Gun Control

Biden Promises to Make Gun Control Recommendations by Tuesday

|

Vice President Joe Biden, the Obama administration's point man on gun control, says he will be ready to unveil his recommendations by Tuesday. Biden describes his task this way:

"There has got to be some common ground, to not solve every problem but diminish the probability" of other mass shootings, he said. "That's what this is all about. There are no conclusions I have reached."

That last part is hard to believe, especially since President Obama already has said he supports a new "assault weapon" ban, a limit on magazine capacity, and background checks for all gun transfers (not just those involving licensed dealers). But if the goal is to make mass shootings less likely, it is hard to see how any of those policies will accomplish it. A mass shooter is much more likely to use a semiautomatic handgun than an "assault weapon," which in any case is an arbitrary category defined by scary looks rather than killing capacity. Anti-gun activists are keen to obscure that reality, as in this letter to Walmart from what The New York Times describes as "a coalition of liberal organizations":

Assault weapons of all brands and models continue to adorn your shelves, from Sig Sauer M400s to Colt LE6920s. We know the horrific capacity of these weapons to wreak havoc on our communities because we have witnessed it firsthand. They have no place in our streets and in our homes, and we strongly insist that you honor your 2004 pledge to ensure they have no place in your stores either.

In what sense do the defining characteristics of "assault weapons," whether under the old, expired federal law or under the new, supposedly improved version that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) keeps threatening to introduce, make them uniquely capable of killing people? No one ever says, because there is no good answer. Perhaps Feinstein should modify her new definition of "assault weapon" so that it includes "capacity to wreak havoc" along with folding stocks and pistol grips. And if these guns "have no place in our streets and in our homes," why does Feinstein's bill let people keep them?

Limiting magazine capacity sounds like a more plausible approach, but only if you 1) assume that the seconds needed to switch magazines make an important difference in attacks on defenseless schoolchildren and moviegoers, and 2) wish away all of the millions of "high capacity" magazines already in circulation. And while a background check could conceivably prevent a would-be mass murderer from legally buying a gun, that is true only if he has a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record, which is generally not the case. (The one arguable exception that springs to mind is the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, but the issue there was incomplete records, as opposed to a private transfer that did not involve a background check.) In the Sandy Hook massacre, the event that supposedly demonstrated once and for all the need to adopt the same policies that gun control advocates have been pushing for years, the shooter used his mother's guns, so a background check clearly would not have stopped him. Since Biden has defined the administration's goal as preventing future Sandy Hooks, his recommendations should be judged on that basis.

Will there be any surprises? Biden reportedly is considering a law that would confiscate guns from people who call them "babies." The bill could also cover other terms of endearment, such as sweetie, darling, and precious, although Biden has not reached any conclusions yet.

Advertisement

NEXT: Scotland Yard Detective Convicted in Tabloid Scandal

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.

  1. That picture just screams: “J?germeister Hangover!”

  2. I’m thinking, of all the terminology in this fight, the important one I want is:

    “Universal Background Checks” or “Gun-show loophole” really means “Ban private sales”.

    It needs to be explicit — the goal here is “you can’t sell that rifle to your brother-in-law”.

    And, since you can do that today, and there’s a ton of those sales already, there’s no way to tell if the gun was sold this week or 10 years ago when private sales were legal. So now you need registration. Blech.

    1. Right. I mean, how else could they ever stop it? In the last four weeks alone I sold a Sig p225 and bought a Sig p229, both private sales, both cash, no documentation for either.I suppose they could shut down the facilitators of these transactions and make it much harder to match buyers and sellers.

      1. Not that it should be a legal requirement, but I personally wouldn’t buy or sell a gun without running it through a dealer for liability reasons as well as in case ends up being used in a crime to be able to show that it was not my gun at the time.

        1. Buying, sure, but selling?

          1. How well do you really know the guy you’re selling the gun to? If you sell them the gun and it turns out they couldn’t have passed a background check had you made them get one before agreeing to the sale, you’re going to get your pants sued off.

            1. How well do you really know the guy you’re selling the gun to?

              I concede of course that everyone’s circumstances are different. And sure, you could sell a gun to a stranger off Craigslist. But a lot of people sell guns to their family members, close friends and associates. So we know them pretty well.

              Serial question, are there any successful lawsuits of someone selling a gun which was later used in a crime? Is there any precedent for this?

              1. Serial question, are there any successful lawsuits of someone selling a gun which was later used in a crime? Is there any precedent for this?

                Anti-gunners have tried several times, but AFAIK were never successfull, and later a law was passed to prevent them from bringing these lawsuits.

                They were suing gun manufacturers, though. I don’t know if anyone has ever gone after an individual. I’d imagine that they’d have to prove that they knew the person was going to use it for illegal purposes or that they were a felon, though, and if the seller knew that the buyer was a felon then the seller already committed a crime.

            2. It’s unlikely that such a lawsuit would succeed, but if your privately sold firearm is used in a crime, you’re certainly going to have a friendly visit from law enforcement that you’d rather not have. It’s going to be especially unpleasant if the gun is found at the scene of the crime but the person you sold it to isn’t caught… because then guess what? You’re a suspect.

              I would never ever sell or gift to ANYONE without going through an FFL. It’s just crazy.

              1. When you move to Sacramento you will also get to register all of your guns. Your welcome.

                1. Only the handguns. Long guns aren’t required to be registered until next Jan 1.

                  And I may be leaving the frames of some of my HGs out of state as confiscation insurance just in case. But I won’t break the law.

              2. @tulpa(lol-xPA)

                Went to mail a gun today at the FFL. He told me that the show in Washington is a huge affair with food vendors and tons of stuff. He also told me that his buddy works at Ace and the only thing left of their EBR wall is the pegs in the wall. Who knows, they might get some stuff in for the show.

                He said that business has been insane in the past few weeks, and a lot of the people buying stuff aren’t even gun people. They just thought that they’d maybe one day like to have an AR so they’re buying them. That is really good news to me, as it indicates a growing investment in pro-2nd views by the population.

                1. What I’m beginning to wonder about is what happens if there ISN’T a significant gun control bill passed. The AWB and mag restrictions in particular.

                  All these casual AR buyers are going to be flooding the market with used guns (or at least receivers) and cheap magazines. Just what we need, another bubble bursting!

                  I’m currently looking for a 22 revolver so I’m not worried about that. Also might sell my 18 inch shotgun because there aren’t any of those things around either. Some of the little gun shops I’ve looked in have nothing but bolt-action rifles and single action revolvers.

                  1. I’ve been saying this very thing for a while now.

                    And I fully expect to pick up a cheap AR in march.

                    *crosses fingers*

                    1. Excellent prediction. Perhaps you’re the next Warren Buffet.

                  2. That’s what I’m waiting for.

        2. when selling, i get a copy of their DL and ask to see a carry permit. if they don’t have a carry permit I want to go through NICS at a local gun store, but that is just me, and I don’t think it should, in any way, be required.

      2. TERRORIST!

      3. Your going to to see a lot of police “stings” if that law passes so be careful who you buy and sell from.

  3. Nothing is going to come of this. Note how Biden’s rhetoric markedly softened after he spoke with the NRA reps. I would bet a lot of money they said something to the effect of “we will whip up a panic like you’ve never seen if you pass anything other than something meaningless; have fun in 2014”.

    1. Here’s what the NRA sent me, in contrast:

      The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

      We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works – and what does not.

      1. “We were all prepared to throw the first, fourth, and fifth ammendments under the bus to save the second, but they kept insisting we shred the entire bill of rights.”

      2. We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

        *sigh*

        The NRA proposes a Keep Our Own Kids Safe program.

        1. the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

          They’re absolutely right about that. Look at the Fort Hood shooter, for example. One of the worst things about the War on Drugs from the perspective of someone, like myself, who actually is tough on crime (real crime, the kind that has victims) is that prosecuting all the drug offenders means cases involving actual violence get pled down or worse get lost at trial.

          Not to mention housing all the prisoners. They let violent thugs go to lock up people who may or may not be violent but have been found in possession of drugs. That guy that ambushed the firefighters a couple weeks ago? He killed his grandmother with a hammer. Why the fuck wasn’t he still in prison.

          Anytime someone who committed a homicide gets out on parole and kills again, I blamed the Drug Warriors. Because it’s their fault the prisons are overcrowded, it’s their fault that these violent thugs walk free to lock up people for smoking a plant or inhaling a powder.

          1. He killed his grandmother with a hammer. Why the fuck wasn’t he still in prison.

            Bleeding heart liberals.

    2. “Nothing is going to come of this”.

      I hope you’re right, but I would not bet money on that.

      1. If something does come of it, it will be a weak cosmetic restriction bill, or some restriction on a very narrow class of guns. Anything bigger–even assuming they can pass anything, which I highly doubt–gets immediately taken to the Supreme Court and potentially might even have its implementation delayed.

        The only other thing I can see happening is that Obama wants a “historic” action for his second term, like Obamacare was for his first, and they go all out like they did for the health care bill but this time on some sweeping gun control. However, they just barely made Obamacare happen, and a lot more people care about gun rights than they did about health care “reform”. They just can’t pull it off. So if they tried this, it would come with all the political capital spending that Obamacare did, a stiffer resistance, a much more likely chance of overturn by the SC, and even potential domestic unrest depending on how draconian it was.

        It’s not worth it. They’ll either do something mild that they can get away with, or they’re just throwing red meat to their currently rabid supporters and will do nothing.

        1. Ya know, prior to Obamacare getting passed I would have agreed with that assessment. A lot of DNC congressmen knew they would lose their jobs if they voted for it and did it anyways. If something similar happens here, I will have to wonder if the DNC isn’t out recruiting people willing to fall on a sword during their first term for maybe the promise of some other cushy government job. I’d be interested to know what happened to that last batch. That’s the only way they can get their unpopular liberal goals done.

        2. I’m getting pretty sick of having to go through this every single time there’s a tragedy for them to capitalize on. I’m hoping for a line in the sand moment, because not a single shot needs to be fired to remind them that we are many and they are shitty.

      2. I hope you’re right, but I would not bet money on that.

        Neither would I. I have a long track record about being right about predicting bad things, and a horrible track record on predicting good things.

    3. Here’s the thing, though. If I were the NRA I’d want to goad Biden into being as aggressive as possible with his legislative proposals. None of them would have a chance of going through Congress anyway, but the proposals alone would lead to a huge boost in membership and bring on a deliciously hard choice for the Dems in tough or pro-gun districts.

      1. Something coherent like a 30 (as opposed to 10) round magazine limit, storage requirement for semiauto rifles, etc., might make it through.

        But those kinds of things are boring and the leftists can’t demagogue a storage requirement. They need to ban something or make gun owners suffer somehow. Preferably in a way that plays well on TV.

  4. Give up your rights today so that your children won’t have any tomorrow! Um, for the children!

  5. If you give him a hamburger today.

  6. I cant see Biden’s face without saying under my breath ‘Jebus fucking christ…sigh…’.

    Is it just me? Is it just because I pay more attention these days or has the political world descended into a parody of itself? I mean, it really is beyond ridiculous.

    1. I wouldn’t trust Biden to spray the returned rental bowling shoes properly. What a fucking lemon.

    2. I often ask myself the same question. I certainly follow more closely now, but I was not in the dark 15 years ago. I think it’s substantially worse.

      I think the 24 hour media plays a large role in the decline.

      1. People who want to be political junkies used to have to read the whole paper and watch The McLaughlin Group on Sunday mornings and actually put some effort in, and most people had better things to do. However, now, TEAM retards can just flip on a channel of their choice and be bombarded with their TEAM’s talking points 24/7, literally. It’s so much easier for them to 1) be retarded, and 2) keep up a high level of energy about whatever the crisis/concern is this week, that frenzies can be maintained longer and the retard can be dialed to 11 much more easily.

        It’s a response to market demands–it’s not like there isn’t an audience for this stuff–and the demand is coming from TEAM partisans who want to be as partisan-y as possible, because they like it (if they didn’t they wouldn’t be partisans).

        But a resultant effect of this is that political stupidity can be whipped into a frenzy and because the channels are all TEAM players themselves, no one calls anyone on anything and the stupid can get dialed to 11 because there’s no feedback.

        1. ^^yesirree

          …political junkies used to have to read the whole paper and watch The McLaughlin Group on Sunday mornings and actually put some effort in…

          hey! unfair. i loved the mclaughlin group. im not a junky! I DONT HAVE A PROBLEM!!

          (turns to father)

          “I learned it from watching you Dad! You!”
          (runs away crying)

        2. People who want to be political junkies used to have to read the whole paper and watch The McLaughlin Group on Sunday mornings and actually put some effort in, and most people had better things to do.

          It really is an indication of the dysfunction of mass society. You’re right that in the past, this sort of hyper-partisanship would have been limited largely to the political class and a few academics who studied it for a living. Most people wouldn’t give a shit. But with cable TV and the internet so commonplace, it’s a lot easier to whip up these mass frenzies for ratings. We live in a high-information, low-understanding age, and that’s not good for a stable society.

          1. I would modify your statement. We live in a high-communication, low-integrity age, and that’s just not good for those of us who don’t want to be a mindless TEAM drone.

            Here’s a theory. Politicians have always lied. But they were rarely caught in their lies, because the information just couldn’t get out like it does with the internet. So if a politician got caught lying or being hypocritical, other politicians, especially the ones on the other TEAM, would jump all over them and act like they had integrity and standards, because even though they didn’t, they were pretty sure that their lies were unlikely to be caught, so they could use this to their advantage. So their followers see what seems like actual integrity and intellectual honesty, and go “oh, that’s the way to behave”.

            cont…

            1. Then the internet comes along. Politicians lie, but all of a sudden they’re getting caught and suffering huge shitstorms for it. What the hell? And lots of them are getting fucked. So now, jumping all over another politician for lying is much more perilous, because who knows when you will be the one on the receiving end? So politicians start backing off calling each other out for shit behavior. So their sheep-like followers, who there are more than ever now because of the internet, see that politicians will lie, distort, be utter hypocrites, etc., and no one calls them on it. So that means it’s OK, right? And the desire for integrity just melts away, because well, that means sometimes not being 100% TEAM and I don’t want to do that.

              And we get where we are now: totally divorced from reality where politicians can say one thing and do the exact opposite and their retarded sheep followers will make fucking excuses for them, because there is no value placed on integrity, and tons of value placed on TEAM. And with all the communication on the internet, they can go and have their decision to have zero integrity reinforced en mass all day long. Thus, TEAM UBER ALLES.

              Anyway, that’s just something I thought of while waiting for 100 million rows to load into a table.

              1. “… totally divorced from reality where politicians can say one thing and do the exact opposite and their retarded sheep followers will make fucking excuses for them..”

                This is one of the most egregious things that has been eating at me lately. The moronic, dishonest, imbecilic and hypocritical behavior of politicians is one thing, but when it is on full display and their supporters excuse it and defend them to the hilt, it just leaves me….speechless. Maybe the nation’s water supply has been spiked with drugs?

                1. No, the fact is, most people don’t have much in the way of integrity (having integrity takes work and sometimes you have to do painful things like not side with your TEAM, etc.), and then if you get a mass reinforcement of the idea that TEAM matters more than integrity, you will see what we are seeing today. And the politicians fucking love it.

                  Basically, there were always a lot of retards and idiots out there, but they often felt alone, or in low numbers. But the internet let them know they weren’t alone, and now they can be FULL RETARD with their fellow retards and then they get SO MUCH WORSE.

          2. high-information, low-understanding

            That should be fucking bronzed.

        3. I often contemplated a news outlet that did nothing other than call other news outlets on the carpet for sensationalism, fact accuracy, bias…

          I wonder if there’s a market?

          1. Judging from how often reason has to go begging for money, I doubt it.

            1. I’m really glad I didn’t give reason any of my hard earned lucre during the last fundraising campaign – since they saw fit to give that opportunistic weasel DeMaio a new home. Christ reason didn’t you learn a thing from Weigel?

        4. However, now, TEAM retards can just flip on a channel of their choice and be bombarded with their TEAM’s talking points 24/7, literally.

          The 24/7 thing might be new, but right-wing talk radio basically served the same function back in the 1980s and 90s.

    3. It’s not just you. He reminds me of the creepy Uncle at Thanksgiving who hugs the teenage nieces WAYYYY too long, followed by a a string of comments during dinner that make everyone want to leave the table.

      1. It’s not just you. He reminds me of the creepy Uncle at Thanksgiving who hugs the teenage nieces WAYYYY too long, followed by a a string of comments during dinner that make everyone want to leave the table.

        According to Eric Posner, you just described the 1st amendment.

      2. I had an uncle who, when I was a kid, got all of us nieces and nephews a new pair of pajamas for Christmas.

      3. That’s every adult male in my immediate family. Ugh.

        1. ….except for me of course.

    4. I can’t look at Mitt Romney without hearing the BLR guy’s voice. I can no longer imagine Romney’s actual voice.

  7. it’s a good thing this task force is going to approach the issue soberly, use appropriate deliberation, and work toward looking at all aspects of it. I was worried this was just going to be a knee-jerk political reaction that would yield a photo op and not much else. Whew.

    1. The recommendation will be delivered by the committee in full Red Dawn costumes and prop guns.

  8. I hereby propose that anyone who uses the word “community” with a straight face be forbidden from participating in anything related to public policy.

    1. What if it’s in the context of, like, “Alison Brie’s boobs look fantastic on Community”, huh?

      1. Doesn’t coount since no one see’s any other words than “Alison Brie’s boobs”.

    2. I think you should limit it to “the _____ Community” and other such constructions. There are real uses for that word.

      1. No, there really aren’t. When someone says “The Black Community” or “the Hispanic Community” they’re being collectivist assholes. It’s an attempt to lump everyone who happens to share some feature into one category. What do, for example, Mos Def and Thomas Sowell have in common? Absolutely nothing, save skin color. Different origins, ages, radically different worldviews, intelligence levels, etc. They’re literally nothing alike. But some race hustling politician or “reverend” says “The community believes…and everyone is supposed to nod and agree.

        Fuck that. I’m an individual. So is everyone else. Anyone trying to tell you there is a community that agrees with something is trying to fuck you over.

  9. Get up close enough to Biden’s face and you can almost see the stupidity oozing from his pores.

  10. Interesting how they can come up with these recommendations in no time, but when it comes to something like a budget or even taking an official position on legal weed, we have to wait months, years, or never.

    1. That’s the thing that struck me. The federal government almost never does anything quickly. In the rare cases that it does it can’t be good for us.

    2. It’s all fueled by emotion.

      There’s no tragedy to exploit not let go to waste when it comes to making a budget or taking a position on weed, much less legalizing it.

      Get some kids to die because the government didn’t pass a budget, and we’ll see sad-tears Obama setting deadlines and demanding action.

  11. Did they invite Janet reno? I’m sure she has some useful tips.

    1. About clearing a house of undesirables?

  12. “The one arguable exception that springs to mind is the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, but the issue there was incomplete records, as opposed to a private transfer that did not involve a background check.”

    aka The one exception is when the laws concerning the mentally ill that are already in place were not followed. So rather than enforcing existing laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies, let’s make new ones that screw over everyone else.

    1. It is so much easier to pass a law that law abiding people will abide.

    2. The Sheriff’s Department that gave the Giffords shooter a permit seemed pretty negligent. They had already had a number of run-ins with the guy. They just didn’t bother.

  13. “Biden reportedly is considering a law that would confiscate guns from people who call them “babies.” The bill could also cover other terms of endearment, such as sweetie, darling, and precious, although Biden has not reached any conclusions yet.”

    Wait, what if we defined marriage to include man-gun relations? Could that be the constitutional trick the pro-gun lobby has been looking for?

    1. It would really require light artillery to be more common in civilian use.

    2. Is Biden’s Beretta going to be confiscated?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcyLeOm6yGc

  14. There are no conclusions I have reached.”

    That last part is hard to believe

    Biden just hasn’t concluded HOW MUCH more gun control he thinks might be rammed through Congress. I doubt he’s gonna draw the conclusion that the way to prevent future mass killings is to let everyone buy as many guns as they want and carry them anywhere they want, making the whole nation about as safe as a gun show.

    Cause nobody is gonna succeed at mass murder at a gun show.

    1. Don’t a lot of gun shows make you unload your firearms before entering? Even the CCWs?

      1. Yes. But dealers and certain others are fully armed.

      2. Reloading an auto pistol doesn’t take very long.

  15. It’s always funny (not funny funny, funny strange) how gun control laws that get passed in the wake of tragedies never even come close to addressing said tragedies.

    They say they’re trying to stop criminals and crazies, but their laws are never aimed at criminals and crazies; they’re aimed at ordinary citizens.

    1. This is not strange-funny. They arent well meaning but fumbling the ball, they are doing exactly what they intend to do.

    2. “We must do something, this is something, therefore, we must do this.”

      1. “GODDAMMIT we have GOOOD INTENTIONS!!!”

  16. This was going to happen Obama’s second term even if Sandy Hook had never happened. That asshole just made it easy to get done. The left has had wet dreams about gun control forever.

    1. I guess this is just my impression, but the media did seem kind of eager to synthesize a narrative following the election and the Jovan Belcher incident, while the Aurora shooting was still fresh on everyone’s minds.

      Never mind that Belcher wasn’t a spree-killing. Also, notice how none spree-shooty everything has been since mid-December? It’s almost like the Sandy Hook tragedy was an anomolous event…Gee, I wonder why?!

      1. Well I remember clearly what happened when the Gun Control legislation was being debated in Congress during Clinton. The news was saturated with every gun crime committed throughout the country every day. Even local news channels would spend at least five minutes a day reporting non local shootings that never would have made the news before. We’ll see the same thing once legislation is written and hits the floor for debate. The media will try to give the impression that if you walk out your front door you will most likely get shot. Of course that would make an intelligent person want less gun control but you know how that goes.

        1. I wonder if you can trace this back to November 22, 1963. The news basically cornered the televesion market for 5 day straight reporting on not one, but two grisly gun crimes. Probably like no other event before it, the JFK assassination told news networks what would bring in the most viewers.

          It’s probably due to the lagging nature of politics, but the first effective political response to the shooting in Dallase didn’t come until 1968:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…..ct_of_1968

          1. It’s not just the idea of bringing in viewers with violence though. The media took an active role in getting public support behind the last assault weapon ban by trying to scare the bejebus out of everybody. Almost immediately after passage it ended. In fact within a month Stossel does some special on “are we scaring ourselves to death?” By then it’s too late though.

          2. It’s probably due to the lagging nature of politics, but the first effective political response to the shooting in Dallase didn’t come until 1968:

            MLK and Bobby Kennedy were shot that year. Those two murders were the catalyst for the GCA of 68.

          3. There is also a complete mainstream media blackout of any legitimate defensive use of guns by civilians.

        2. Giving the impression that the entire country is turning into South Central LA is pretty much the only effective card they can play.

          1. Racist!

            Turn in your tolerance card.

        3. The news was saturated with every gun crime committed throughout the country every day.

          Remember when every Toyota in the country was speeding out of control… for a week, and then suddenly stopped? Yeah, media, it’s more stupid than you think…

      2. We need to be reminded why we need gun control.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_30-8ZlmQ

        1. I never did see Vendetta. Must have been the Guy Fawkes thing.

          1. I saw the Spanish Language version, B for Bendetta!

            1. I chuckled.

      3. The guy who shot the firefighters in upstate NY on Christmas Eve was arguably a spree shooter.

  17. There has got to be some common ground

    First faulty assumption, Joe.

    “We” want incompatible things, based especially on your horribly flawed assumptions.

    No common priors, no commonality in acceptable results.

    (This reminds me of a FB meme I saw going around this morning, from the Usual Progressive Suspects, promoting the idea of a drug test for all gun purchases.

    Because that’s a big real problem, right? People on illegal drugs buying guns from FFLs, and then abusing them because-drugs*.

    Sure, it never seems to be a significant factor in any of the things they claim motivate them to want to improve “gun safety”… but they suggest it as a “fix”.

    This is why I’m not sure I trust their honesty, at some level – honest responses at least address the observed problem.

    Same thing about calls for “more training” for gun owners. Did that nutcase shoot up a school because nobody trained him on using a stolen gun? Training doesn’t seem to make idiots be safe. See every teenage driver ever.)

    (* Nevermind that it’s already illegal to do so, or that a “drug test” can’t tell reliably illegal opiates and amphetamines from legal ones, thus encouraging a notional baddie to just see about finding a scrip for adderall or codeine cough syrup first.

    And nevermind that if we cared about “drugs and violence” – which we should not at this level – we’d want to test for “being a drunk”.)

    1. I’m seeing lots of suggestions about CCW permits standards:
      -we need to increase training requirements
      -to carry a gun, you should have to go through the same training as the police
      -the permit age should be 21
      -to carry in a school, a person should have to take special training
      -ccw holders should be limited on the guns they can carry so they can’t just blast away with .50 caliber guns

      ZERO evidence, anecdotes, etc. that CCW permit holders have caused any problems, nor anything out of Vermon where permits haven’t been required since 1906; nothing in AZ or AK either.

      This is in addition to the calls for closing nonexistent loopholes, calls for psychological testing, drug testing, fingerprints to buy, banning online ammo sales, etc.

      I’ve even heard someone say that the ‘collector loophole’ needs to be closed. I’d never heard of such a thing and couldn’t get the person to explain what it was.

      1. “loopholes” according to gun-control people are, “things that let people own guns”

        the entire 2nd amendment is a ‘loophole’ as far as they are concerned

      2. -the permit age should be 21

        It’s only legal to own a handgun if you’re 21 in most juristdictions if I’m correct.

        1. No, it’s only 21 to buy from a federally licensed dealer. A few states have possession age at 21 directly, and a few more do it by forcing all transfers through a dealer. I think CA might have exceptions for parent/relative transfer.

      3. I’m not aware of any .50 caliber handguns that are remotely concealable for anyone smaller than the Michelin Man.

        1. Me either, but no one said it had to make sense.

        2. S&W 500 is technically a “concealable” gun – but you have to be built like Too Tall Jones to carry it, comfortably.

          1. First they came for Too Tall Jones, and I said nothing…

  18. Its very simple and sensible people. see, it works like this =

    1. make laws preventing people who are “mentally unbalanced” from owning firearms

    (liberals nod… conservatives sorta shrug)

    2. make laws defining people who want to own firearms as “mentally unbalanced”

    (liberals nod harder!…conservatives go…”wait – huh?”)

    Problem solved! and was a bipartisan solution!

    1. 1. make laws preventing people who are “mentally unbalanced” from owning firearms

      So no elected official will be able to own a gun?

  19. The only gun control recommendations I’m interested in hearing about are the ones James Madison et al. put in the Bill of Rights.

    1. Liberals: you have the right to bear an 18th century musket.

      1. I tell internet posters that they need to submit replies on parchment paper filled out with a quill pen, mailed via Pony Express.

      2. Apparently you haven’t heard Tony the sock puppets genius ramblings on this topic.

        You don’t need any weapons, especially scary black ones, because if you get any ideas about shooting politicians(as it was explained to him that the 2nd amendment is not about shooting deer), that his messiah will wave his hand and the army will just come after you with tanks, drones, and attack helicopters(he even posted links to pics of these weapons as a warning to us), blow the shit out of all of you teabaggers, and then it’s over. Just like that.

        And yet it is apparent that he is sitting in his apartment pissing his pants worrying over people shooting his adored masters with rifles that can fire more than one round in 2 minutes.

        1. I shed no tears for the absence of his sockpuppetry.

        2. Tony admitted he lives in a gated community with security. Anything he says against private gun ownership is therefore null and void. That is all.

    1. I just cant even…..goddamn.

      They have no clue what money is, what value is.

      Why do they need a goddamn coin? why not just move the decimals on the computers balances? What is magic about having an acual coin? These people are imbeciles.

      To anyone who voted for obama or for any leftist candidate; Fuck you you goddamn fucking retarded piece of shit. There is more, but I will save it for later.

      1. Why not just mint 300,000,000 of the things and send one to every citizen in the country? The fact that they only talk about making one coin belies their feigned insistence that the economy wouldn’t suffer from it.

        1. As long as people are still buying debt from the treasury at low interest rates, the trillion dollar coin has no impact on the economy. Price inflation, which is actually what we would like to avoid, only takes into account money that is spent, not money locked up somewhere.

          The inflation problem would arise if the debt purchasers start to thin out and the govt has to actually cash in the trillion dollar coin to pay the previous debt buyers.

      2. Why do they need a goddamn coin? why not just move the decimals on the computers balances?

        Because moving the decimals is not legal. Depositing a platinum coin into the treasury is.

        It’s an accounting gimmick, a legal loophole to get around the debt ceiling fights.

        The proponents are not arguing that the trillion dollar coin itself will help the economy or make the deficit go away. They just want to remove an obstacle to spending, spending, spending forever.

      3. “If you go through the Federal Reserve, you’re borrowing money. If you go through the Mint, you’re making money.”

        That might be the most extraordinary sentence ever written. Shakespeare envies his imaginative capacity.

        1. Zero Hedge had the best run-down of this retarded coin idea: in all of history, only 16 tons of platinum has been mined from the earth. At today’s price of $1557 an ounce, in order to achieve a trillion dollars’ worth of platinum, the government would have to suddenly produce an additional 18,000 tons of platinum–or completely destroy the value of the dollar (which they are doing anyway), but with a big magical coin in the background to blame the hyperinflation on.

          They don’t understand that money only has value as long as it represents actual production. I’ll keep my physical gold and investments in gold equities, they can keep their dumbass magic coin idea. But if this is the kind of idea our mainstream (leftist/Kantian/Hegelian/collectivist) intellectuals can come up with, our goose might really be cooked, and we might really be facing the dawn of a new dark ages.

          1. …but with a big magical coin in the background to blame the hyperinflation on.

            Considering the intelligence of the average voter, they just might pull that off.

          2. There’s no price inflation until the trillion dollar coin gets spent. So long as we can keep it sitting in the Treasury it has no effect on the outside world, other than permitting more debt under the law.

            1. I think they were selling the coins for 4 payments of $19.95 on QVC

              1. Still not as bad as the loss from selling GM’s stock.

            2. You don’t seem to understand that they would have to print gazillions of paper dollarz in order for a trillion dollars’ worth of platinum to exist–anywhere, regardless of whether it’s buried in your yard or sitting in the Treasury.

              1. So? The paper a hundred dollar bill is printed on is not worth $100.

              2. they would have to print gazillions of paper dollarz in order for a trillion dollars’ worth of platinum to exist

                The platinum itself is not claimed to be worth $1T, that’s just the denomination. As heller said, most of our money has less numismatic value than the denomination.

    2. someone made a comment “Simpson’s did it”. I had thought the same thing earlier. I remember an episode where Mr. Burns had stolen and hidden a trillion dollar bill that was intended to help rebuild Europe after WWII.

      1. Mr. Burns, please. I think we can trust the President of Cuba.

        1. They named a whole district in San Francisco after him.

          1. It’s full of what?

  20. Sigh… Why the fuck don’t we just go full on Oligarchy now, and let the most immoral, back stabbing, dimwitted sociopaths in society rule over the rest of us?

    Yes, let’s just all give up all liberties now for total government dependence and a few crumbs thrown from their royal tables.

    Just say the hell to the age of enlightenment, reason, logic, and individuality.

    Or this:

    No more fucking dealing with the progressives AT ALL. We just tell them flat out, NO, fuck you. For the last 100 years we keep giving up liberties an inch, an ounce at a time, because that is what compromise means to them. We just slide a little further towards tyranny, just a little at a time.

    No fucking more compromise with these disgusting parasites.

    1. “They assimilate entire portions of the population, and we fall back. They destroy freedom and foster dependency every place they can, and we fall back. The line must be drawn here, no further!”

    2. Why the fuck don’t we just go full on Oligarchy now, and let the most immoral, back stabbing, dimwitted sociopaths in society rule over the rest of us?

      Are you saying that isn’t our present reality?

  21. Tuesday, huh? Sounds like he’s taken his time to give this some clearheaded thought. Right…. and the Easter Bunny is going to bring me a nice new lawnmower too.

  22. clearheaded thought

    I thought we were talking about Biden, I’d better go back and re-read the article.

  23. Addendum:

    NO COMPROMISES!

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

    What part does Vice President “Big Fucking Deal” not understand?

  24. I remember watching a movie once that projected a time and place where only the police and military had guns. In this idealized society it would have been unthinkable for a common citizen to own firearms or break so far with harmonious societal norms in much of any way. The schools and streets were safe for children and there was an air of social cooperation everywhere.

    Only the malcontents and unusual fringe elements who clung bitterly to discarded traditions thought there were problems with how this society was run but they were given special attention to understand how they could benefit from participating in rather than diverging from society.

    The movie was Schindler’s List.

    1. Demolition Man, while not as somber, had the same plot.

    2. LOL, the Nazis didn’t engage in mass gun confiscation across their entire population. They did, however, ban gun possession by Jews.

  25. Sometimes dude, you jsut gotta roll with it man. Wow.

    http://www.Cyber-Anon.tk

  26. NYC seems to have an effective solution: THE STOP AND FRISK Program.
    AND Cameras everywhere. WE SEARCH PEOPLE FOR GUNS. And, unloaded guns get you ONE 365 day year in Riker’s Island. Loaded guns get you THREE 365 day years upstate.

    The STOP-AND-FRISK programs may have not taken away all the GUNS, but BOY are people afraid to walk around with them.

    On top of that, drug crimes while in possession can get you an entire
    DECADE. So, our drug dealers now think TWICE of even having guns at
    the locations where drugs are stored.

    We American should stop criticizing those that want guns and want to tolerate the consequences and those that don’t want guns and want more of a police state.

    1. We American should stop criticizing those that want guns and want to tolerate the consequences and those that don’t want guns and want more of a police state.

      This is a strange statement, and I am more than a little confused as to what it means. But I assume everything before that was sarcasm… I hope.

      1. It’s Alice, so that was definitely not sarcasm.

      2. No. I’m serious.

        We have 50 sates. And, some people prefer to have loose gun laws and are willing to “take personal responsibility” and face the consequences.

        Some citizens prefer not to have guns and have strict gun laws.

        Why can’t we have both?

        1. Because the concept of a federal republic has been lost and replace with the model of a unified nation.

          1. Applying the Second Amendment only to the federal government, and not to the states, persisted for much of the nation’s early history. It was sustained in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) to support disarming African-Americans holding arms in self-defense from Klansmen in Louisiana. The Supreme Court held, citizens must “look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens from the state, rather than the national, government.” Federal protection of an individual interfering with the state’s right to disarm any of its citizens came in Presser v. Illinois (1886). The Supreme Court ruled the citizens were members of the federal militia, as were “all citizens capable of bearing arms.” A state cannot “disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government”. The Court was harking back to the language establishing a federal militia in 1792.[n]
            In 1939, the Supreme Court returned to a consideration of militia. In U.S. v. Miller, the Court addressed the enforceability of the National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibiting a short-barreled shotgun. Held in the days of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, this ruling referenced units of well equipped, drilled militia, the Founders “trainbands”, the modern military Reserves.[o] It did not address the tradition of an unorganized militia.

          2. I say repel it and let the states handle guns as their citizens see fit.

            1. You are a terrible troll.

              BRING BACK HERC!

              1. I do troll. But I’m not trolling here.

                I’m just one of those American Citizens that is against guns and ok with police enforcing the gun laws in my City/State.

                It’s not right for everyone in all States. I’m sure people living in Butt-Fuck Alabama or some other place south of Perth Amboy, NJ need guns. And I don’t want to take their guns. I’ll just stay out of Butt Fuck.

                1. I’m sure there are perfectly law abiding citizens of New York who want to keep their guns too.

              2. “I do miss the old names”

            2. repel it? Lol. Also, We American, like in Deer and Moose?

              Herd mentality meets Sybil.

              1. Our cruisers can’t repeal firepower of that magnitude!

        2. No. I’m serious

          I don’t even have a reply for that.

          1. It’s a sockpuppet. It was meant to be mind-numbingly stupid.

        3. We have 50 sates. And, some people prefer to have loose gun laws and are willing to “take personal responsibility” and face the consequences.

          Some citizens prefer not to have guns and have strict gun laws.

          Any other parts of the bill of rights you want to repeal and leave up to the whims of the individual states?

          You’d be okey-dokey with Oklahoma making evangelical Christianity the state religion and requiring tithes from all residents and those who work there?

  27. Alice Bowie| 1.10.13 @ 8:55PM |#

    Why can’t we have both?

    We do. NYC, DC, and Chicago (to name a few) have totalitarian restrictions. Much of the rest of the US does not have these restrictions.

    So you are proposing that no change needs to happen?

    1. Yes. No change would help anyway.

      What will another federal law do?

      It will not stop these killings.

      I wish NY State was more aggressive on guns.

      1. I wish your internet provider was more aggressive on your service.

      2. The whole state should be like the city, right Alice?

  28. Can the media convince the people that there is consensus on gun control in Washington?

    Maybe, doesn’t mean it’s true, though.

    1. No but obozo said there’s a consensus, because the media is almost unanimously snarling for gun control, which means there is a consensus lolzozlzolzolz

  29. I don’t even know why some of you made such an effort to reply to someone who thinks anyone should get a decade in prison for a non-crime, and seems to also have some bizarre type of split personality syndrome.

    1. That “non-crime” is your opinion.

      In New York state, the citizens consider it a crime

      1. You NYers also consider sodas over 32 oz to be a crime, because you have went full on retard.

        What’s next? Thought crime? Sure you would love to see that. Progress, you know.

      2. In New York state, the citizens consider it a crime

        Not quite.

        In NYS, the majority of those who vote in elections vote for candidates who wish it to be considered a crime.

        Last I knew NYS didn’t have direct democracy.

      1. Stoned Joos? Oh nos…

        My neighborhood is majority Jewish. Maybe next time I am rolling down the street and I see moving black objects, I should roll down my window and say, ‘Hey, you bros got a doob you could share?’

        1. Just one question though… How do they know when a bud is kosher?

          1. It’s a plant. All plants are parve.

  30. On the other hand, the Obama DoJ is only prosecuting roughly 1 out of every 1000 felon-in-possession cases referred by the FBI. That’s better odds than Vegas.

    1. Just make sure they don’t find a libertarian party card in your wallet when they bust you.

  31. Fear of a ban is wiping out inventories across the nation.

    The media told me that the people want a ban, so it must be anti-2nd groups buying these guns and destroying them…FOR THE CHILDREN!

    1. No, you’ve got it backwards. The gun lobby is buying guns with its corporate donations, to create the appearance that the people don’t want a gun ban. So that the gun lobby can reap more profits in the future from people killing each other.

      or something

  32. Limiting magazine capacity sounds like a more plausible approach, but only if you 1) assume that the seconds needed to switch magazines makes an important difference in attacks on defenseless schoolchildren and moviegoers, and 2) wish away all of the millions of “high capacity” magazines already in circulation.

    It isn’t plausible at all.

    Magazine restrictions means only 1 thing to me: a legal mandate that I be at a disadvantage while defending my home. By law I will be restricted as to how many bullets I can have in the gun at a time while under home invasion.

    It’s a non-starter.

    The only applicable response to magazine capacity restrictions is a loud and clear “FUCK YOU!”

  33. only if you 1) assume that the seconds needed to switch magazines makes an important difference in attacks on defenseless schoolchildren and moviegoers

    Seriously Jacob? Having to switch magazines DOES put you at a disadvantage in a fight. That’s the whole point of wanting a larger capacity magazine.

    Holmes never spent his 100-rd magazine because it jammed and he didn’t know how to clear it. So we’ll never know what would have happened if he had to change mags in the middle of his attack. And Loughner got tackled while trying to change magazines.

    1. “important difference,” not “theoretical difference”

      The Tucson kid was tackled while he was attempting to clear a jam. It’s not as though two track stars perfectly timed their assault while he was switching magazines, and the extended mags he was using like contributed to the jam. And in Aurora, as Tulpa notes, the shitty double-drum magazine the shooter used jammed, which is par for the course with those things.

      Hard to imagine that the extended magazines were a boon to the killers in either instance.

      1. According to this article, Loughner was tackled while attempting to reload after expending his Glock’s first 33 round mag. Apparently he dropped the second magazine.

        When you’re at close range I could totally see someone who knows firearms taking advantage of the shooter pausing to reload.

        1. If you’re in a situation to reload, you would obviously take cover or otherwise protect yourself. If you had an accomplice, you’re pretty much covered.

          Cho Seung Hee walked around campus with a couple of handguns and killed 37 college students and faculty. The issue isn’t magazine capacity, but the amount of bullets you can buy.

          But if a deranged individual could obtain even 25 rounds, he could probably kill 20 people easy in a class room. He’ll be more selective instead of pumping surplus bullets into already dead kids like Lanza did.

          1. Even with a revolver, you can pretty easily fire 12 rounds a minute without a speed-loader. Maybe 20-30 seconds to reload.

            Obviously not good if you are in a fight, but if you are simply slaughtering kids, well…

        2. Yeah, out in the real world. But in these school gun free zones, you basically don’t have anyone that will fight back.

          That’s the thing, these are massacres, not fights.

          1. The adults in the school could easily fight back.

            Interesting, when we’re proposing arming teachers, the assumption is that the teachers are omnipresent and will kill him before he can massacre children.

            When we’re talking mag restrictions, the teachers are nowhere to be found. Hmm.

            1. Not sure of your point here, but I thought that, e.g, Lanza just targeted the teachers first? And anyone else brave enough to try and stop him in that hallway. So, whether he had a five round fixed magazine or a 100 rd jam-o-matic drum, as long as he was blocking the door, and the cops weren’t in the building, he’d have had as much time as he needed to kill all of the kids in the room.

              The whole point of having an armed teacher is so that the teacher can put him down before he starts shooting up the next classroom. I doubt anyone in the first place he starts shooting is going to be able to ID the threat, present, and stop him, before they get shot themselves.

    2. Holmes never spent his 100-rd magazine because it jammed and he didn’t know how to clear it. So we’ll never know what would have happened if he had to change mags in the middle of his attack. And Loughner got tackled while trying to change magazines.

      It sure would be nice to know what it would be like for a law-abiding gun owner to shoot these guys before their magazine runs out instead of having to pray that the shooter’s weapon jams or wait until they have to switch mags and then go all close-quarter-combat-mano-a-mano on them. But, law-abiding people just don’t seem to carry guns in gun-free zones. Funny that.

      1. The Giffords shooter would have been shot by armed civilians if he had not been wrestled down first.

        1. After he’d killed even more people.

      2. 1. He was wearing body armor according to the testimony in court a few days ago.

        2. The only enforcement of the GFZ in that case was that you’d be kicked out of the theater if caught carrying.

        1. I think Aurora did have an ordinance that made possession of a licensed concealed weapon, in an area posted “No Guns” a criminal trespass. True, CO state law doesn’t provide for that, and would probably preempt the local ordinance, but do you want to be the test case?

          Body armor is helpful—see comments made earlier about US Army casualty rates now vs Vietnam-era—but it’s not a panacea. It especially won’t protect you if you get shot in the legs/much of the groin. The usual pattern of these spree killers is that they run from any effective resistance (and then more often than not, do themselves in). That said, it often ends poorly for anyone opposing an assailant in body armor; see the Tyler courthouse shootings.

  34. Bullied students must be constantly searched to prevent them from carrying a gun.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.