Surprise: Obama Pushes the Same Gun Controls He Has Always Supported

As expected, the three major policy changes that President Obama recommended today, ostensibly in response to the Sandy Hook massacre, were a renewed (and broader) federal ban on "assault weapons," a 10-round limit on magazine capacity, and background checks for all transfers of firearms, except those between relatives. Obama supported these policies before the Sandy Hook massacre, he supported them immediately afterward, and now, after a three-week fact-finding charade overseen by his vice president, he still supports them. The unanswered question, as I said this morning, is why anyone else should.

Reflecting the president's magical thinking about gun control, The New York Times claims that renewing the limit on magazine size that expired in 2004 (a subject I discuss in my column today) "would eliminate the 30-round magazines that were used in Newtown as well as other mass shootings at Virginia Tech, a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and a congresswoman’s public event in Tucson, Ariz." No, it wouldn't, unless the government somehow manages to confiscate all of the "large-capacity" magazines already in circulation. Under the earlier law, something like 30 million pre-ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds were still available, and that number surely is much larger by now. The government will also have to stop would-be mass murderers from making their own magazines, which is not that hard to do (especially if magazine replacement parts remain legal) and is only getting easier, thanks to 3D printers

Likewise, barring mass confiscation, a new "assault weapon" ban won't eliminate whatever guns fall into that arbitrarily defined category. Even if it did, it would not matter, since killers would have plenty of equally lethal alternatives. Background checks could not, even theoretically, stop most mass shootings, which typically are perpetrated by people who do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Those who do can always avoid background checks by obtaining guns through others means (as Adam Lanza did, by using his mother's legally purchased firearms). Speaking of which, how will the government make sure that every nonfamily transfer of firearms involves a background check unless it keeps track of who has what guns at any given moment? A national registry of guns (and magazines?) would be necessary to enforce such a requirement. Which, come to think of it, would make mass confiscation much easier if gun controllers ever decide to get serious.

You can read Obama's policy proposals here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sloopyinca||

    Piss on this turd.

    That is all.

  • nicole||

    But, but, the president has a painting in his private study by a dead child!!! He really, really cares!

  • Hugh Akston||

    That's just temporary until he can get one of the actual bodies stuffed and mounted for the Red Room.

  • ||

    Lolz

  • SugarFree||

    Hopefully one that's snarling and posed to pounce.

  • sloopyinca||

    I hate this man with every fiber of my being. I mean that. He really thinks using props of dead and living kids is ethical.

    I hope he suffers a Chavez-like fate soon, because his liberty-stripping ways and his immorality call for it. He's a fucking scumbag.

  • Hyperion||

    His press sec, Opie Cunningham, has already said that using kids as props for political purposes, is unethical, for everyone except for his master. For his master, it's ok.

  • sloopyinca||

    I can't wait for a Pro-Life president to dump buckets of dead fetuses in front of his podium while calling for more abortion restrictions. I wonder how it would go over with the media talking heads.

  • John||

    Or just surround himself with kids who had survived abortions. Such kids do exist. Can you imagine the whining that would cause?

  • ||

    I can't wait for a Pro-Life president to dump buckets of dead fetuses in front of his podium while calling for more abortion restrictions.

    Right sloopy. I can say with total certainty that any future Presidential candidate will not have those views or/nor say them publicly.

    You wouldn't want to run afoul of ObamneyCare, would you?

  • wingnutx||

    Fetus launched from a giant slingshot.

    Right in the fucking face.

  • Killazontherun||

    Can't blame the sentiment. The man has done much to earn it. However, given the Abyss is most often a reflecting pool, my wish is that much like Joffrey in the game of thrones, Obama realizes the error of his ways, and being truly repentant, takes up the black to spend his remaining years walking the wall. But this being this world, yours is the more pragmatic course.

  • Bobarian||

    That sounds like a false flag spoiler you're touting there.

    Unless HBO is taking over the reins by having Larry David write the rest of GoT

  • Killazontherun||

    You could have just written ';) . . . tee hee hee', but NOOOO.

  • Bobarian||

    I thought about calling you an evil bastard, but Martin is so slow in writing anything that it could end up being true.

  • sloopyinca||

    That idea is fucking awesome, actually. But only if Joffrey is the GoT character personified by David's Curb character.

  • Bam!||

    "I hope he suffers a Chavez-like fate soon"

    Obama is a smoker.

  • sloopyinca||

    ...when he can't score some blow.

  • mr simple||

    Maybe someone should encourage him to take a healthy regimen of vitamin A.

  • wingnutx||

    Mail him a steady supply of smokes.

  • Sidd Finch||

    LOL

    C'MON MAN ‏@999Bulldogs999

    @PressSec does he also have a picture of ambassador Chris Stevens hanging in his private study?

  • Rich||

    Only if the ambassador "loved pink".

    Has Obama no shame at all?

  • Hyperion||

    Has Obama no shame at all?

    NO

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What a sick fuck.

    A person of integrity and class would graciously accept the gift and not pimp out its existence for political gain.

    Sure, if a person visited his "private" study and inquired about the painting, he could tell the story. But having your press secretary announce the fact to world is tasteless and proves Obama is completely devoid of anything resembling a conscious.

    The man meets all clinical definitions of a sociopath. Obama is incapable of feeling empathy, shame, or compassion.

    Furthermore, he is a narcissist whose personal interactions are only guided by his calculations of whom can he use to achieve his goals.

    As the quasi-bastard love child of a 3rd world kleptocratic goon, he doesn't even possess a modicum of class, which would belie an upbringing where he was never taught how a gentleman properly conducts himself in public.

    He is an utterly vile piece of human detritus.

  • An0nB0t||

    What was it that the always quotable Sowell said about him? Only a person who has never run anything could possibly believe that he can run everything?

    Whatever. I just want to live long enough to see him get smashed in the face with a cream pie, Horowitz style.

  • ||

    I'm getting seriously, seriously tired of all this bullshit. None of this shit will pass. Congresspersons want to, you know, get re-elected and shit. This has all been done before and expired, and did Jack and shit, and Jack left town. This is just the scumfuck Obama stroking off his base for a while before he lets this die.

    You're not getting anything, gun grabbers, so fuck off and die already.

  • Paul.||

    I'm getting seriously, seriously tired of all this bullshit. None of this shit will pass.

    You keep saying that, we keep hoping you're right. Hope is fading. Hope is fading.

  • ||

    Exhibit A: ObamneyCare.

    The USA will be The United States of Europe soon enough. Or The United Kingdom of America. Depends on what mood His Pestilency is in.

    The MO is exactly the same, and who, who pray tell can resist the emotional appeal of doe-eyed children looking at His Pestilency with admiration and affection?

    Substitute "guns laws to keep us safe" for "nebulizers and inhalers for my asthma" and pass, this stuff will, in some form.

  • Paul.||

    Romney 2016! This time we're serious!

  • Drake||

    No way does legislation make it out of the House. The Republicans are retarded but not even they know that is suicide. Their constituents have already read them the riot act.

    Obama may have just killed the DNC in the midwest and mountain states.

  • robc||

    The House GOP should sit on it and make the Senate go first.

    If the Senate actually manages to pass it, the House GOP should bring it to a vote to get Democrats on record.

    Of course, they are stupid and wont do that and would probably accidentally pass it if they did.

  • ||

    Just like ObamneyCare funding, robc?

    Quothe The Boehner: "ObamaCare is the law of the land."

    They are feckless and they know it. As long as even many responsible, law abiding gun owners believe that some people should not own guns, the full court press will continue unabated.

  • Raven Nation||

    He probably sees this as a win/win: if it gets passed then he is the POTUS who "saved children's lives." If it doesn't pass, he gets to demonize the Rs again and when the next shooting happens, he'll hang it around their neck.

  • Drake||

    If Republicans had brains and friendly press (they have neither), they would hang it on him every time a gun is used for self-defense.

  • An0nB0t||

    They're not getting friendly press from that side of the aisle no matter what they do. Might as well give Obama a big fuck you and keep their constituents (me, in particular) happy.

  • geekster||

    As if that ever happens gets reported.

  • R C Dean||

    No way does legislation make it out of the House.

    After the House voted out the pork-laden $50BB Sandy bailout bill, without any offsets, pay-fors, or any damn thing else, I am no longer willing to bet that anything won't make it out of the House.

  • Paul.||

    Children are dead. Something must be done.

    God it sounds cliche but yet, works every time.

    I say again to anyone who's listening: Never underestimate the value of political theater in the aquisition of power.

  • sloopyinca||

    thanks to 3D printers.

    I'm going OT here, but I heard recently on the radio that 3D printers can currently print 70% of the components to build a 3D printer and that should be at 100% within 2 years.

    Is this the beginning of replicator technology, or do we have to get the printing tech down to subatomic levels?

  • Hugh Akston||

    We'll call it a breakthrough when you can print a Twinkie.

  • Coeus||

    Tell him about the Twinkie.

  • ||

    For a replicator you would need atomic level at least. It's kind of hard to print things that require specific chemical reactions to produce unless you are atomic or subatomic.

  • sloopyinca||

    According to the NPR story, they are nearly at the micron level and will be at 1/10 of than within a few more years.

    It's a shame that mankind is trying to advance by leaps and bounds while governments are doing everything in their power to destroy every single form of liberty we have left.

  • Rich||

    Yep. Gotta let the science news cheer you a bit.

  • SugarFree||

    You maniacs won't be satisfied until all the matter in the universe is made into idle 3D printers.

  • sloopyinca||

    I, for one, welcome our printer-made overlords.

  • SugarFree||

    "For the Printer is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sintering Module"

  • Hyperion||

    Well, you can't exactly be a very good thieving oligarch if the people have lots of power, now can you?

  • AlmightyJB||

    "For a replicator you would need atomic level at least"

    Than I can print an army of me's.

  • ||

    Ron Bailey is intrigued and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • SIV||

    3D printers are a really sucky way to make a really sucky magazine.
    I can see magazine housings but they are a long way from making good springs

  • Drake||

    Here you go. A 3D printer and one of these and you can make your own guns and mags.

    http://www.sherline.com/8540pg.htm

  • ||

    Considering the gargantuan demand I think we'll get there very soon.

  • Trespassers W||

    I swear, if they ban high-capacity magazines, I will figure out how to print them myself.

    Note that in any case you don't have to print the damn springs. Springs aren't illegal. Yet.

    And, by the way, is there anything stopping me from designing a magazine and rather than printing it at home, having Shapeways or somebody print it for me, in some better material with better precision?

  • Hyperion||

    Springs aren't illegal. Yet

    But the printers will be, if our political class have their way. They are well on their way to making everything illegal as it is, so they can just selectively enforce it on whoever they don't like.

  • dave b.||

    I haven't the slightest idea why there is such a fascination over 3D printed parts when you can buy a real lathe and a real CNC machine and make the real thing for not too much more. I don't see the feds rushing to outlaw CNC machines, lathes, and mills just yet.

  • Trespassers W||

    Nothing against lathes and CNC machines, but I think you need actual skill with your hands to make something with those. With a 3D printer, you can more directly turn thought into reality. You don't have to go to shop class--you can just be an ``inside kid'' like me.

  • dave b.||

    Just take one of the tens of billions of CAD plans out there and use an off-the-shelf program to convert it to g-code to run the CNC. Not completely idiot-proof but you might learn something along the way.

  • Trespassers W||

    OK, I guess I didn't know enough about CNC machines. That's reasonable. Still, aren't they at least an order of magnitude ($50-100k) more expensive than 3D printers ($1-2k), even for a used CNC machine? Or are there cheap low-end models that are somehow comparable?

    Serious question. I don't know where I'd keep it, though.

  • Trespassers W||

    Also, can you make your own stuff out of titanium? Stainless? Plastic? Ceramic?

    If you have a 3D printer, you can design something, have it print a plastic prototype, refine until it's what you want, and then send the design files to somewhere that can make it out of whatever you want.

  • Bam!||

    "I swear, if they ban high-capacity magazines, I will figure out how to print them myself."

    Don't call it a magazine: Call it a paper weight. It doesn't have a spring, so how can it be used in a weapon?

    And then buy your own novelty springs that by odd coincidence is the exact size for the magazine.

  • Trespassers W||

    Now that I'm thinking about it, I'd buy a smaller-capacity magazine, do a 3D scan of it, edit the design to increase capacity (just repeat a bit of it, right?), outsource the printing of the design, and then move the internal bits (spring, follower, whatever) from the small magazine to the newly-created larger magazine.

    Sounds like a good science fair project.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Used to work in HVAC and we had our own sheetmetal shop to make ductwork. Not an expert at it but I helped out in the shop enough to know that magazines would be really easy to reproduce.

    Also, SIV thanks for the Knoxville area tips. Looks exactly like the kind of areas we're looking for.

  • Hyperion||

    I would move there if there were any of those jerbz things.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You too can get rich making 30 round mags at home. Also, haven't you ever seen moonshiners?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Springs and followers I think would be fairly easy to produce as well.

    I don't think it will be too big of an issue because they will still have millions of them available just like last time. The important thing to the politicians is that the public "thinks" they did something. Most people actually thought the last assault weapon ban banned assault weapons.

  • ||

    sooo...

    Where are the executive orders everyone was talking about?

  • nicole||

    ZeroHedge says this is the list of "executive actions." Drudge has more links to some stories that expand on them.

  • Rich||

    Thanks, nicole, I'll check Drudge.

    To whom it may concern: A list of sentence fragments -- especially a list provided by the White House -- is *not* nearly enough information.

    The "most transparent administration in history" makes it as difficult as possible to find out what they're up to.

  • mr simple||

    Wow, thanks for doing the reporting reason should have done.

    5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

    9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

    13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

    These will never be abused, no way. Just like his executive order power.

  • sloopyinca||

    9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

    So what happens when a bunch of them are traced back to the ATF and DOJ straw purchasers?

  • mr simple||

    They fire and/or prosecute some low level flunkie?

  • sloopyinca||

    Not with the e-mail and paper trail. No, they'll probably just continue with their current policy of reassigning people to places where they cannot testify before congress and to other branches of the DOJ that are not under investigation. It's worked so far.

  • Rich||

    Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

    Excellent example for my 1:30 point. For all we know, this is a declaration of martial law.

  • mr simple||

    They only com out if congress doesn't "Do It's Job"®.

  • ||

    Obama got republicans to raise taxes...would not surprise me if he gets them to outlaw guns.

    I think it is now tiME to go back to my default position about the republicans that i had in 2010.

    Worst opposition party ever!!!

  • Gray Ghost||

    Our local paper has linked to a release from the O Admin. Among other things, they're yammering on again about armor-piercing ammo. It didn't work when Teddy Kennedy tried it, but maybe the time's different now?

  • steve walsh||

    This concludes our National Conversation On Guns®, we will now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

  • derpules||

    steve walsh| 1.16.13 @ 1:22PM |#

    This concludes our National Conversation On Guns®, we will now return to our regularly scheduled programming bullshit.

    FTFY

  • steve walsh||

    Yes, yes, although that was implied because it is the best definition of "our regularly scheduled programming"! :)

  • John||

    America's biggest douche bag Jay Carney today talking response to the NRA "Obama is an elitist hypocrite ad".

    “Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," Carney said. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”

    This from the spokesman for an administration that is surrounding the President with kids as political props when he goes full retard on gun control today. But remember "children should be be used as pawns in a political fight"

    He actually said that with a straight face. If there is a bigger bold faced lying sack of shit in the world than Carney, it will be news to me.

  • ||

    His job is literally to be a lying scumbag propagandist. What did you expect?

  • John||

    But this is bad even for a press secretary. This clown makes Robert Gibbs and whoever that one guy who was Bush's secretary look like honest brokers. Carney is the worst I have ever seen. He hits a new low every single day.

  • mr simple||

    Ari Fleischer or Scott McClellan?

  • John||

    Worse than both. And that is really saying something.

  • mr simple||

    I agree, They weren't overtly arrogant and abusive about their lies.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    Thatn's why you never trust carney folk.

  • sloopyinca||

    And not a single member from the press asked a follow-up question.

    I'll give Carney credit: he's doing his job. The same cannot be said of the media.

  • An0nB0t||

    If the past month of naked propaganda is any indication, your understanding of their job and their understanding of their job are considerably different.

  • sloopyinca||

    I honestly think it's been that way since at least 9/11/2001.

  • Drake||

    So President's children not pawns, Newtown children pawns.

    Got it.

  • mr simple||

    Right, that's why it's good for them to go to private school, but not poor kids, and they get protection, but not pawn kids.

  • AZ||

    No, he said the "president's children" shouldn't be used like that.
    All other children, not of royal lineage, are fair game for politicking. Especially dead ones.

  • T o n y||

    You're the one being obtuse John. Obama's children get secret service protection because they are at high risk of kidnapping or murder because their father is the president. Presidents' children are generally considered to be politically off-limits. That doesn't mean politicians can't use children as political props. That's pretty much a tradition as old as politics itself.

  • John||

    No child of a President has ever been murdered or kidnapped. There is no indication that are in any danger. In contrast, children in places like Chicago and other liberal run crime infested hell holes are murdered every day. They really are in danger.

    And look, if the President's children have to die to make a point about gun control and to save some children, i would think they would be happy to offer themselves to the collective good. Right Tony?

  • sloopyinca||

    Fair enough. Then every other pol or pundit that is calling for gun control that also has kids enrolled at Sidwell Friends should have this asked of them in their next public appearance. After all, they have armed security aside from the Secret Service detail.

  • Sidd Finch||

    That doesn't mean politicians can't use children as political props. That's pretty much a tradition as old as politics itself.

    That's probably why I didn't hear a million times about Jenna using a fake ID or Reagan's fruitcake son.

  • ant1sthenes||

    So kids in general aren't at any significant risk due to gun violence? What the fuck is he on about, then?

  • Teaching Student||

    You misunderstood, Carney said "HIS children should not be used in a political fight." Using other children especially dead ones is perfectly acceptable.

  • Mesteve||

    This is a pretty typical tactic used today. Focus on talking about the politics of the issue rather than the issue itself. Keep 'em distracted long enough.

  • Coeus||

    The hip new lefty thing is blatantly lying about the NRA add.

    Not only have they release a new game using human targets for practice, which is classy after the massacre of babies in Newtown, now they’ve gone after the First Daughters, Sasha and Malia Obama.

    Two lies in the same sentence. Nice.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Background checks for all transfers of firearms, except those between relatives."

    HTF is he gonna enforce that?

  • sloopyinca||

    Eliminate gun shows.

    Make it a felony to not sell through a FFL dealer.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So I guess if you sell your gun, you have to sell it to an authorized dealer?

    Actually, the gun shops might get behind that. That's the tried and true way to garner support from a reluctant industry...entice them with rent seeking!

    It worked for ObamaCare, and why wouldn't gun dealers want to eliminate the person to person competition?

  • sloopyinca||

    You don't have to sell it to a FFL dealer, you will merely have to sell it through one. It's done all the time when guns are bought in a state but want them shipped to another one. If I bought a gun in an AZ gun show, they would ship it to a CA FFL dealer and I could pick it up 10 days after they received it.

    Of course, I'm not going to do that because it also has to go through CA's registration process.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    In my experience, gun shops only reluctantly do transfers because they have to. They'd much rather sell a gun than take the time to do a transfer. They get very little for their effort.

  • Ted S.||

    It's not a sale. It's a barter. Your gun for my pieces of paper.

  • sloopyinca||

    The IRS would disagree with you, Ted. So would your state's dept of taxation.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Does this apply to lending someone else a gun?

    Do you have to get a background check before you rent a gun at a duck hunting preserve?

    Obama's a jackass. He'd like to do background checks on us all.

  • John||

    HTF is he gonna enforce that?

    Selectively that is how. He wants nothing more than laws that he knows that will be ignored allowing him to prosecute people for political reasons.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It should be noted, this Sandy Hook kook got his weapon from his mother, right?

    Which mass murder would have been prevented if by this requirement?

  • John||

    None. But that is a feature not a bug.

  • An0nB0t||

    He's not, as by now he knows there's not a snowball's chance that it will pass. Just another opportunity for demagoguery and feeding of the massive ego.

    My dream scenario is to have Ryan lead a successful coup against Boehner, then spend the next four years marshaling his pissy brethren in saying no to everything that Obama puts on his desk. If the lefty media isn't even going to try to be critical of this fascist, might as well stymie his rule and enjoy the ride.

  • Rich||

    except those between relatives

    Look on the bright side, Ken.

    Given gay marriage and "we're all in this together", I figure everybody is legally related at this point.

  • mr lizard||

    Hmmmmm I see a temp marriage/annulment industry in the making. Although does this mean I have to consummate with Warty in order to buy a handgun?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    So, Ruger LC9 9mm for the wife's concealed carry or no?

  • ||

    No. Go with the super redhawk Alaskan. Nothing on this continent would survive.

  • Drake||

    Make sure it's loaded with full-power 454 Casull's.

  • R C Dean||

    If she likes the way it fits her hand, sure, why not?

  • sloopyinca||

    RC, I asked this of you this AM on the brickbat thread, but you never showed:

    As I understand it, the parents of any kid with mental or physical health issues or a record with DPS can request a hearing before any of their kid's schoolwork or information can be shared with an outside agency, including the police, unless they have a warrant. The school giving anything to the police violates those kids' rights by statute and should result in criminal prosecution of the school administrators.

    Now, I heard that on a Yahoo article I read on this, but it was in the article by a civil rights lawyer from Boston and he was pretty confident in his assessment. Is RC Dean on here to set the record straight?

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Ruger LC9 9mm for the wife's concealed carry or no?"

    You ought to take her to a range and let her load and shoot various designs and see what she feels comfertable with. A lot of women do weel with Glocks but some people don't like the grip angle. It's really what she likes best and what size she will be comfortable carrying on her. Rugers are good guns though in my experience shooting them.

  • Gray Ghost||

    You ought to take her to a range and let her load and shoot various designs and see what she feels comfortable with.

    This, with bells on it. I wouldn't have thought of the Kahr 380 for her, but that's what fit her and what she liked to shoot.

  • T o n y||

    Well the NRA certainly isn't doing gun proliferation proponents any favors. What's happened to the right lately? They used to be good at politics, if nothing else. "Sasha and Malia get armed guards. Are they better than your kids?" WTAF?

    They better be careful or people might start thinking they're a bunch of stupid gun nuts with no grasp on reality or something.

  • John||

    Yes Tony. Sidwell Friends should just be declared a gun free zone. If banning guns is good enough for everyone else why is it not good enough for them?

    Why are they entitled to armed protection but no one else is? Moreover, if armed protection is not the answer to any of this, why would they miss such protection if they lost it?

  • T o n y||

    They are entitled to armed protection because they are the fucking president's kids and they have a uniquely high risk of danger. And they have secret service agents protecting them, not rent-a-cops or janitors with weekend gun training.

    Placing secret service–level armed protection around every child is certainly a solution, it's just a patently ridiculous one.

    The NRA's job is to sell guns and gun accessories, John. Nothing they ever say will contradict that mission. It's best to keep these things in mind so we don't start sounding like total fucking morons defending the NRA's every wackadoodle utterance.

  • John||

    They are entitled to armed protection because they are the fucking president's kids and they have a uniquely high risk of danger.
    Citation please? No child of a President has ever been harmed. That is a complete myth. Terrorists and our country's enemies have no interest in politician's children. Children of politicians in places like Norther Ireland have never been threatened or harmed. It just never happens.

    Try again. And once more, other kids are in danger. Kids in places like Chicago are murdered routinely. Why shouldn't they get protection?

    I know, because their lives don't count to people like you.

  • mr simple||

    Yes, it's not like their heirs to the throne or anything, which is why despots children are in danger.

  • John||

    Sick fucks like Tony would like them to be. So there is that.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    They are entitled to armed protection because they are the fucking president's kids and they have a uniquely high risk of danger.

    Are they somehow less bullet-resistant than any other person?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Go fuck a duck, Tony.

  • Coeus||

    Ken, this is why there are no mallard libertarians.

  • ||

    Did somebody take a piss in here?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    background checks for all transfers of firearms, except those between relatives.

    We're all illicit gun traffickers, now.

    Except Eric Holder.

  • ||

    The HIPAA executive order will have unintended consequences. Although, I dunno, maybe he intended to have a lot of vets with untreated PTSD running around.

    And I like the EO that says that the Obamacare act does not prohibit a doctor from asking if a patient has guns, when it actually does. I AM ABOVE THE LAW!*squeezes goo out of a tube marked SPOOGE, rubs it on head*

  • John||

    People like Tony and the rest of the President's supporters would literally have an orgasm if some vet suffering from PTSD went on a shooting spree. They want that to happen. So vets with PTSD not getting help is definitely an intended consequence.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The New York Times claims that renewing the limit on magazine size that expired in 2004 (a subject I discuss in my column today) "would eliminate the 30-round magazines that were used in Newtown as well as other mass shootings at Virginia Tech, a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and a congresswoman’s public event in Tucson, Ariz."

    Magic spell is magic.

    duh

  • John||

    It wasn't the person or the weapon that fired the round. It was the magazine.

  • sloopyinca||

    Any chance some crazy Japs will look at Debt Of Honor as an instruction manual?

  • Gray Ghost||

    The pissing match between Tom Clancy and Chris Buckley, after Buckley's review of said novel, was incredibly funny. Especially the part where Buckley chided Clancy for putting something so incredibly unrealistic as [SPOILER]

    an airliner intentionally steered into a building...

    As your link notes, Debt of Honor was written in 1994, BTW.

  • ||

    One really scary item on Obama's "executive action" list.

    There's a point about addressing "unnecessary legal barriers" in the Health Insurace Portability Act (HIPA) that "prevent states from making information available to the background check system".

    Presumably, what this refers to is ordering health insurers to provide information about patients mental health history to the federal background check system.

    What the fuck happened to medical privacy?

  • John||

    It has to go so sick demented fucks like Tony can feel good about themselves and stick it to the other.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    You know who else used the medical field to weed out the undesirables?

  • Rich||

  • mr simple||

    Margaret Sanger?

  • Ted S.||

    HG Wells?

  • mr lizard||

    Gotham City?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, I haven't heard to psychiatric community weigh in on this yet, but reporting to the government that you're a danger to yourself or others--just becasue you were depressed?

    That's gonna discourage a lot of depressed people from seeking care. Of course, I'm sure the psychiatric community can be bought off, too. Obviously, we need a government program to give depressed people a lot more access to care.

    And I bet their concerns about discouraging people from seeking care mostly evaporate once Obama starts stuffing their pockets with cash.

  • nicole||

    Obviously, we need a government program to give depressed people a lot more access to care.

    We already have that--the ACA.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's just for people who come to the doctors and say they need help--and it only pays, generally, if they're hospitalized.

    We're gonna need a program much bigger than that to deal with the problem...wink, wink.

  • ||

    What's particularly creepy is that it's not just about doctors reporting imminent threats to the police.

    It's about providing"information" to the background check system.

    Which means that youre mental health history is going into an ananymous database that all sorts of strangers have access to.

    The most private thing in your life - whether you've ever sought treatment for a mental health problem - is going to be accessible to anyone you try to buy a gun from.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And it will happen to no apparent effect.

    If you just want to talk about the number of people affected, how many people die every year at the hands of an insane shooter?

    Vs. how many people seek the help of a mental health professional because they think nobody's ever gonna know?

    And again, this regulation would not have prevented Sandy Hook. That kid took the gun from his mother. None of these regulations would have prevented Sandy Hook.

  • ||

    Yes, the 'executive actions" also include clarifying what mental health services are covered by Medicaid. So that would imply a government subsidy to the psychiatric community.

    And just to make sure they understand, they will "send a letter" "explaining" that they are "not prohibited" from sharing their patients mental health history with law enforcement.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It really is hard to keep someone locked up in a mental hospital now.

    I worked in a full lock down mental hospital in LA for a couple of years, and Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention the courts, were always putting pressure on us to discharge them.

    This is classic Obama. Just when the stigma of dealing with depression was breaking down on its own, he's gotta get the feds involved and put everyone in a database.

    Think of all those people who have been prescribed anti-depressants over the past 10 years. In the future, they'll all be in danger of losing their 2nd amendment rights.

    You know that special kind of stupid that hits guys so hard right after their girlfriend dumps them? They all say they feel like dying for a while--if they go get counseling, are they gonna end up on some government list?

    Will employers ever get access to that list? Will the FBI or TSA get to cross reference that list? I have no idea, but I know that if depressed people think seeking help is gonna get them on a federal list somewhere, that's gotta make it less likely that they'll seek treatment.

    And anything that discourages mentally ill people from seeking treatment has a big downside.

  • sloopyinca||

    I worked in a full lock down mental hospital in LA for a couple of years,

    "Worked," Ken? Sure thing.

    /I keed!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Some of the people who worked there probably should have been in rubber room.

  • ||

    Exactly. This isn't just doctors reporting crazy patients who they think are likely to go on a shooting spree. This is about putting people's private medical records in a public database.

    And FUCK, mental health issues are the thing that are the MOST personal, MOST private. This means if you ever try to buy a gun, the guy on the other side of the counter is going to know about your teenage suicide attempt.

  • ||

    Not to mention, you know, making background checks universal. Which means a lot more people will be accessing that database than before.

  • ||

    And FUCK, mental health issues are the thing that are the MOST personal, MOST private. This means if you ever try to buy a gun, the guy on the other side of the counter is going to know about your teenage suicide attempt.

    And here you were arguing for "gun insurance". Told ya so, Hazel.

  • Hyperion||

    They all say they feel like dying for a while--if they go get counseling, are they gonna end up on some government list?

    Yes, and they won't just be on there for a year, or 5 years, or 10, but forever. So, you lose someone close to you and the doctor prescribes valium to help you sleep for, say a month during the worst part of your grief, then you get on a list, forever, and just forfeit whatever rights they decide you don't need. And the specifics of how you got on the list, won't matter. No one will know, or care, you will just be on the list, that is all.

    Fuck this government, straight to hell. This country has quickly gone from the best and freest country on earth to what is rapidly becoming a totalitarian shithole.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The criteria "a danger to yourself or others" is usually used as the basis for involuntary hospitalization...but it can be stretched to mean saying you wish you could die.

    The PET teams have criteria, but you can fudge it. If somebody says they miss the girlfriend that dumped them so bad they want to die, does that mean he's a danger to himself?

    That decision will be made in the most liability limiting way possible by psychiatrists and counselors, too. There's no professional or civil liability associated with putting someone on a list--but there will be a lot of liability associated with not putting someone on the list.

  • GILMORE||

    ..."There's a point about addressing "unnecessary legal barriers" in the Health Insurace Portability Act (HIPA) that "prevent states from making information available to the background check system"...

    Oh, yes - medical privacy. Completely UNECESSARY!

    (*albeit a law that the Feds stuck the medical establishment with decades ago and cost BILLIONS in terms of compliance.... turns out now? WE NO NEEDS IT BECAUSE WE WANTS MORE OF SOMETHIN ELSE)

    Im sure there will be no 'unecessary legal' issues in the newer legislation! (*cue montage of people being jailed for having 10rd magazines which they'd bought to be *compliant for California*)

  • Hyperion||

    Oh, yes - medical privacy. Completely UNECESSARY!

    This could be taken all the way to the supreme court, where they will declare that medical privacy is irrelevant by way of penaltax. Issue solved.

  • ||

    What the fuck happened to medical privacy?

    You never really had it. Are you aware of how many people actually view your medical records every day?

    You would be quite flummoxed, Hazel. From where do you think actuarial data comes? The stork?

  • sloopyinca||

    Are you aware of how many people actually view your medical records every day?

    It's this easy to get a look at them.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    That's just temporary until he can get one of the actual bodies stuffed and mounted for the Red Room.

    Most excellent.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    addressing "unnecessary legal barriers"

    It worked on the Fourth Amendment.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

    IMO, this is the creepiest of the bunch. What business is my property to a doctor? When did doctors become stool pigeons for the Feds?

  • NoVAHockey||

    as noted above, the statute expressly prohibits it.

    the fun part ... Reid put that language in the bill.

  • NoVAHockey||

    it also prohibits insurance from factoring gun ownership into premium rate setting.

  • ||

    LOL.I hope they repeal that part actually. The more things they can very rates for the better.

  • Zeb||

    Doctors (well, some of them) want to be the managers of all risk factors in our lives. So they think that things like guns in the house, or whether or not you wear a seat belt are relevant to medicine.

  • ||

    I appreciate that, Zeb. You may be the last who has not othered me.

  • ||

    Also
    ... "Clarify that the ACA does not prohibit doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes"
    "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement officials"

    Yes. What the fuck happened to medical privacy again?

  • nicole||

    Basically, if I had to design a system to discourage people from seeking medical or other care, this would be it.

  • ||

    Yes, lets make sure that people are reluctant to tell their doctors about their mental health problems. What could go wrong?

  • Hyperion||

    It's not just that. People are going to be scared to go to doctors, period.

    Imagine walking into an office to seek treatment for a minor discomfort and being terrified that the person you are seeking help from you can have you locked up for basically, any reason that they want. Don't like your looks? Off to the psycho ward.

    These people are insane.

  • thom||

    This is a progressive wet dream. A world in which our lives are directed by experts who are fully empowered to punish us for behaving incorrectly...that's a lefty paradise!

  • mr simple||

    Think of the cost savings.

  • Hyperion||

    Exactly. How the hell does this not violate HIPAA?

    How can an executive order just wipe out an entire privacy law?

    Rand Paul is right, Obama thinks he is a monarch, not president.

  • SugarFree||

    Try using HIPAA to keep your piss from being drug tested.

  • ||

    I run a UA and screen on every patient upon whom I operate Saccharin Man. It is medically relevant to anaesthia, and patients, unfortunately, do lie.

  • ||

    What the "executive actions" amount to is to essentially gutting medical privacy laws if you have a mental health problem. Doctors will not only be permitted, but encouraged to ask you if you own guns and report you to the police if you have mental health issues. And health insurers may very well be required to report your mental health history to the federal background check system.

  • ||

    And like I said, all it will do is discourage gun people from going to shrinks.

  • nicole||

    Next problem for gun people and nongun people who care about privacy and the future of their rights: how to sever relationships with healthcare professionals without arousing suspicion as to why.

  • ||

    Easy. Only go to doctors when you need antibiotics or surgery. Fuck doctors. "Yup, your rib is broken, so try not to breathe. That'll be $150."

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^

  • nicole||

    Don't forget my annual BC permission slip! I can't wait until next week when the nice little lady doctor gets to ask me if anyone is abusing me at home!

  • SugarFree||

    if anyone is abusing me at home

    Well?

  • nicole||

    Honestly, the first time they asked that, I was so confused about what she even said that I think she got suspicious.

  • SugarFree||

    My wife has told me about this. Of course she says every doctor she sees asks her about domestic violence.

    Oddly, I've never been asked once.

    I've never been asked if I have guns in the house, either.

  • nicole||

    I was never asked until I moved to IL, but I have no idea if it's the state or my current dr. I'm not sure exactly why but it bugs me. I guess it feels like I'm being accused of something?

  • ||

    Find a new doctor. One that remembers that you're hiring him as a contractor and doesn't think he's a member of your fucking family or something.

  • nicole||

    I already planned to, because they just suck all around in terms of customer service. And I'm sure when I go off on my planned rant to them about that they will look at me like I'm a fucking Martian.

  • ||

    Oddly, I've never been asked once.

    That's because you're a man.
    The female annual exam (which you have to have to get a BC prescription), involves an invasive questionaire about your sex life.

  • nicole||

    The female annual exam (which you have to have to get a BC prescription), involves an invasive questionaire about your sex life.

    Perhaps you (the dudes here) will also be amused to know that every other year, this is almost all the exam involves. I'll also get weighed and have my BP checked, but that's all, because you only need the other stuff every two years now.

  • mr simple||

    I'll also get weighed

    Do they say anything like:

    "Yes, this one's coming along nicely. She'll soon be ready for market."

    -or-

    "I see you've been putting on some weight. Are you sure you need these pills?"

  • ||

    I'll also get weighed

    Also medically relevant to establish a baseline norm. Weight fluctuations are sign routinely used to formulate DX and marker of overall health.

  • ||

    The female annual exam (which you have to have to get a BC prescription), involves an invasive questionaire about your sex life.

    Which are all legitimate question WRT the complaint at hand, and also the insurance company (or any other third party payer), as well as the practitioner has every right to know as it is germane to the health concern at hand.

  • Bobarian||

    What if you abuse yourself?

  • ||

    So...you put out?

  • ||

    Oh yeah, the annual exam questionaire. Talk about invasive.

    Are you sexually active?

    Do you use drugs?

    Does your boyfriend beat you?

    What sexual positions do you like?

    Do you have anal sex?

  • ||

    You forgot the all important "how YOU doin'?"

  • ||

    What sexual positions do you like?

    Do you have anal sex?

    I can't tell if these are actual questions or the punchline to your joke.

  • SugarFree||

    "The only sex act I will perform is 'The Popcorn Burrito.'" And then I would fart on them during my pelvic.

  • ||

    Are you sexually active?

    Do you use drugs?

    Does your boyfriend beat you?

    What sexual positions do you like?

    Do you have anal sex?

    Which are all medically relevant and germane to the exam (if the BF is physically assaulting you, it is quite likely he is raping you as well).

  • Coeus||

    Do you have anal sex?

    That's relevant to the BC exam? What, do some people have cloacas now?

  • ||

    That's relevant to the BC exam? What, do some people have cloacas now?

    Relevant to the sexual health of the patient, meaning identifying risk factors to other areas of sexual health and lifestyle, therefore a part of the patient's health HX.

  • Hyperion||

    Don't go to doctors for antibiotics either. Order them from an out of country pharmacy.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Don't go to doctors for antibiotics either. Order them from an out of country pharmacy.

    Was chiming in to mention just this. There are some reliable ones out there.

    Of course, that's going to be the next thing outlawed...

  • Scooby||

    Got any suggestions on locating the reliable ones?

  • SugarFree||

    Try to find one that fled Canada. The one I had was the best doctor ever.

  • ||

    Try to find one that fled Canada. The one I had was the best doctor ever.

    Or the USA.-D

  • ||

    Don't go to doctors for antibiotics either. Order them from an out of country pharmacy.

    So, by nothing more than psychic discernment, you know exactly which bacterial infection has presented?

    I wish I had this gift, as it would make practice a whole lot easier.

  • Gray Ghost||

    And if they had an incubator, culture media, and reference antibiotics, they too could determine whether the bug was, e.g., Gram+ or Gram-. But they don't. For people on Medicare, or other regime where it costs a pittance to go see a doc; sure, go. Get tested.

    But not many people without insurance have the $200 plus to get a private ER to look at you and do a full workup. They're broke. Doing without the antibiotics isn't an option either. So people do the best they can. Why do you think O-Care was so popular amongst the hoi polloi? It wasn't solely out of a desire to hobble you guys like the village blacksmith; it was because people felt they didn't have the resources to get medical care, and can't fucking afford you. (They also wanted it for free, but that's a separate lament.)

    I agree with you on antibiotics like vancomycin, or methicillin (the M in MRSA), and others that earlier adopters like agrobusiness haven't already fed to livestock by the truckload. By all means keep those under lock and key. But something like amoxicillin?

    Never mind how easy it is to get pet antibiotics prescribed. My vet doesn't go through a culture/isolate/test regimen when the dog gets the 3rd UTI in the last 12 months; she just writes a script for Baytril. (Which is unbelievably expensive. Friggin' mutt...)

  • ||

    But something like amoxicillin?

    Yes, even amoxicillin. And first generation AB's. AB's are one of the few drugs I would keep under lock and key.

    Pets aren't people, and vets fall under a very different scope practice, as the immune system of most animals differs considerably from the human immune system (though in mammals, it's pretty congruent).

  • Gray Ghost||

    Then you should probably start picketing feedlots before online pharmacies, Groovus. I know the source sucks---Union of Concerned Scientists---but anyone know if their facts on the use of antibiotics and antibiotic-analogues are correct?

    If the concern is that bacteria will develop and share antibiotic resistance if antibiotics are used poorly/for too many things, then shouldn't their use in other mammals than people also be cause for concern, even if the bacteria in those mammals aren't zoonotic? (Which is an interesting question: can, e.g., canine or bovine infectious bacteria also infect people? You can stop right now with the references to Zoo...)

    Moreover, does antibiotic resistance eventually breed itself out of a given population of bacteria? I mean, it takes energy to build antibiotic resistant structures/countermeasures, energy that could otherwise be used in making more of itself.

  • ||

    Absolutely use (and overuse) of AB's in livestock should be a concern, but if it's determined that the pathogen (or mutualistic bacterium in the gut, for example, which can become pathogenic if the flora becomes imbalanced), then there shouldn't be too much cause for concern. In Euro-landia, use of AB's in livestock is very restricted, as are GMO's.

    No, AB resistance is as permanent as long as the particular CX or strain exists, and does not take much energy to obtain the DNA or RNA fragments that bacteria acquire to develop resistance.

    The reasons for this simply are:

    1) Over/improperly RX'ing AB's (like screaming for Z-Pak for the flu)

    2) Patient non-compliance with AB TX ("I feel better and will keep the rest for the next time I get sick")

    3) Mis-DX'ing the ailment

    4) Bactera are smart and adaptable little fuckers.

  • Zeb||

    That's pretty much my approach to doctors. Unless you actually need surgery, or to have a bone set or something, they are pretty fucking useless. If they would just let pharmacists dispense antibiotics and vaccinations other than flu, there would really be no need for primary care doctors.

  • Hyperion||

    The US is one of the few countries that you can't get antibiotics without prescription, as far as I know.

    But, as someone just said, they will ban ordering that online as well. I'm sure they intend to, just haven't got around to it yet, too busy banning a million other things.

  • ||

    The US is one of the few countries that you can't get antibiotics without prescription, as far as I know.

    Not entirely true. Getting a scrip requires a CX and sensitivity to know accurately which antibiotic to RX.

    Otherwise, one becomes a walking incubator for AB-resistant strains like MRSA, VRE, and other nasty bugs.

    Also, AB's are totally useless for viruses and other abacterial infections, and should not be taken for the aformentioned reasons.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Give it some time. Aren't encouraged to see a shrink? Common-sense solutions tell us we should mandate mental health screening for every citizen. For the children.

  • Hyperion||

    This, and they will do this, and much more.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Gattaca

  • thom||

    At some point the health insurance you are required by law to purchase will somehow require this from you on an annual basis.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

    What if I just lie?

    Of course, if you say "Yes" the cops will come and pick up your guns for *safekeeping*. If you say "No" the cops will come search your house to see if you were telling the truth.

  • ||

    Just say "that's none of you fucking business". Then ask him to refer you to a new primary care provider.

  • Rich||

    "As you wish. However, I'm required to report this conversation. I'm sure you understand."

  • mr simple||

    *Checks boxes labeled aggressive and paranoid.*

  • Rich||

    Hey, I'm anxious and agitated, too!

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Declining to answer will be the same as "yes".

  • Trespassers W||

    Look, I think we can all agree that the President is important enough to have his own security detail. The President is irreplaceable, especially this one.

    And his kids, who are orders of magnitude more important than yours. If his kids are kidnapped, that's everyone's problem. If your kids are kidnapped, that's your problem. You shouldn't have been parading them around like that.

    And Congressmen, obviously (some of them). Supreme Court justices (some of them).

    And finally, celebrities that are rich enough to afford their own private security.

    The rest of us should surrender our arms, because the police will protect us. Not from the police, obviously, but still.

  • Hyperion||

    I've said before that the scum in DC will use Obamacare to allow any and all forms of tyranny imaginable. But I didn't realize it would become so creepy, so quickly.

    Trying to turn doctors into some type of Nazi goons who can demand people tell them about guns in their own private homes and order anyone detained on a whim? WTF? This is the most severe violation of civil rights that has ever been conceived in this country. We have jumped the fucking shark, I am telling you, we are now so very close to becoming a dystopian nightmare of a totalitarian state.

    We had better stop this fucking maniac and his band of merry statists before this shit goes one inch further. People are going to be afraid to even go to the fucking doctor. Fuck this shit, seriously.

  • GILMORE||

    OBAMA RESENTS BEING ACCUSED OF PANDERING THEATRICS

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....25z;_ylv=3

    As he announced the new gun measures, Obama was flanked on the stage by children from around the country chosen from among those who sent letters to him about gun violence and school safety.

    "We should learn from what happened at Sandy Hook. I feel really bad," a boy wrote in a portion that Obama read from the podium.

    in additional graceful style...=

    ...A senior administration official said... that Obama would be asking for $10 million for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the root causes of gun violence

    Obama: "Guns. You're the Disease. I'm the Cure."

  • AlmightyJB||

    Fuck Obama

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Obama's plan (warning, do not read if you have eaten in the last 30 minutes):

    Now Is The Time (AKA 15 pages of nonsense)

    • Call on licensed dealers and private sellers to do their part through executive action: Private sellers can already choose to sell their guns through licensed dealers so the dealer can run a background check on the buyer, and the Administration is calling on them to do so. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) will send an open letter to licensed dealers giving them guidance on how best to facilitate these checks.

    • Address unnecessary legal barriers that prevent states from reporting information about those prohibited from having guns: Some states have cited concerns about restrictions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as a reason not to share relevant information on people prohibited from gun ownership for mental health reasons. The Administration will begin the regulatory process to remove any needless barriers, starting by gathering information about the scope and extent of the problem.
  • Rich||

    Interesting that the *actual executive orders* apparently have yet to be posted ....

  • GILMORE||

    ""Call on licensed dealers and private sellers to do their part through executive action""

    The rhetorical gymnastics continue...

    Do you really "call on" people to.... follow your EXECUTIVE ORDER?

    e.g. "I politely requested that the prisoner spread his buttocks"?

    no, really - i only provided him *guidance*

    "" Address unnecessary legal barriers...""

    Gee what's another way of saying that....

    ...oh = "run roughshod over the law?"

  • Brendan||

    Gotta love this:
    The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.

    Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds: The case for prohibiting high-capacity magazines has been proven over and over; the shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which would have been
    prohibited under the 1994 law. These magazines enable any semiautomatic weapon to be used as an instrument of mass violence, yet they are once again legal and now come standard with many handguns and rifles. Congress needs to reinstate the prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
    ===
    Well there you go, a couple of people over a span of years and months used them, that proves they must be banned

  • sloopyinca||

    He also failed to mention that those all but one of those occurred in a Gun-Free Zone, and that was the only one where people tackled the shooter and those people were armed.

    Also, bringing up Chicago and DC was pretty rich. Why not bring up Phoenix, El Paso and a bunch of open carry cities where gun murders are exceptionally low?*

    *I wonder if anybody with an ounce of brains on Team Red will notice and pounce on this low-hanging fruit?

  • GILMORE||

    ...."manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons"...

    Rich.

    Manufacturers were able to circumvent.... WHAT? .... The "Prohibitions" were to COSMETIC FEATURES. The Manufacturers were in *compliance*. What the admin means is that "gun manufacturers continued to sell guns which met our ridiculous regulations, which we now regret.."

  • Brendan||

    We all know how many crimes were committed with 50+ year old C&R firearms, time to restrict those:

    Eliminate restrictions that force the ATF to authorize importation of dangerous weapons simply because of their age: ATF is required to authorize the importation of certain “curio or relic” firearms, and outdated regulations include all firearms manufactured more than 50 years ago in the definition of “curio or relic.” But today, firearms manufactured more than 50 years ago include large numbers of semiautomatic military-surplus rifles, some of which are easily convertible into machine guns or otherwise appealing for use in crime. Congress should get rid of restrictions that prevent ATF from changing this definition, enabling ATF to ensure that firearms imported as curios or relics are actually of interest as collectibles, rather than letting these rules be used as a way to acquire fully functional and powerful military weapons.

  • ||

    curios or relics are actually of interest as collectibles, rather than...powerful military weapons.

    You know, I am extremely interested in acquiring a newly-imported original StG44. I gather from the above that it's entirely legal now, right?

  • Brendan||

    Machine gun C&Rs; still need NFA approval, but can be imported:
    http://www.gunbroker.com/Aucti.....=318906874

  • GILMORE||

    sloopyinca| 1.16.13 @ 1:21PM |#

    I hate this man with every fiber of my being. I mean that. He really thinks using props of dead and living kids is ethical.

    in unrelated news, Obama appears on stage today...

    ...As he announced the new gun measures, Obama was flanked on the stage by children from around the country chosen from among those who sent letters to him about gun violence and school safety.

    "We should learn from what happened at Sandy Hook. I feel really bad," a boy wrote in a portion that Obama read from the podium.

    Sloopy has a sad. Why does sloopy hate children?

  • sloopyinca||

    I can honestly say that I hate the parents of these children. Their willingness to let their children be used as props should be cause to have their children taken away.

  • GILMORE||

    Their willingness to let their children be used as props should be cause to have their children taken away

    Now now, sloopy. You're suddenly sounding like those gun-control fanatics who want to have gun-owners shot. NO IMITATING!!

    I think a better line would be to say, "I hope they are all raped at some point in their lives" Its more *original*

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Obama Pushes the Same Gun Controls He Has Always Supported"

    And why does this not cause a credibility problem when these suggestions/marching orders are made in relation to Sandy Hook? That's one of the same reasons I'm such a skeptic of Climate Change solutions. They announce this Global Warming crisis and then the solutions (with Al Gore as the front man) are the same bullshit that they (including Al Gore) have been proposing for 50 years. I hear "we must stop using fossil fuels for my whole life" and then the exact same people tack on "or we're all going to die" at the end after decades of preaching and I'm suppose to not question that at all? The only reason that makes any sense as to why the media doesn't question these credibility issues is that they are in on it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    David Frum has introduced some racial derp: America's gun problem is not a race problem

    The typical murder has one victim, not many. The typical murder is committed with a handgun, not a rifle. And in the typical murder, both the perpetrator and the victim are young Black men. Blacks are six times as likely as Whites to be the victim of a homicide. Blacks are seven times as likely to commit a homicide.

    The horrifying toll of gun violence on Black America explains why Black Americans are so much more likely than Whites to favor gun control.

    Conversely, fears of being victimized by violence explain why so many White Americans -- especially older and more conservative White Americans -- insist on the right to bear arms in self-protection. They see gun violence as something that impinges on them from the outside. They don't blame guns for gun violence. They blame a particular subset of the population. And they don't see why they should lose their right because some subset of the population abuses theirs.

    Only silly crackers think in terms of gun rights. We need gun control to protect black people from themselves because they are clearly too ignorant and self-destructive to be responsible gun owners.

    /Frum

  • John||

    Jesus fucking Christ Frum is stupid. Lets unwind this stupidity.

    Black people are victims of gun violence, so they support gun control.

    White people think they might be victims of violence, so they want to be armed.

    So black people don't want to defend themselves? Whitey just likes to be able to shoot the black man?

    Why is someone this stupid allowed to write for any publication?

  • GILMORE||

    Why is someone this stupid allowed to write for any publication

    You have it backasswards Johnny boy

    Why do readers want to read tripe this stupid? He has a job because he has an audience

  • mr simple||

    Because he tells the progressives what they want to hear while calling himself a Republican?

  • GILMORE||

    DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

    cigar or stuffed animal?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    The horrifying toll of gun violence on Black America explains why Black Americans are so much more likely than Whites to favor gun control.

    Hahahahahahahh!!!! Probably only 25-30% of my white friends are armed. Meanwhile, 99% of my black friends are pretty well armed. 100% of my friends who are armed are against gun control.

  • Drake||

    To break it down further - approximately 100% of the black women I know are for more gun control - meanwhile about 100% of black men are against gun control.

  • 4tehsnowflakes||

    In the last paragraph Mr. Sullum states that a national registry with current information would be necessary to enforce the recycled proposal for background checks on transfers between individuals. 4ts agrees that control advocates would love to have such a national registry, and the 'tubes make it all too plausible.

    The fact that a prohibition will not be enforceable against every infraction, however, is not a fatal argument against its enactment. Some people would comply with such a requirement for private sales, even if they knew the only likely enforcement would come if the sold item were used to perpetrate a crime.

    If we want a scary scenario or slippery slope, what if the G required embedded 'black box' microchips that report any discharge to the database? What if only in the weapons of law enforcement officers?

  • Ken Shultz||

    They had such a system in place in Canada.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....s_Registry

    It was so pathetic, they got rid of it, I understand, and ordered the destruction of all the data about people who owned non-restricted weapons.

  • lissaneor||

    3D printers changes the trends. To know about more about printer click here

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement