, and the underwear bomber.

    Measures (aka hassles) to make us feel better, but are essentially useless...and our elected leaders can say they answered the call to "do something!".

    And may I add another old adage..."Dictators love unarmed peasants."  The state and their mercenaries can't be the only ones packing serious heat, not that the people would have much of a chance, but slim is better than none.


    You know.. (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:06:36 PM EST
    rape and child abuse are gonna happen anyway, but that doesn't mean sane people don't take proactive steps to minimize their occurance in the future..

    This (to me) egocentric liberatarian absolutism, or whatever it is, makes me more than a little meshugga.

    Who doesn't make an attempt to secure the obvious potential weapons in the house when there's a suicidal, or potentially homocidal person on the premesis? I've actually been in that situation, and believe me, people organize themselves into mini "nanny states" under those circumstances really friggin fast..Nobody says "Well, bad things are always going to happen anyway, what can you?"


    So you're in favor... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:50:06 PM EST
    of taking our shoes off and getting a near-h*ndjob at the airport?  Our government is not occupied by sane people man.

    I'm open to ideas brother...but until the culture changes, until we change...what can we really expect the state to do except what they always do...crack down and break more eggs making their omelette?


    there are a hell of alot (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:15:59 PM EST
    of worse things in life than taking your shoes off at the airport. And, if we ain't a bunch of spoiled, petty bourgeoisie, I don't know who is: we bitch about taking off our shoes at the airport, when half of the people on the planet never get closer to one than to scrounge for things other people have thrown away..

    The answer isn't hunkering down in bunkers and compounds with AR 15s and "Don't Tread on Me" signs; it's taking our representative democracy back from the lobbyists, silver-tongued shylocks,Koch Bros-bankrolled think tanks and Citizens United..

    The money behind Cato and Reason magazine isn't anti-government, they're just anti-regulation and anti-democracy. What they want is for us to be so paranoically anti-government that we give up and let them have it. They much prefer that scenario to a sane, sustainable, social democracy with built-in class interest checks and balances.


    Far worse things.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:33:41 PM EST
    to be sure...but you'd be hard-pressed to find a more pointless thing.  

    I mean come on man, that's hardly justification for our pointless security theater measures jondee...people are starving in Africa so take your f*ckin' shoes off and prepare for a pat-down?  wtf?

    I won't be strapping up and building a bunker, I know that is not the answer.  Love is the answer.  

    You said it yourself...you want "the lobbyists, silver-tongued shylocks,Koch Bros-bankrolled think tanks and Citizens United" to "do something!" about gun violence.  Good luck with that dude...I'm gonna try to spread some love, not be afraid, and hope the government by of and for the Koch Brothers doesn't screw another pooch too badly.  


    Security at theatres.. (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:45:16 PM EST
    and even the pro-gun crowd "guarding" their kids schools. Why? Because people are sh*tting their pants with worry and fear..

    So the answer to that is more "keep your hands off our guns"?!! I don't know about you, call me hyper-sensitive, but, I can't relax around people packing; it stresses me out -- because I know that on the deepest level these are people who've given up on creative solutions and love; every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost..  


    I'm the same way... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    no guns in my house, I don't like to go to houses or places with guns...I've never even held one and I hope I never have to. One of the scariest things in the world to me, right behind policemen.

    Perhaps I have more respect for those who wish to own a gun responsibly than you do...I want them to have the same freedom I want, to live my life as I see fit as long as I don't hurt anybody.  The vast majority of gun owners, and their guns, never hurt anybody.  I don't wanna f*ck with their rights, just as I wish my rights weren't f8cked with just becase a small minority of recreational drug users can't handle their dope.

    We want the same things, but differ in how we think we can get there...why you have any faith in our government doing anything meaningful and just and effective is beyond me.

    The only way this country will disarm is if people decide to do it willingly...they can't be forced into it by government mandate, no more so than Bloomberg & Cuomo can get me to quit smoking with their tyrannical taxes.


    yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    weapons of war for that time.  Just as assault weapons are weapons of war at this time.  And yes war is different now.  But do you really think the founders had a problem with people defending their homes and families?

    no (none / 0) (#44)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:52:42 AM EST
     but that doesn't necessarily  mean the drafters intended that future governments never be permitted to restrict people from being permitted  to use ANY type of arm that might ever come into existence  to defend themselves their homes or their families.

      What  in the text or the historical record surrounding the 2nd (or any other  provision in the bill of rights) suggests the enumerated rights were meant to be absolute?


    Then, by all means, let's make sure that (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:08:41 AM EST
    the only weapons available for purchase are those "weapons of war" of the type the founders were talking about: muskets and long rifles and pistols - nothing automatic or semi-automatic, no high-tech ammo.

    But, wait - the right doesn't only attach to the weapons of the time, does it?  Any more than other enumerated rights necessarily are limited to the circumstances of the times in which they were written.

    Unless the courts say otherwise, of course.


    I think many of us (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:53:57 AM EST
    know we are only a few major disasters away from chaos.

    Not necessarily talking about you, Red (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    but I find it fascinating how many folks there are - primarily on the Right - who view the relationship between the government and citizenry primarily as adversarial, who also seem to support the money = speech equation, which basically insures that the disconect between "the government" and "the people" will do nothing but get worse into the future.  

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:12:58 AM EST
    was deleted for falsely stating as fact a mis-reporting by Fox News.

    jeezus (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:13:08 PM EST
    There is no more fundamental right than the right to self defense.

    There isn't?

    How about those 20 children? Was their right to live perhaps more fundamental than your right to own a gun? Or at least AS equal?

    Here's another option: (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    The letter, dated Thursday, then suggests training teachers and staff for "active-shooter scenarios" and allowing school staff, teachers and parents to carry guns on school grounds in order to protect children in such situations.



    Good Lord. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:39:13 PM EST
    How ignorant that is.

    How about the guy who shot up the military base, where he was surrounded by guns and soldiers?

    More guns does nothing to prevent these things.


    Can you imagine the parents of (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:02:59 PM EST
    today's students arriving at school armed?  What--you didn't give my kid an "A"?  You've ruined his chance to get into Harvard.  Blam.  

    Couldn't imagine sending a child (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:15:23 PM EST
    into an armed school.

    Neither can I (none / 0) (#71)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:26:24 PM EST
    That would have been the point at which I would have decided to homeschool my children, as opposed to exposing them to armed teachers, other parents, etc, on a daily basis.

    Horrifying on multiple levels. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:45:38 PM EST
    I would never send my child to a school permeated with that kind of toxic gun culture. Not to mention how dangerous it would be.

    Hear, hear (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Lora on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    I've been thinking a great deal on what could'a/would'a/should'a been done to prevent this tragedy (and all too many others like it in recent history).

    I think we are missing the boat.

    So far, Michael Moore is coming the closest to what I've been thinking, but there's more.

    We need to take a hard hard look at the glorification of violence combined with the assault on childhood in American culture.

    When you consider movies, video games, popular music, popular books, and certain government foreign and domestic policies, and police and prison brutality to name a few, one can hardly doubt that America revels in violent images and, in some cases, violent actions.

    Given the attacks on public education and social services that benefit children, the vast numbers of children who are in need of basic food, clothing and shelter, and the vast numbers of children who suffer physical, sexual, and psychological abuse in their homes, schools, churches or neighborhoods,  and the violent images children encounter several times per day from mass media, I do not think I exaggerate when I say there is an assault on childhood in this country.

    No single hurricane can be used as evidence of global warming; rather a weather and climate pattern emerges that leaves no doubt.  And all the best radar, evacuation procedures, levies, and sandbag stockpiles will not work to reverse the effects of global warming.  It will take a huge change of attitude and priorities on the part of the worldwide community.

    Likewise, a particular shooter may not have had untreated mental illness, an abusive or neglectful parent, a bullying school environment, or a fondness for music with violent lyrics.  But the overall pattern is what we need to look at in terms of what factors go into the creation of individuals who feel they must destroy innocent lives.

    While I am in favor of stricter gun laws, more access to treatment and less stigma for mental illness, and some of the other preventative measures now being discussed, I recognize that these are band-aid measures only and do not address the root causes of violent and destructive behavior in isolated individuals.  It will take a total cultural sea change to make an actual difference.


    Of course the 27 people killed (none / 0) (#65)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    had a right to life.  In fact, their rights were denied by Adam Lanza, their murderer.

    The question is how do we ensure all our rights are protected. I don't want kids and teachers murdered, and I don't want to abdicate our right to protect ourselves from either the government, or those who the government cannot or will not control.

    There will be no simplistic solutions to this dilemma. Much as I'd like to see it happen, banning automatic weapons might not keep us safer in the long run.


    Well, quite simply, (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    in my own personal value system, I value the safety of children and others in our society much more highly than I value the right for people to own guns, particularly in an increasingly violent society with increasing events of slaughtering of innocents.

    I just don't really care that much about people getting to own any guns they want or not having them more regulated.


    Agreed, but I guess the distrustful (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    ide of me believes that we need some way to protect our children from the not-so-crazy elements of society that could easily destroy the contemporary civilized society we currently take for granted. There's no question that the rich have bought our government. The question is, how far will they have to go to turn our middle class into a permanent underclass ready and willing to do their bidding.

    Well, I'm much more frightened today (none / 0) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:44:42 PM EST
    of crazy gun-toting cowboys and the real carnage that is caused everyday than I am of abstract ideas of our government turning against us and the need for an armed citizenry to rise up.

    Call me crazy.


    Heh, thanks for your good humor. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:59:03 PM EST
    Having worked for both military and police forces, I don't trust them to do the right thing and stick by the common people if this all falls apart. They're well trained follow directions without question.

    Regarding the future, our civilized world could fall apart quickly if we have a major disaster. But it's more likely to just slowly degrade into a society of very few haves and millions of have-nots struggling for subsistence level jobs to feed our kids. Personally, I don't think we could rise up against the government in this day and age regardless of the kinds of guns we possess. They own our communication systems and control transportation and other resources we need. Nope, if we intend to effect change that could salvage our middle class and reinvigorate the American Dream, we need to reclaim our government, not overthrow it.


    Stupid quote for today (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by the capstan on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:28:35 PM EST
    from Trey Gowdy, S.. C, rep. in Congress:
    "I don't think anyone would disagree that people who are mentally ill should not have access to guns, anymore than we would argue they should have access to knives or hammers."

    Like you can't kill a roomful (or theatreful) of people a tad faster with guns than with knives or hammers.

    Whenever I read the words Obama (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:08:26 PM EST
    And task force in the same sentence I feel the gears of legislation grind to a rusting halt :)

    Pretty broadly-applicable comment. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:36:15 PM EST
    Substitute "government" for "Obama."

    It's possible that society could collapse (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by tworivers on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    I'm not saying it couldn't happen.  And I'm not saying  that it can't happen in the not too distant future  The sun could explode or a meteor could rain destruction down on our planet or all manner of other scenarios could unfold.  I hope they don't obviously (knock on wood), because I don't relish the idea of living in a Mad Max world

    But haven't people during most eras in history worried that they were living in end times?  History is filled with examples of people fearing that they were facing some imminent doomsday.  

    This fear is not unique to us.  What's unique to the last 70 or so years is that we have devised new ways for such doomsdays to occur.  We created nuclear weapons, we polluted the atmosphere in such a way that the environment itself could be our undoing. (global warming, etc.).  

    So while I guess I could see why somebody fearing the Apocalypse might want to have assault weapons, I personally don't think the trade-off for some "what if" scenario is justification enough to keep assault weapons legal, especially given the number of brutal and senseless killings we've had in the last several years.

    Yes, some cataclysmic event could happen and we could all descend into a hellish world straight out of Road Warrior.   And perhaps without a gun my death would then be swift.  But I'm willing to face that scenario without the benefit of assault weapons.

    And I honestly the rest of the country would be better off without a legal right to purchase assault weapons too.  But your views may vary.

    fundamental right for assault weapons? (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by tworivers on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:48:25 PM EST
    There is no more fundamental right than the right to self defense. If you disagree with this statement then it's time for a separation.

    When it comes to self defense via assault weapons, I do disagree. I think the majority of Americans would disagree as well.  How do you propose we separate the country?

    A "right to self-defense" ... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:27:33 PM EST
    ... does not include the right to own whatever kind of weapon you want.  It also does not include the right to kill ATF agents and kill children/members of your own group.

    But don't let the door hit ya ...

    How does one obtain (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by me only on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    an automatic weapon?  Do you even have a clue?

    You begin by having a spare $10,000+ to spend (none / 0) (#51)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    Buy a two or three hundred dollar federal tax stamp from the treasury, get a bunch of approvals and background checks performed, find a federally licensed gun dealer who's got one for sale or can find one and legally transfer it to you, wait for BATF approval.  Easy as pie, or at least as easy as coming up with the tens of thousands of dollars people charge for pre-1986 fully automatic weapons.

    As far as I know, I don't know anyone who's got one.


    Onward. (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 06:11:49 PM EST
    "There is a big chunk of space between what the Second Amendment means and having no rules at all, and that space is what Joe's going to be working on to try to identify where we'll find some common ground," Obama said.

    Joe Biden is going to be working on that space to find some common ground. Good. Identify common ground between the second amendment and no rules. Space. Biden. Task force. Yes.

    Obama added,

    "If we're going to change things, it's going to take a wave of Americans -- mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals and, yes, gun owners -- standing up and saying enough on behalf of our kids."

    OK. We're standing up.
    We're saying enough.
    Now what?

    I love that he tells us the obvious... (4.33 / 6) (#2)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 06:55:34 PM EST
    When the country is in the midst of doing the obvious. Dude, it's time for YOU to be an actual leader, and risk something, and fight like you actually have a pair.  But how long have I been saying that?  Forever.  And when will it come true?  Never. I mean seriously, Mr. Prez, if you want a day with ten million people in the streets, then call for it, but you won't because that might actually have some genuine risk. Not the fake kind that comes along with sitting in a room a planet away watching others take out OBL, or loving you some drone murder, or some endless detention without charges. Such a weak piece of S. Not a creative or imaginative bone in his body. Sigh. Old, tired story.  

    lol. A pair of what? A pair of polls? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 09:58:41 PM EST
    I (none / 0) (#18)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:47:11 AM EST
    have a problem with the colloquial use of a reference to male genitalia as a synonym for courage or strength.

    Firstly, it is not an image that I need to see with my morning coffee.
    I do not wish to think about or be forced to visualize the genitalia of our elected officials.

    Secondly, of course, is that there does not appear to be a comparable expression to denote courage or strength in women.

    Why not just say, "guts", "intestinal fortitude" or "courage" or "integrity"?

    That would include everyone.


    Because he said balls... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    poetic license lentinel...poetic license.

    In that context genitals should be the furthest thing from your mind...get your mind outta the gutter my brother! ;)

    And "balls", like d*ckishness, is gender nuetral slang...if I had a nickel for everytime I told my sister she had more balls than me growing up, I'd have 5 bucks easy.


    You (none / 0) (#47)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:11:52 AM EST
    can consider it poetry - or poetic - or gender neutral.
    I don't like it.

    To me, it is unfortunately graphic - and sexist.

    I'd rather to hear some dude say that he showed real pussy.


    All good man... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    no accounting for tastes.

    You're gonna have to be a slang revolutionary to make your wish happen!


    I'm (none / 0) (#50)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:23:08 AM EST
    the Che of slang.

    It does evolve... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:37:57 AM EST
    constantly evolving...proper english all the time is for creationists and squares;)

    Or as granny would have said... (none / 0) (#26)
    by unitron on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    ...the grit.

    The not so cynical and jaded (none / 0) (#7)
    by Politalkix on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:08:32 PM EST
    see the President as a good leader (which is a majority in the country and the world).

    Ah! The credulous. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:05:00 PM EST
    That saying (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Amiss on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:41:25 AM EST
    is more Outdated than I am. He has no cajones and it becomes more obvious by the day. Perhaps if his girls had been in that school Friday instead of their "private" one, he might grow a pair.
    Others have already started buy-back programs. Why not use my S.S. he is taking with countless others and start there?

    90 percent of Americans (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:33:16 AM EST
    approved of W after 9-11.  So what?

    Curious... (none / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:06:09 AM EST
    Could you give me three or four examples of his leadership?

    oh! oh! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by sj on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:40:24 AM EST
    I have one!
    Could you give me three or four examples of his leadership?
    After Congress voted it down, Obama created the Bowles-Simpson Catfood Commission to keep alive the lie that entitlement cuts were going to close budget deficit.

    Two years after the commission failed to produce an official report, Obama's leadership continues to keep their recommendations on the table.


    The "majority" must be either... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:42:50 AM EST
    woefully uninformed, not expecting much at all, or only comparing him to Bush, McCain, & Romney.  

    Only possible explanations for calling this clown a good leader.  

    Not saying it's easy...our political system is so twisted and broken it may be impossible to lead well.


    Well, it's not like... (none / 0) (#30)
    by unitron on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:46:53 AM EST
    ...he had a tough act to follow.

    Except in the "having to clean up their incredible and extensive mess" sense. That part's tough.


    Heh (none / 0) (#43)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:37:42 AM EST
    Getting reelected running against union-busting, outsourcer Mormon Mitt Romney and anti-gay, anti-choice, misogynist Paul Ryan hardly qualifies our Democratic president as as a good leader in the minds of the electorate. More like "lesser of two evils."

    A Modest Proposal. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:31:31 PM EST
    That might actually work.  A brief perusal of gunregs in other police states, like Russia, shows that you're not permitted to buy one if you're mentally ill and you've got to sit for an evaluation, and you've got to renew your license every couple of years, including the mental fitness evaluation.  We all know that any attempts to add tests of mental fitness to gunregs here will meet with resistance, and that initially, at least, the most cursory of exams will be accepted.  As an alternative I propose insisting on an interview process equal in cost to the average cost of the type of firearm the applicant wants to buy.  Fully automatic weapons run from $10K and up.  Semiautomatic M15 style rifles like the Bushmaster are under a thousand but still pretty pricy.

    So if you want to buy a semiautomatic assault-style weapon you've got to convince a psychologist that you're sane for a full thousand dollars worth of his time.  You want to buy an actual machine gun?  lol - you'll spend a lot of time on the couch.

    2nd (none / 0) (#21)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:38:12 AM EST
    amendment issues with that. We can't ignore the 2nd.  We have to change it if we want to do something such as you suggest.

    We can't ignore it, but we can regulate it. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:15:28 AM EST
    As much as I think changes to the 2nd Amendment would be a good thing, it doesn't have to be repealed, reformulated or rewritten in order for the government to regulate and determine which guns - and ammunition - will be available for sale, and which individuals can be foreclosed from owning them.

    We have a right to vote, but that hasn't stopped states from taking that right away from those who have been convicted of crimes, has it?  .

    We have a right to privacy, a right against unreasonable search and seizure, but that hasn't stopped the government from spying on us, has it?

    So, what's so special about the 2nd Amendment that it would have to be changed in order to permit the kind of regulation that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed, or convicted criminals?  The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about how old someone has to be to "bear arms," so how is it that we don't sell guns to children?  If the government can make the argument - and the courts can agree - that it has to balance the safety of the citizenry against their right to privacy, isn't there an equivalent right to balance the safety of the citizenry against the right to gun ownership under certain circumstances?


    It' also important to consider (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:34:02 AM EST
      that the only way to test the parameters of the 2nd Amendement is by enacting statutes or promulgating regulations. Courts do not issue advisory opinions. With some relatively few exceptions, the law is unsettled as to what are impermissible regulations post-Heller.

      Politicians should not hide behind Heller and say "we can't" because of the 2nd Amendment. If they believe in something work for its passage. If it gets struck down, so be it.

      Either we would get reasonable regulations in place or the judicial rejection of the regs could be used to support candidates who would appoint judges more tolerant of regulations in an individual right rubric. At the furthest, and most unlikely, extreme, rejection of common sense regulations could create impetus for a constitutional amendment.

      In any event, suggesting nothing meaningful can be done is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.


    we already have laws (3.50 / 2) (#34)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:06:50 AM EST
    in most states that say who can and can not own, carry, buy guns.  Did I make any statement about that?  If not why are you arguing with me on that point?  Can you stick to what I did remark on?
    I do not believe that you can make a law that makes it financially impossible for people to own the arms they have the constitutional right to own. There for it would call for a change to the 2nd amendment.

    Then you make your point by bringing up the government spying on us without a warrant?  Are you kidding?  We spent how long screaming bloody murder about that until Obama became president and then it was all okay...


    I'm only responding to the comments and (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:31:09 AM EST
    logic and rationale present in your actual comments, Teresa, so don't get all pissy when people don't divine from them what you did or didn't mean.

    But, if we can't have laws that make it financially impossible for people to exercise a constitutional right, maybe you can explain how it is that we have a law that prohibits the government from funding abortions - a law that makes it financially impossible for some women to exercise their constitutional right to one?

    And, finally, I think I have to ask if you're the one who's kidding, since I'm not one of those people who think government spying and the erosion of our rights to privacy is "all okay" because there is a Democrat in the WH.  



    It (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    seemed to me that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to protect themselves from a corrupt government.

    If people buying these weapons would stop talking about hunting or defending themselves from "lowlifes", but instead were talking about arming themselves against the government, the 2nd amendment would go down the drain so fast it would make everybody's head swim.


    From the wording of the 2nd... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by unitron on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:25:56 PM EST
    ...it sounds more like the idea was to allow citizens to protect the government, and the country, from outside invasion and internal insurrection, as an alternative to maintaining a standing army.

    That's why it talks about a militia being needed for the security of the state.

    Not a word in there about hunting or burglars.


    Anne, like many of us here at TL (none / 0) (#45)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:58:09 AM EST
    you have maintained a critical analysis of our Democratic president and his Republican tendencies and policies, but Teresa is completely correct. For most people, it's harder to criticize our guy for keeping the unconstitutional Patriot Act in place then it was to criticize the opposition for putting it in place. After extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, Obama's name wasn't applied to them, they were still the Bush tax cuts, not the "Obama sneaky plutocratic payback to his rich supporters" tax cuts. Likewise, the Affordable Care Act is strongly supported by Democrats in spite of the fact that we'll never get true socialized universal health care now that ObamaCare ensures the insurance companies make billions on top of the costs of actual health care for the poor. And let's not even get started on military spending and unethical activities during our "peace president's" reign.

    Also, although poor women cannot exercise their constitutional right to an abortion without public assistance, no one has suggested that the government buy guns for poor people. So your comparison is faulty. I'm not sure what we need to do, but making it expensive by taxing ammunition isn't an effective strategy. My local heroin dealer will still be able to stockpile inexpensive ammo because he's not paying taxes on his black market purchases.

    I think Teresa's right. The 2nd Amendment probably guarantees the basic and essential right to protect yourself with arms, which in modern times likely means modern arms. In the heat of the moment while we're all immersed in grief over the latest tragedy, an assault weapons ban sounds like a good idea to many people. But Obama just established the ubiquitous Task Force that will delay long enough for people to move through their emotions and refocus on more important things like celebrity wardrobes and who's gonna win a singing contest. I don't see much HOPE for CHANGE on this front.


    Well, the quickest way (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:28:52 PM EST
    to reduce the number of weapons falling into the hands of people who shouldn't have them is to close the gun show (and personal sales) loophole which eliminate background checks.

    Over 2 million sales from legitimate, licensed gun dealers have been prevented over two decades because of those checks. But, because of the gun show loophole Middle-East terrorists, Mexican drug lords, and, of course, our own disqualified citizens can get as many guns as they want.


    Does he expect a "magic bullet" (none / 0) (#46)
    by observed on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:04:15 AM EST
    from this commission?
    I'm skeptical.

    Well, what we'll get does rhyme with bullet (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    Here is a new report, as far as I'm aware: (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:39:43 PM EST
    The basement also is where Nancy Lanza, a gun enthusiast and target shooter, kept her collection of weapons in a locked box.

    hmmm . . . (none / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    Lanza appears to have spent much of his time during the weeks before the shooting in the basement of the home he shared with his mother Nancy, playing violent video games on his computer, investigators believe based on interviews.

    that basement was popular . . .