President Obama Unveils New Gun Control Measures

[cj_coolcat]

So I've mostly tried to stay out of the gun control debate because I personally think it's kind of arrogant and presumptuous for Canadians to comment on an American problem and I can certainly understand Americans getting their back up when foreigners with no stake in the issue suggest repealing their constitutional rights. But having reviewed Obama's recommendations on gun control, I've got to ask, is there anything in there that violates the second amendment? I ask because that seems to be the main sticking point. If you get to maintain your right to bear arms but there's just a little more common sense in regards to things like requiring background checks doesn't everyone win?

I suppose the assaults weapon ban might be a sticking point but I'm hearing two arguments about this. One is that this ban will do nothing to prevent mass shootings since guns covered under the ban are not much different than many guns which would not be covered under the ban. But then the other argument is that these types of guns are required to combat a tyrannical government. So which is it? Are these so-called "assault weapons" no-big deal (in which case it shouldn't be a big deal if they're banned) or are they powerful enough that you feel banning them would a hindrance to future revolutionary purposes (in which case you need to acknowledge their role in how deadly recent mass shootings have been.) Honest question here.

As an aside, I'm not sure why it seems so impossible to have an honest discourse about this issue. I mean surely, deep down, both sides see the need for compromise here? So why does every debate about this devolve into people making cracks about gun-happy "Mericans" and suggesting wild unrealistic solutions like banning all guns and repealing the second amendment vs. others virtually promising revolution if anyone dare "take their guns away." As an outsider, these recommendations all seem to be very moderate and sensitive to both sides of the debate. It seems like you get a little more gun control without anyone's rights being infringed upon. So I'm just wondering why it still seems to provoke such extreme responses from both sides? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Mr. Ambien]

So I've mostly tried to stay out of the gun control debate because I personally think it's kind of arrogant and presumptuous for Canadians to comment on an American problem and I can certainly understand Americans getting their back up when foreigners with no stake in the issue suggest repealing their constitutional rights. But having reviewed Obama's recommendations on gun control, I've got to ask, is there anything in there that violates the second amendment? I ask because that seems to be the main sticking point. If you get to maintain your right to bear arms but there's just a little more common sense in regards to things like requiring background checks doesn't everyone win?

I suppose the assaults weapon ban might be a sticking point but I'm hearing two arguments about this. One is that this ban will do nothing to prevent mass shootings since guns covered under the ban are not much different than many guns which would not be covered under the ban. But then the other argument is that these types of guns are required to combat a tyrannical government. So which is it? Are these so-called "assault weapons" no-big deal (in which case it shouldn't be a big deal if they're banned) or are they powerful enough that you feel banning them would a hindrance to future revolutionary purposes (in which case you need to acknowledge their role in how deadly recent mass shootings have been.) Honest question here.

As an aside, I'm not sure why it seems so impossible to have an honest discourse about this issue. I mean surely, deep down, both sides see the need for compromise here? So why does every debate about this devolve into people making cracks about gun-happy "Mericans" and suggesting wild unrealistic solutions like banning all guns and repealing the second amendment vs. others virtually promising revolution if anyone dare "take their guns away." As an outsider, these recommendations all seem to be very moderate and sensitive to both sides of the debate. It seems like you get a little more gun control without anyone's rights being infringed upon. So I'm just wondering why it still seems to provoke such extreme responses from both sides? Inquiring minds want to know.

[DeNiro]

I'm so glad I'm Canadian, that's all I can say.

Our freedom isn't measured by what types of weapons we're allowed to own.

I can't even imagine a world where fighting over the right to own a weapon is even a big deal. I guess we just don't have fantasies of taking up arms against our government like some Americans seem to.

[inane]

There's quite a bit of answering to be done there.. to try and keep it short:

A number of the US population realise that country was founded upon revolution. Mistrust for government is part of American nature, even though Americans can be seen treating politicians like CDC treats their favourite hockey players (or Obama) or most hated like Tim Thomas (or ex candidate Mitt Romney).

Assault rifles were banned in the 90s until about a decade ago, the provision sunset just following the release of studies that showed there was no significance to any correlation between assault rifle bans and gun murder rates, nor mass shootings. Thus, an extension of the ban was not necessary.

These forums represent American politics well because it's either you're labelled for one extreme or the other. Information is often cherry picked which is pretty common for debates due to the inherent subjective nature of opinions and the will to find opinions (and thus studies) that agree with an already existing premise.

Logic dictates one shouldn't overreact to bad circumstances, especially given US history and warnings from their founding fathers, and while here in Canada we are more than willing to hand over freedoms to government, in the US they are rather reluctant most times. Given the American nature of preserving individual rights, pressure to concede them, even if by a smallest of fractions, can easily be met with fierce resistance. Personally, I see these occasional mass shootings as an event that is not frequent enough to warrant any significant changes to the second amendment, and I find it only out of convenience and knee-jerk outrage that assault weapons get targeted despite how infrequently they are used for gun murders compared to the rest that happen in the US. Obviously I'm a sceptic toward people who are out to blame guns for those who commit murder because it's too blatantly an axe to grind. Preserving rights is tough following tragedy, it's easy to get emotional and jump on the bandwagon to want to hang something or someone. Following 9/11 a number of Americans shockingly said they'd give up some freedom for "security" -- a significant amount of the population there believe their own freedom is security, particularly the freedom to defend themselves.

I don't know where you're seeing "mericans" or whatever, but antagonistic trolling and bullying is a common theme here (it was humorous how often a few posters would gang up on me to try and push me off the forums before their posts were laid to rest on ignore) -- even some of the most revered posters as "intelligent" tend to get caught both looking down their noses at other posters, or simply Americans in general -- their problem I guess. I've had to utilise the ignore function for the aforementioned forum bullies, or those who simply contribute nothing worth reading to discussion. Like I said, it's a very polarised place that sees little grey area when it comes to politics, and in areas where American society doesn't want to make any compromises to their rights, here in Canada we have a hard time comprehending it (hence the many "but why do you need an assault rifle??" responses). BC also tends to lean heavily leftist, even to Ontarians like myself, so that also has a part to play.

[Bertuzzi Babe]

I don't know where you're seeing "mericans" or whatever, but antagonistic trolling and bullying is a common theme here (it was humorous how often a few posters would gang up on me to try and push me off the forums before their posts were laid to rest on ignore) -- even some of the most revered posters as "intelligent" tend to get caught both looking down their noses at other posters, or simply Americans in general -- their problem I guess. I've had to utilise the ignore function for the aforementioned forum bullies, or those who simply contribute nothing worth reading to discussion. Like I said, it's a very polarised place that sees little grey area when it comes to politics, and in areas where American society doesn't want to make any compromises to their rights, here in Canada we have a hard time comprehending it (hence the many "but why do you need an assault rifle??" responses). BC also tends to lean heavily leftist, even to Ontarians like myself, so that also has a part to play.

[Electro Rock]

I'm so glad I'm Canadian, that's all I can say.

Our freedom isn't measured by what types of weapons we're allowed to own.

I can't even imagine a world where fighting over the right to own a weapon is even a big deal. I guess we just don't have fantasies of taking up arms against our government like some Americans seem to.

[stawns]

Even in Canada, the amount of freedoms we enjoy are directly dependent on the amount of clout we as citizens wield compared to the government.

An entity that becomes unaccountable will act like it, sooner or later, as demonstrated by numerous historical and present day examples.

Guns are only a part of that equation, but a very important part.

Anyways, all you who are saying that "the U.S. military is gonna crush teh populace!!!111!!", stop and think for a moment who composes the majority of the U.S. Military's rank and file, conservative patriotic types who frequently own guns, and increasingly pissed ones at that.

And there are dozens of veterans out there for every one currently serving...

[aeromotacanucks]

The rebels in Syria started with small arms like assault rifles and now they are close to toppling the dictator Assad.  The government of Syria has tanks, artillery, and fighter jets.  So it is possible for an armed force to overthrow a government with superior military power.

Plus wars are still on in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Its called guerilla or assymetrical warfare and can lead to overthrow of governments.

Two classic case are Cuba and Vietnam.  In Cuba, Fidel Castrol lead a ragtag band of fighters that overthrew the Batista governent which was heavily armed and funded by the US,

The other case is Vietnam where the Viet Cong defeated BOTH France and the United States.  The Viet Cong were heavily outgunned by the Americans but still won the war.

Its nonsense that well organized civilians cannot defeat a greater force.

[Buggernut]

I can't. But I can guarantee that it's a far less likely scenario than some nutjob taking a semi-automatic with a high capacity magazine into a school and indiscriminantly shooting children.

[Buggernut]

How do they protect against a tyrannical government? If the government turns, are you going into the white house with your bushmaster AR15 or your AK-47? If the government, especially the US government turns against their own citizens, all of your toy weapons would be useless against them. Think of how technologically advanced the US military is. They could kill you with state of the art drones and not see any casualty of their own. This isn't 1780 anymore where the military is using bayonets.

This flawed logic that guns protect against the tyrannical government is silly when most US citizens crap their pants at the thought of a terrorist attack. Honestly, how many of them are brave enough to stand against the US government?

[Electro Rock]

exactly ones who have been trained to serve the GOVERNMENT! Not likely most of them are going to flip

[Kryten]

http://youtu.be/K13HdTsW_E0

I particularly enjoyed last night's show where Jon points out that yes, while there are literally thousands of current laws regulating guns in the US, the enforcement of these laws have been curbed by politicians working directly with the NRA.

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip845603

[RUPERTKBD]

WHAT!?!? Its far less likely but carries FAR FAR greater risk. You think whats happening in North-Korea isn't as bad as Sandy Hook?  Some really dumb posts on CDC today.

[Richard Parker]

There's quite a bit of answering to be done there.. to try and keep it short:

A number of the US population realise that country was founded upon revolution. Mistrust for government is part of American nature, even though Americans can be seen treating politicians like CDC treats their favourite hockey players (or Obama) or most hated like Tim Thomas (or ex candidate Mitt Romney).

Assault rifles were banned in the 90s until about a decade ago, the provision sunset just following the release of studies that showed there was no significance to any correlation between assault rifle bans and gun murder rates, nor mass shootings. Thus, an extension of the ban was not necessary.

These forums represent American politics well because it's either you're labelled for one extreme or the other. Information is often cherry picked which is pretty common for debates due to the inherent subjective nature of opinions and the will to find opinions (and thus studies) that agree with an already existing premise.

Logic dictates one shouldn't overreact to bad circumstances, especially given US history and warnings from their founding fathers, and while here in Canada we are more than willing to hand over freedoms to government, in the US they are rather reluctant most times. Given the American nature of preserving individual rights, pressure to concede them, even if by a smallest of fractions, can easily be met with fierce resistance. Personally, I see these occasional mass shootings as an event that is not frequent enough to warrant any significant changes to the second amendment, and I find it only out of convenience and knee-jerk outrage that assault weapons get targeted despite how infrequently they are used for gun murders compared to the rest that happen in the US. Obviously I'm a sceptic toward people who are out to blame guns for those who commit murder because it's too blatantly an axe to grind. Preserving rights is tough following tragedy, it's easy to get emotional and jump on the bandwagon to want to hang something or someone. Following 9/11 a number of Americans shockingly said they'd give up some freedom for "security" -- a significant amount of the population there believe their own freedom is security, particularly the freedom to defend themselves.

I don't know where you're seeing "mericans" or whatever, but antagonistic trolling and bullying is a common theme here (it was humorous how often a few posters would gang up on me to try and push me off the forums before their posts were laid to rest on ignore) -- even some of the most revered posters as "intelligent" tend to get caught both looking down their noses at other posters, or simply Americans in general -- their problem I guess. I've had to utilise the ignore function for the aforementioned forum bullies, or those who simply contribute nothing worth reading to discussion. Like I said, it's a very polarised place that sees little grey area when it comes to politics, and in areas where American society doesn't want to make any compromises to their rights, here in Canada we have a hard time comprehending it (hence the many "but why do you need an assault rifle??" responses). BC also tends to lean heavily leftist, even to Ontarians like myself, so that also has a part to play.

[Wetcoaster]

http://youtu.be/K13HdTsW_E0

I particularly enjoyed last night's show where Jon points out that yes, while there are literally thousands of current laws regulating guns in the US, the enforcement of these laws have been curbed by politicians working directly with the NRA.

http://watch.thecome....ca/#clip845603

[MANGO]

Well one good thing about these new laws. It has dawned on them that less bulits means less death. Now the next step.....less triggers.

[Electro Rock]

The leftist useful idiots have had decades to indoctrinate supporters though their taking over of the education system, corporate media and many other institutions (see the concept of "active measures"), ultimately bringing the legitimacy of any such elected officials into question.

[Bertuzzi Babe]

The leftist useful idiots have had decades to indoctrinate supporters though their taking over of the education system, corporate media and many other institutions (see the concept of "active measures"), ultimately bringing the legitimacy of any such elected officials into question.

[canucks since 77]

I'm so glad I'm Canadian, that's all I can say.

Our freedom isn't measured by what types of weapons we're allowed to own.

I can't even imagine a world where fighting over the right to own a weapon is even a big deal. I guess we just don't have fantasies of taking up arms against our government like some Americans seem to.

[Wetcoaster]

Here is a transcript of the Daily Show video link from above:

Following a series of terrible gun tragedies in this country, and let's call it 30 years of urban warfare, America is in the midst of a serous conversation about guns. The NRA's been very clear that it would meet any attempt to put limits on gun ownership with a great deal of resistance, and they're sparing no expense in getting the message out.

NRA AD: Are the President's kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zKLA3BODXr0

And why does he get to veto bills and command an army when we don't? All right, so the conversation has started, and we're off to a deplorable start.

I swear to you, if I didn't know any better, and I'm not a big conspiracy guy, after seeing that ad, I would think the NRA is either an elaborate avant-garde Joaquin Phoenix-style joke, or a false flag operation run by Michael Moore in an attempt to discredit responsible gun owners.

But anyway, your response, Mr. President.

BARACK OBAMA (1/16/2013): I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. ... I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.

Huh. All right, interesting open on his part. I thought he was going to go with, "If you bring up my kids again, I will drone strike your crap to Kingdom Come." But I understand.

But anyhow, at that conference today at the White House, the President unveiled legislative proposals and 23 executive actions to begin to address gun violence, including recommendations to limit magazine size, restrict assault weapons — that's going to happen through Congress if it happens at all — expand background checks, and oddly enough, also provide money for increased school security, which had originally been suggested by that really charming ad. Um, so how did his recommendations go down with the pro-gun crowd?

JERRY HENRY, GEORGIA CARRY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (1/16/2013): All the things that he pointed out will only affect law-abiding citizens who already abide by the law. ... We've got over 20,000 gun laws on the books. We need to enforce those gun laws.

You know, that is... OK, that's true, that thing he said was true. That happens to be entirely accurate. I think we have like 20,000 on the books, we need to enforce those. But lest mayors and governors and local police try and take that enforcement job on themselves, slow down. There's no need. As former Kansas congressman Todd Tiahrt pointed out, in a conversation that he had about why mayors should not be actively trying to trace where illegal guns were coming from.

EX-REP. TODD TIAHRT, R-KS (7/11/2007): And when crimes are committed, or when there's a dealer selling guns illegally, we have an organization that goes after them, 24/7, every day. It's called the ATF, and they have officers completely assigned to do this.

The ATF! The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms! It's an actual government agency, not just a traditional Southern wedding gift.

(audience laughter and applause)

Depends on where you're registered. Although when you get those, they don't have to be registered. That's the beauty.

I'd like the ATF's director to explain to us law-abiding citizens, if you're out there 24/7, why is this country ass-deep in illegal guns?

NEW YORK CITY MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (12/18/2012): We have not had a director of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire for six years.

Oh sure! I'm supposed to believe Captain Can't Have Sugary Drinks! I don't trust information from anyone who can't handle more than 16 ounces of high fructose carbonated ambrosia.

PETER JOHNSON, JR. (8/1/2012): We don't have a permanent director.

BOB CUSACK, THE HILL MANAGING EDITOR (1/16/2013): They haven't had a permanent director of that gun agency in six years.

Oh my God, there really is no ATF director! If I heard it on Fox, it must be true!

So there's no director of the ATF. So is the ATF like a Montessori agency, where there's no director, but agents are just encouraged to be curious, and regulate weapons at their own pace?

JOHN AVLON, CNN (12/19/2012): The current acting director commutes from Minnesota. He's the U.S. Attorney from Minnesota as well as Acting Director of the ATF.

What?!?

You're telling me this dude, the guy who is the Acting Director of the ATF, has another full-time job. That regulating alcohol, and tobacco, and firearms, is his side gig? He's just moonlighting, pickin' up a little extra dough.

Why?? There's 7.8% unemployment in this country, we could find someone to take that job who doesn't already have another job!

RACHEL MADDOW (6/20/2011): The Senate won't confirm anybody to the full-time job.

The Senate won't confirm anybody? Well, who gives a crap? It's the director of the ATF, it's not a Cabinet-level position or a Supreme Court justice. Why is it the Senate's business to even confirm.... (listens to earpiece)

I'm being told the Senate has to confirm the ATF director, because apparently Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner, for some reason, inserted that provision into the PATRIOT Act in 2006. Sorry, I don't have footage of that, it was apparently done on the Q.T. I do have footage of Sensenbrenner from that very same year accepting the NRA's coveted Defender of Freedom award.

(audience groans in disgust)

Coincidence!! Unrelated action.

But you know, I mean, OK, they don't have a director, they still have ATF agents.

FORMER ATF AGENT JAMES CAVANAUGH (6/14/2011): In 1972, and I went on ATF in the '70s, there was 2,500 agents. And there's still 2,500 agents, 39 years later.

Not the same ones, though, right?

So policing over 100,000 gun dealers in this country, with just a couple of thousand agents, who are also responsible for tobacco and alcohol may seem impossible, but here's the good news. 18 years ago, a professor analyzed ATF tracing data, and found that 57% of guns used in crimes — the illegal guns — could be traced back to just 1% of licensed gun dealers. All the ATF has to do is create some sort of federal registry of these transactions, trace them back to the bad dealers, and those dealers — the dealers ruining it for the law-abiding gun dealer and citizen, flooding cities with illegal guns — they can be stopped!

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL (12/27/2012): According to today's New York Times, the Bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions.

What the frack are you doing?? Why?? That makes no sense!! Was it getting too easy to police illegal guns? "Hey, what if we do it with our arms like this?" (motion of arms being tied behind back)

Are there any other somewhat comical limits on federal law enforcement's ability to enforce federal law? (sound of letter arriving via pneumatic tube)

I'm sorry, I normally get that through my ear, but I guess the old pneumatic tube system didn't realize the question was rhetorical. But I'll bite, let's see what we got here. All right, hold on.

(reads message) Oh! Apparently, the ATF isn't allowed to inspect dealers for inventory discrepancies more than once a year. And in reality, get to inspect them once every 17 years. 17 years! I'm assuming that's because the ATF doesn't have enough agents, and not that the ATF agents are cicadas. (audience laughter) Let that insect joke just wash over ya.

Well, I guess self-reported inventories from dealers are better than nothing.

Oh my God! Why, it's Gunther, my messenger pigeon!

(reads message) Oh, I see, we can't rely on self-reported inventories either, because the ATF cannot require dealers to keep track of their own inventory!

You see, about 10 years ago, a Congressman stuck an amendment into a federal spending bill that severely restricted the ATF's ability to do what the NRA says they want them to do, which is enforce existing gun laws! It allowed dealers to ignore police requests for assistance. It denied Congress formerly public crime gun data. It ended the oversight of used firearm sales. It required the destruction of background check records within 24 hours, you know, to make sure no mistakes could be corrected!

Who did this? What Congressman jammed this amendment into an unrelated spending bill, completely castrating the ATF's ability to enforce existing gun laws?

PETER JOHNSON, JR. (7/19/2011): It was the amendment named with your name, Tiahrt.

EX-REP. TODD TIAHRT (7/11/2007): The Tiahrt Amendment is to protect those who protect us.

Holy crap!! Tiahrt!! You're the guy from five minutes ago who was saying, "Slow down, states and municipalities, the ATF's got the enforcement game.

Let the ATF handle it." And then you cut their balls! You have broken my... ti-heart.

That amendment couldn't be worse if the NRA wrote it themselves. (sound of letter arriving via pneumatic tube) Oh boy.

Noooo!!! Gunther, why??? Why would you be in the tube?? You're never supposed to cross antiquated message delivery systems like this!

(reads message) The NRA did write that law.

Well, it's not like the ATF has been completely de-balled. Thanks to the First Amendment, they still do have a YouTube channel that they use to warmly encourage gun dealers to act responsibly.

ATF AGENT PATRICK HOOVER: Although conducting a firearms inventory is not required by federal law, ATF suggests that you conduct a complete firearms inventory at least once a year.

ATF ATTORNEY ERIKA RITT: If you observe a buyer who appears to be under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and it appears their judgment may be impaired, you may want to deny the sale. Not because it would be a violation of the Gun Control Act to complete the sale... but because that person's judgment is likely impaired.

(shocked audience laughter)

"But obviously it's up to you. It's not our job at the ATF to tell you, you can't sell guns to drunk people. I will say this, though, to the gun dealers. You can sell the gun to the drunk people, but if those motherfrackers try and get in a car and drive home, you take them down!"

We'll be right back.

http://www.dailykos....urrent-gun-laws