Obama's Gun Legislation Push: The good, the bad, the ^&$$(!

**slamdunc** · Posted On: 1/16/2013 3:48pm

Originally Posted by Scrapper

Universal background checks? Sounds reasonable.
A better background check system? I can handle that.

Absolutely, criminal background, domestic violence, and the in-patient mental health / substance treatment databases can be used.

Originally Posted by Scrapper

AWB a la 1992 debacle? It has no chance to pass, yet it's still in there. Is this his "punching bag" measure so the other stuff will seem more palatable, or does he really think this will work?

His own party has no confidence in the ban, but Obama speaks as if it is a sure thing. What does he know that we don't?

No way this will pass. New York took one up the ass, but this won't get through the house.

**Devil** · Posted On: 1/16/2013 7:14pm

Originally Posted by Scrapper

Universal background checks? Sounds reasonable.

I disagree wholeheartedly for a couple reasons. First, the government shouldn't dictate how I dispose of my legally owned personal property. If I want to sell a gun to my neighbor, it's none of the government's business.

Second - give an inch, take a mile. Incrementalism is how they will ultimately cut our balls off like they've done to all of Europe. There are enough laws on the books. No more.

**Devil** · Posted On: 1/16/2013 8:07pm

Originally Posted by Stick

I am in agreement; the AWB/hicap ban are the sacrificial lamb conservatives can publicly slaughter in order to pass the rest of it which has not only wide public support but apparent support amongst even tgose conservative leglislators who will need the cover come primary season.

There is almost zero support among conservative legislators. That's what the media has been saying since the shooting, but it's bullshit. There will be more Democrats in the House that vote against any legislation than Republicans who vote for any legislation.

**slamdunc** · Posted On: 1/16/2013 9:08pm

Originally Posted by Devil

I disagree wholeheartedly for a couple reasons. First, the government shouldn't dictate how I dispose of my legally owned personal property. If I want to sell a gun to my neighbor, it's none of the government's business.

How well do you know your neighbor? Are you willing to take a chance that he or she isn't some nut-job that has slipped through the cracks and is a wanted serial killer?

Originally Posted by Devil

Second - give an inch, take a mile. Incrementalism is how they will ultimately cut our balls off like they've done to all of Europe. There are enough laws on the books. No more.

I have to agree with you on this point.

**Devil** · Posted On: 1/16/2013 9:31pm

Originally Posted by slamdunc

How well do you know your neighbor? Are you willing to take a chance that he or she isn't some nut-job that has slipped through the cracks and is a wanted serial killer?
I have to agree with you on this point.

If my neighbor murders someone with a gun he buys from me, I'm no more responsible than if he murders someone with a kitchen knife or a Cadillac or a baseball bat he buys from me.

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 1/16/2013 9:46pm

It's a shame how quickly the conversation turned from dead babes to "the government wants your guns!". Both sides of the aisle aught to be ashamed for their rhetoric.

At least the President is taking action, like a president should. He's not stupid, and knows full well the resistance he'll meet. Obama welcomes resistance. The GOP stance is, as usual inaction, and moderates will note it for 2016.

In my ideal world, both the Democrats and GOP come together to really tackle the issues that led to Sandy Hook...whatever they are.

Is the grief of giving up a gun is the same as the grief of giving up a child? Not even comparable.

So don't cry to me about losing your guns, if that happens.

That's all I have to say about it.

**Devil** · Posted On: 1/16/2013 9:53pm

Originally Posted by W. Rabbit

It's a shame how quickly the conversation turned from dead babes to "the government wants your guns!". Both sides of the aisle aught to be ashamed for their rhetoric.

At least the President is taking action, like a president should. He's not stupid, and knows full well the resistance he'll meet. Obama welcomes resistance. The GOP stance is, as usual inaction, and moderates will note it for 2016.

In my ideal world, both the Democrats and GOP come together to really tackle the issues that led to Sandy Hook...whatever they are.

Is the grief of giving up a gun is the same as the grief of giving up a child? Not even comparable.

So don't cry to me about losing your guns. That's all I have to say about it.

How dare we continue to live our lives!

**submessenger** · Posted On: 1/17/2013 10:42am

(dup)

**submessenger** · Posted On: 1/17/2013 10:47am

Originally Posted by slamdunc

How well do you know your neighbor? Are you willing to take a chance that he or she isn't some nut-job that has slipped through the cracks and is a wanted serial killer?

How well did we know the Libyans, or the Iranians, the Contras, or the mujahideen? We armed them all, expecting they would use the arms to mass effect.

**Scrapper** · Posted On: 1/17/2013 2:06pm

Devil,

The flip side of incrementalism is exaggerated rigidity. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (Thanks, Emerson!)

You need to not be a criminal to own a gun. I like that rule. Having the rule is only step one. Enforcing the rule is step two. Making the seller of a firearm responsible for confirming that the buyer is legal is easy, logical, and does not infringe upon a single right (CT has a free call-in system where you call an 800 number, run the check, get a "yea" or "nay" and a confirmation number). The seller can still choose to sell the weapon, even if the buyer fails the check, the seller just has to acknowledge that he has committed a crime.

It gives the power and the responsibility back to the people. I can accept that.