Associated Press
An AR-15 like this one was used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre on Friday.
In 1994, a bipartisan group of lawmakers successfully approved a measure popularly known as the "assault weapons ban," which President Clinton signed into law. When it came to reauthorize the law in 2004, the Bush/Cheney administration was content to see the law die, and Congress took no action.
There's now renewed talk, at least among Democrats, of trying to revive the law, and President Obama is on record supporting the ban, though he's made no real effort to encourage Congress to act on the issue.
As the debate gets underway again, it's worth pausing to note that the assault weapons ban did not actually ban assault weapons, at least not all of them. Brad Plumer published a helpful primer this morning, refreshing our memories about what the law did -- and what it did not do. The trouble starts with the seemingly simple task of defining what an "assault weapon" is.
There’s no technical definition of an “assault weapon.” There are fully automatic weapons, which fire continuously when the trigger is held down. Those have been strictly regulated since 1934. Then there are semiautomatic weapons that reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed. Semiautomatic pistols and rifles come in all shapes and sizes and are extremely common in the United States.
Congress didn’t want to ban all semiautomatic weapons — that would ban most guns, period. So, in crafting the 1994 ban, lawmakers mainly focused on 18 specific firearms, as well as certain military-type features on guns. Complicated flow charts laid it all out. Certain models of AR-15s and AK-47s were banned. Any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount was an “assault weapon.” But a semiautomatic rifle with just a pistol grip might be okay. It was complicated. And its complexity made it easy to evade.
This, naturally, led to loopholes that undermined the integrity and efficacy of the law.
For example, assault weapons that may have met the legal definition, but were made before 1994, were exempt from the ban, as were 24 million large-capacity magazines in existence before the law took effect. What's more, because the law was narrowly focused on 18 specific weapons, gun manufacturers found it easy to make modest modifications to existing models so that they would, technically, not fall under the prohibited list.
It will be extremely difficult for any proposed legislation to overcome Republican opposition, especially in the House, but even before those discussions can begin in earnest, proponents will have to take a long look at the original law's flaws before unveiling a viable alternative.
Leave a Comment:
Ban bullets, there.. done. Everyone can keep there guns! But before we do anything, would somebody please shoot my sister-in-law who is calling me at 9:30 in the morning and asking me what she can get my partner for this insipid and stupid empty shell of a holiday? Right after that, we can ban the kit and kaboodle as far as I'm concerned! Either shoot her or shoot me, but do it right for Christ's sake.
If the past is prologue. More guns will be given for Christmas than would have been before Newtown. After Aurora, gun sales went up. The NRA will pitch, "Get your guns before Obama bans them."
^No doubt.. Still, that does increase the likelihood that somebody will shoot her or me, and I can't deny that I desire it.
Or, as Chris Rock said, charge $5000 for each bullet.
I think this might help ..... like at Huffpost.. Put it in the headlines every day
Another Day, More Deaths: Two Police Officers Shot And Killed In Kansas... 3-Year-Old Accidentally Shoots Himself, Dies... Gunman At Large After Shooting Victim 4 Times... Man Shoots Wife... One Person Shot In San Antonio, Gunman Later Shot By Cops... Woman Shot At Campground... Woman Shot To Death,
: These people were killed by GUNS today . Put a face on it like those innocent people in Newton
Oooh can I go?! There were 6 deaths by firearms in New Orleans yesterday alone!
There's a whole website on our news page here dedicated to murders.
http://www.nola.com/crime/murders/
Is it impossible to pass a bill requiring liability insurance (separate from homeowner's insurance) be held for each "arm" a person owns, much like what is required for car ownership? That might make insurance companies happy and place a lot more responsibility onto the "owner" of the weapon. Someone may have suggested this already. And also like pet ownership, there should be a tax involved with ownership.
As much as i am uneasy with guns (I lived three decades abroad in countries that did not make gun ownership easy or necessary), I know my freedom to choose not to have a gun does not give me the right to make others do the same, but to request some form of assurance that those who do choose to purchase a weapon that they assume all responsibility and liability for it.
This is going to sound weird but I don't think this is really going to work out well and I think it's a bit of a waste of time.
personally I think that the Democrats should steal a page from the Republican playbook on this and let the market sort it out.
You can do that by mandating that gun owners have liability insurance just like you have to have for a car. The insurance companies would be the ones to decide what constitutes an "Assault weapon" and would set premiums accordingly.
That approach has has a lot of benefits not the least because it is a political judo throw that says "Ok you are responsible law abiding gun owners prove it"
There would be howling and screaming just like there was when the law was created for cars but the auto industry and society survived that...and it would make people think twice before they decide they need an AK for home "Protection"
Dragoon, Seems to me that these assault rifles and semi automatic handguns are as dangerous as second hand smoke. The law banned smoking everywhere.
You don't see people smoking in public buildings anymore. (plenty of cigarettes around, though, right?) But not in public buildings. Why?
THE LAW PROHIBITS IT.
No more excuses, congress.
Yes it does...so create "Gun Free Zones" there now you have to check your Teck-9 at the door.
The other thing that has brought down the level of people who smoke is cost. I know lots of people who don't drive because they can't afford the insurance. Same principle applies here. You aren't denying someone the "Right" to have something you are just making them pay for it.
Also insurance covers ALL assault weapons even the ones people already own. the laws will only cover new ones and even then there are over 900 exemptions. either you regulate them all or you aren't regulating anything at all.
That's what the Kochs want. Let the "market sort this out" because they own the market. No, everyone has to be involved. This is not about gun control. It is much more than that. The Kochs have been waging war on America for decades with increasing success. For years, we have seen them win battle after battle and argued that it really didn't matter. "We don't like wars." "We don't want to fight them." "We don't even want to continue the fight in Afghanistan." "We love peace."
The first victory was New Gingrich's rout of the "liberals." The liberals rebranded themselve as progressives. Fortunately, liberal is resurfacing just in time to join the battle against the Koch empire.
I can point out others, but I am sure you have some of your own, like "smaller, smarter government.
You can't have liability insurance for intentional torts (civil wrongs); the insurance will only cover negligent acts. So if you have a gun and you or someone else uses it in a massacre, there will be no coverage. No insurance company is going to write insurance to cover such risks because of the number of guns even if it only covers automatic and assault weapons.
I like the insurance angle.
Right now the INCREASE in your insurance is only as part of your HOMEOWNER'S policy. That's right--having a gun in your house, to protect your "stuff" and your family--makes your homeowner's insurance MORE expensive.
And if you keep your gun in the bedside table, when you promised your insurance agent it was kept in the gun safe--your claim may be DENIED.
On a perverse level that's kind of my point. the cost is going to be so enormous that it will drive the market down. Taking things away from people never works look at prohibition, it just made things worse. All this does is make them decide how bad they really want it.
Actually that's not a bad idea. Rulings from the third, sixth, eighth and nineth circuit courts have said that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered under the 2nd Amendment.
This decision from the nineth court ruling also defines what an automatic is:
“We agree with the reasoning of our sister circuits that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are not protected by the Second Amendment. An object is “dangerous” when it is “likely to cause serious bodily harm.” Black’s Law Dictionary 451 (9th ed. 2009). Congress defines “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/08/09/just-because-you-the-machine-gun-doesnt-mean-its-legal/
How easily can a semi-automatic be modified to a fully automatic weapon? I've read both sides (some say easy, some say difficult), but I found nothing from what I consider a reliable source. Any input would be welcome.
Modifying a weapon is largely dependent on it's mechanics some can be done quite easily like the tech-9 and others are harder. It also has to do with who the gunsmith is and what kind or work they are trying to put out. A cheep full auto that comes out of a garage or a quality change over done in a shop.
@India LeCarre - I don't think second hand smoke and smoke-free public buildings are a very good analogy here, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. For one thing, schools are "gun-free zones" just about everywhere, including Connecticut, and I doubt that Adam Lanza was concerned about it being "illegal" to bring the guns there.
Gun-free zones only make sense around areas where a law-abiding carrier could end up causing violence - like, for example, a bar or liquor store. Beyond that, the potential victim is the only one who will be concerned about breaking the law.
They made batenders liable for selling alcohol to somebody the "looked" drunk and had an accident after leaving his bar. What's the differance?
@DubbaEwwTeeEff - I believe her point was that at one time smoking was acceptable whether or not you smoked. Owning a gun is acceptable also, but at some point we must start drawing the line and not making it be so acceptable!
There is a public policy against insuring for the commission of a crime or intentional tort. When a bartender serves someone who looks drunk, the liability is still negligence and the act does not rise to the level of intent for required for a crime or intentional tort, e.g. assault and battery. Insurance companies do not insure a lot of intentional conduct including suicide, discrimination, etc. If insurance companies did insure for that type of conduct, it would be encouraging that conduct.
but in the case of guns and in particular "Assault weapons" the insurance is against negligence.
You are not insured to have an accident in your car you are insured Against having an accident. The insurance company is making a bet. They are betting that you won't operating under the assumption that no one "wants" to have an accident. If you do have one they lose. If they can show that it was intentional or that you were negligent they are off the hook. Same logic applies here.
No one "wants" their weapon to be used in a manner other than what it is designated for ie: hunting or sport shooting but if it is then the owner is insured, but that places the onus of responsibility on the owner not the insurer. There might be an exemption for "Self Defense" but I can imagine that the circumstances would be very narrow and restrictive.
You can insure anything. When I was 16 I had a policy on my skateboard (seriously it was custom and cost me $200) Insurance companies insure high risk stuff all the time. Skydivers, football players knees lots of things they just charge a lot of money for accepting the risk.
If you use your car as a weapon to intentionally kill someone, your insurance company will not pay for damages to your car or the other party. The policy has a clause that excludes intentional damages by you to your car or anyone else or their property. Your homeowners insurance may cover an injury if it is accidental. But if you intentionally injury someone, your insurance will deny coverage, e.g. you intentionally push someone down a stairway. Intentional conduct is always excluded.
right and if the insurance won't cover it YOU are liable for the damages. Like I said there would likely be an exclusion for "Self Defense" but if I know insurance companies it will be narrow.
The whole point here is not to get rid of the things because we can't. what we can do is effectively limit their use by making the owners actually demonstrate the responsibility and willingness to comply with the law that they insist they have.
Not to mention from a legal standpoint it is another charge against the criminal that abuses firearms. Another thing legal owners insist they oppose.
The gun army is alive and well. They hold the power and will fight the ban.
If you want to see what low scum they are, go here (further proof that gun-nut football fans are lower on the evolutionary scale than amoebas):
http://deadspin.com/5968935/take-that-@!$%#-off-the-tv-we-wanna-watch-football-idiots-respond-to-nbc-pre+empting-sunday-night-football
Thanks Newsvine nannies for screwing up the URL link above so people can't go see these scum in action. For those who would be interested in seeing it, cut and paste the URL in your browser, and replace Nanny's censorship with the "n-word" and you'll find out how wonderful your fellow Americans are.
But name calling is not the answer. That just feeds the Koch empire's gun army. It is like pouring oil on a fire. It is the NRA , ALEC, and Republican legislators who work to make any gun control impossible that we need to focus on. Today, the gun manufacturers and gun dealers are laughing all the way to the bank, while the country mourns. It is FoxNews and the voices that cry out, "2nd Amendment righlts", that need to be fought. I heard one of them on the radio this morning arguing, "Why shouldn't college students be able to take guns to class?"
Focus on the Kochs and their minions. Realize that we are in a war, a war for the survival of America as we know it.
One false media theme is actually a myth. What we hear is memes repeated of NRA invincibility but the fact is that the social trends are against them. While the pro NRA side likes to point out how gun ownership is going up, this statistic is used to obscures what is really going on. The truth is that the percent of people owning guns is declining. Guns are becoming less popular.
The NRA is a paper tiger and being on the right side of the NRA can be the kiss of death. Bloomberg funded a PAC to knock out pro NRA congressional members- Joe Baca, a congressman who proposed ban of DC gun locks and gun registration was defeated handily due to Bloomberg's attack ads on his NRA A-rated voting record. (story)
I think a bill can pass the Senate - I don't think that the GOP has the balls to filibuster.
The House - Not so much.
I say, at least for now (And I do mean NOW), go for a small victory - Ban high capacity clips (And I say that knowing there would be a few details to work out on that score). Since it technically wouldn't "pryin' their guns from their cold dead hands", it might get enough GOP support that the Dems could get it out of the House. I think you could drive a wedge between the hunters and the gun nuts.
But what, if anything, will the Republican House pass? Don't bet on the filibuster not being used. The Koch empire loves minority rule, even dictatorial rule. They were hearbroken when Khadafy went down in Libya.
We does luv our black and gnarly Terminator XXX .223's with the laser sights and bipod and cammo sling. And our cold, dead hands, etcetera.
Not so much the magazines that can hold 20/50 rounds. Nothing sexy about a chunk of plastic and metal and a spring.
The guns are $500 plus. The magazines, about 20 bucks. Hell, the gummint could buy them all back and not feel the pinch.
As largenose says, it's a start.
"... I don't think that the GOP has the balls to filibuster..."
What ever gave you that idea? They fillibuster EVERYTHING.
Read the Wikipedia background info on the 1966 Austin TX Bell Tower random shooting--it is chilling--buying guns and ammo that morning! I remember this well at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
This shooter and all the episodes of "going postal" have not been added to the discussions. Have you forgotten or too young to know?
MSNBC can help guide the general public to make gun and ammunition controls at local levels throughout the country, beginning a national wave of grass roots actions.
Federal level is always hampered politically and now legally by Supreme Court interpretation codified in 2008 (another Bush Jr legacy).
Local level action is important. Richard Engel, MSNBC foreign correspondent, covered the Libyan rebellion. He reported the when Khadafy and his sons were out to slaughter the people of Benghazi, the people rushed out with whatever arms they had to defend themselves. One young man whom he learned was a baker in Benghazi joined them with gun in hand. When Engel talked to the baker, he noticed the gun in his hand, -- it was a toy gun. Sometimes, even if our weapon isn't much, if we are willing to join the fight, we can help.
Do whatever you can, whereever you can.
Just think: if Obama had not organized for four years, recruited all those staff and volunteers, registered all those people and if all those people had not stayed in long lines for hours determined to vote, we may be waiting for the January 20, 2013 inauguration of the Koch empire candidate, Mitt Romney, as president of the United, soon to be Koch, States of America.
The war on America is real. The threat from the Koch empire is real. This is no joke. If we don't continue to act as individuals and as groups, we may lose the war, maybe even as soon as 2014.
To the real first responders of this senseless killings Thank You.
and i am not talking about the Cops, Fire, ETC...
I am talking about the TEACHERS!!!! that save many many Lifes!!! all to often we hear just how bad they are how money grabbing they are how they belong to a union and that makes them lazy and bad.
what 4 or 5 teachers was killed doing what they do,,, protecting children in their care!
so all you a$$ holes who want to spout out about teachers!!! stop and think of this tragic days!
I guess this debate is exactly what we would expect after such a tragety, but I don't think it even begins to get at the problem.
In this situation our miserable mental health system is as much to blame or more than high capacity magazines or "assault weapons." Why aren't we willing to help parents who finid themselves living with mentally ill youngsters? An "assault weapons" ban might make people feel better, but it wouldn't solve the problem.
Amen. The "helping professions" have gotten things to the point where family members who can testify to crazy behavior must be ignored because they are "non-expert." A crazy person (my brother, who was either manic-depressive or schizophrenic, no one ever knew for sure since no one could get him into treatment involuntarily and he wouldn't do it voluntarily) can point a gun at a family member and pull the trigger (fortunately I had unloaded it) and go to an involuntary 96 hour mental health hold in a mental ward, and 30 days later the system lets him successfully file a restraining order against the family member he wanted to kill (and the judge disallows the family member's testimony as "irrelevant non-expert hearsay"), and gets his 23 guns the police had confiscated returned to him.
That's how the "mental health system" works nowadays.
The old 5150
72 hours will fix it! Yeah, that's the ticket!
http://brasseriebreschard.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-handgun-supporters-are-terrorists.html
Why Handgun Supporters are Terrorists
How’s your AK-47 going to hold up against a drone attack, @!$%#?
All this nonsense about needing a gun to protect against tyranny is, simply, laughable. Gun weenies have negative length dicks when it comes to measuring their firepower against that of a modern military state. Kiss that little, little argument goodbye.
Handguns, and any kind of automatic weapon, in the hands of civilian Americans are second rate instruments of terror against their fellow citizens. Your argument that you need a handgun to protect yourself from your fellow citizen is a joke. And even if you think it isn’t a joke, most people would rather you were dead than the over 20,000 American citizens who die from gun violence in this country every year. You think you need a Thompson machine gun for self-defense? Well, tough, you’re not going to have one since we all know that @!$%#s like yourself shouldn’t have control of a weapon of mass destruction like a Thompson or a handgun.
About 3,000 good people died on 9/11. Since then over 200,000 American citizens have died because idiots think promoting the ownership of handguns by idiots is a good thing. Duh. Who exactly is responsible for the most terrorist deaths in the past ten years? Smith and Wesson and their buddies, by a long shot.
If over 20,000 American die each year owing to gun violence, guns are means of terrorism. 20,000 dead should bring terror into the hearts of everyone. Should you consider every gun owner a potential terrorist? Would you consider someone who had a bomb in their garage a terrorist? You probably should. But a hell of a lot more Americans die from handguns every year than they do from bombs.
And the rest of you @!$%#s who think it’s cool to argue for the rights of every shortdick American to own a handgun, watch out. They’ll be coming after you soon. By arguing for handguns, you’re promoting terrorism against your fellow Americans. And you know what this government does to those who promote terrorism, don’t you? They make a list. On that list are the people who promote terrorism against Americans, like over 20,000 dead Americans a year. And what does the government do with that list? You know what they do.
You’ll be on your lawn one evening waving around your AK-47 and spouting off about how handguns and automatic weapons keep you and everyone else safe. You won’t see it coming. Maybe you will. Maybe you will see that little drone way overhead. Maybe it will be the last thing you see. Maybe the last thing you see will be your house blown into pieces and your family obliterated, just before a 2x4 from your shattered house goes flying into your cranium. Can’t shoot a 2x4 with your AK, now can you? Drones wipe out gun terrorists each and every time.
So keep arguing about how guns don’t kill people while twenty babies go to heaven on your account. The government is making a list. You’re on it. Pry your gun from your dead fingers. Have it your way.
All this noise about banning assault weapons is a waste of time -- guns that can go full automatic are already illegal. Stop arguing over the assault rifles, which without large capacity magazines are no different than any other semi-automatic, and outlaw magazines that will hold more than 10 rounds. Then start to do something to address the real problem in this country, which is the utter lack of meaningful programs to deal with the mentally/emotionally disturbed. We turn our backs on these people every day, then wonder why terrible things are happening.
Assault rifles have built-in anti-recoil devices that allow you to continue firing without losing your visual plane through the sight. Thats why they are so deadly. They are in fact completely different from hunting rifles for this fact alone. Please take the time to learn these important facts, because the gun lobbly loves it when people compare AR's to deer rifles, it blurrs the lines.
Amen. My hunting guns, bolt action, single shot and semi-automatic are no more or less deadly then any other kind of gun. It's how they are used and who is using them that is the important part. There is no way in hell that the existing guns or magazines will be "controlled". What we need as a society is to make sure that people are mentally healthy and are not afraid to get people some help or assistance before the madness occurs.
JDD: How can you be so dishonest about the capacity of your weapons? Assault weapons were not built or intended to be used for hunting, they were and are designed for the military. Your bolt action rifle is hardly comparable to a semiautomatic recoilless assault weapon, they are apples and oranges. The days of you folks posing this drivel without pushback are over, as are your human being killing 30 shot clips being available at WalMart. A better way for you to adjust to the new realities starts with being honest.
Honestly it is how the gun is used regardless of what it was designed for.
It is the operator of the weapon that matters.
JDD: Nice complete fail on your concept. I realize that smokescreens are all you folks have to throw at this, but lets just say some are better at it than others.
IMHO:
'Guns are not the problem' vs 'Guns are the problem' is exactly why nothing gets accomplished. Neither argument has a valid point nor do they offer a solution. These are the excuses for not doing anything. People should offer a solution instead. For example:
I believe we need a 21st century solution. One where everyone could keep any type of firearm with any size clip. There could be an electronic device put on all weapons sold to civilians that disables firearms within a safe distance of schools, daycare, courthouses, airports, hospitals, parks, malls, etc. An electronic barrier, similar to ones used for house arrest, could be setup in these 'safe zones'. If violated, the firearm is electronically disabled, authorities are alerted, and building has a lock-down emergency protocol in place that is followed when alerted. Exceptions could be made depending on the type of gun (antiques, single-shots, etc.).
Cars and cell phones can be locked and tracked when stolen. We could apply the same technology to stolen guns. Old guns could be traded in for guns with electronic triggers and GPS tracking. Give a time frame for compliance, if you turn them in within the set time, you get 100% credit towards an equal gun. Anyone found in possession of the old kind after said time frame would face felony charges. Phase out ammo for the old type making them useless. In time, nearly all the old ones will be gone. This would be safer for all AND create thousands of jobs. The technology exists. It just needs to be incorporated.
Our right to bear arms can actually be taken away at any time. Granted it could be easier using this method, but consider this: We already trust the government with much more important things pertaining to our very survival. There are a lot of things that could be taken by the government because they have control. All forms of media, phone, internet, radio, tv, electricity, clean water, sewage, trash pickup, traffic and street lights, buses, trains, they could take money, school, driving, flight, police, firefighters, court, fuel, weather service, social security, national defense, civil rights, food safety, drug safety, medical device safety, all forms of aid and assistance, the list goes on and on. It could be up to each of the 50 the states to hold the electronic keys. This would make it difficult for the federal government to take our rights. The important thing would be to deprive lunatics the right to commit mass murder of our children and fellow citizens in this manner. Your right to hunt animals would not be removed. Your right to self defense would not be taken away unless you live too close to one of the designated safety zones, which means no one's gun (unless authorized) would threaten you. There is no perfect solution but we shouldn't use that as our excuse not to try anything. The freedom sociopaths have to commit these crime takes more freedom from us than the government would by implementing electronic gun regulations.
As an alternative for those living in designated safety zones, they may opt for non-lethal firearms as a means of self defense. Dude comes sneaking in through the window and you pop his ass with a 12 gauge bean bag gun, rubber bullet gun, or light him up with a taser. That could be real fun and make a person think twice before trying to f with you.
This is just off the top of my head. I want to hear more real solutions that could work, but what I'm tired of hearing is the same stalemate argument that prevents any progress on the issue.
Ban the already-owned guns too, and then remove them from their owner's cold dead hands. We're over-populated as it is and lowering the number of morons would be a worthwhile effort.
Set up an IQ test that must be passed in order to own a gun. 98% of the morons would flunk and be gunless.
IMHO:
'Guns are not the problem' vs 'Guns are the problem' is exactly why nothing gets accomplished. Neither argument has a valid point nor do they offer a solution. These are the excuses for not doing anything. People should offer a solution instead. For example:
I believe we need a 21st century solution. One where everyone could keep any type of firearm with any size clip. There could be an electronic device put on all weapons sold to civilians that disables firearms within a safe distance of schools, daycare, courthouses, airports, hospitals, parks, malls, etc. An electronic barrier, similar to ones used for house arrest, could be setup in these 'safe zones'. If violated, the firearm is electronically disabled, authorities are alerted, and building has a lock-down emergency protocol in place that is followed when alerted. Exceptions could be made depending on the type of gun (antiques, single-shots, etc.).
Cars and cell phones can be locked and tracked when stolen. We could apply the same technology to stolen guns. Old guns could be traded in for guns with electronic triggers and GPS tracking. Give a time frame for compliance, if you turn them in within the set time, you get 100% credit towards an equal gun. Anyone found in possession of the old kind after said time frame would face felony charges. Phase out ammo for the old type making them useless. In time, nearly all the old ones will be gone. This would be safer for all AND create thousands of jobs. The technology exists. It just needs to be incorporated.
Our right to bear arms can actually be taken away at any time. Granted it could be easier using this method, but consider this: We already trust the government with much more important things pertaining to our very survival. There are a lot of things that could be taken by the government because they have control. All forms of media, phone, internet, radio, tv, electricity, clean water, sewage, trash pickup, traffic and street lights, buses, trains, they could take money, school, driving, flight, police, firefighters, court, fuel, weather service, social security, national defense, civil rights, food safety, drug safety, medical device safety, all forms of aid and assistance, the list goes on and on. It could be up to each of the 50 the states to hold the electronic keys. This would make it difficult for the federal government to take our rights. The important thing would be to deprive lunatics the right to commit mass murder of our children and fellow citizens in this manner. Your right to hunt animals would not be removed. Your right to self defense would not be taken away unless you live too close to one of the designated safety zones, which means no one's gun (unless authorized) would threaten you. There is no perfect solution but we shouldn't use that as our excuse not to try anything. The freedom sociopaths have to commit these crime takes more freedom from us than the government would by implementing electronic gun regulations.
As an alternative for those living in designated safety zones, they may opt for non-lethal firearms as a means of self defense. Dude comes sneaking in through the window and you pop his ass with a 12 gauge bean bag gun, rubber bullet gun, or light him up with a taser. That could be real fun and make a person think twice before trying to f with you.
This is just off the top of my head. I want to hear more real solutions that could work, but what I'm tired of hearing is the same stalemate argument that prevents any progress on the issue.
Evolution of the Emotional Compass
In the aftermath of the Newtown shooting are men and woman, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, is our society ready to look at what our culture is creating by continuingly ignoring our basic human-ness and what makes us a human being? We are a physical, mental and emotional being that perceives and acts. And, it is within this natural and harmonious interdependence of characters, the spirit of humanity is being lost by a culture that accepts ideas, thoughts, and percepts that run contrary to our evolution as a species.
Survival of the species has always meant a harmony and cooperation between the actions of the mind, the actions of the body, and the actions of an emotion system and whose basis of evolution must be revisited and acknowledged. Any false-positive correlations between feeling good and the biochemical balance of strength and well-being and the very cognition of this well-being and aptitude would eventually lead to an individual’s destruction and removal from the gene pool. Climbing a tree for food may mean survival of the individual and society, but when action is based on the good feelings of strength and capability when the capacity and strength is not physically or bio-chemically present, the results of such acts of survival will come crashing down.
Has our culture and society contemplated the meaning of, or analyzed the relationships between, or developed working ideas and conceptualized instruction and education, or even comprehend the significance and importance of using the emotional compass for guiding the mind and body’s actions through this maze we call life? That is, does our culture have an understanding or where-with-all of the importance of acting within the emotional strength of good feelings and its corollary physical and biochemical balance of strength and harmony? Rather than understanding the nuances of the emotional compass, the emotional system has been criminalized as being un-trustworthy, faulty and something to be subjected to the ideals and authority of the parents, church, school and a political society. And, even medical doctrine states that mental aberration is an illness where bio-chemical imbalance is causal, without symptomatic meanings or implications. Maybe there is supposed to be a chemical imbalance because cognitive actions are out-of-sync with evolutionary design. Using pharmaceuticals without the rehabilitating the natural mind-body-emotion harmony is to maintain and nurture dysfunctional behavior and, as we have seen, the insemination of tragedy.
The evolutionary nature of the emotional system dictates a harmony and a positive correlation between emotions and biochemistry and the cognitive mind. To singularly pharmaceutically treat the biology without also reestablishing the emotional-cognitive connection where good feelings correlate with the cognition of well-being and the emoting actions from this cauldron of feeling good and even joyful, is to create an unfathomable aberration whose actions will truly be insane. Our culture and society dictates that action within physical pain and the emotional guidance stemming from sources other than those from within has value and will be rewarded whereas evolution dictates that action within emotional and physical pain is the precursor to extinction. The psychological-psychiatric-pharmaceutical merry-go-around has been a cornucopia of inbred theories and solutions profiting all involved accept the patients and victims these ideas are meant to help.
Help, cure, well-being and joy in life stems from reestablishing a person’s internal emotional compass. Yet if society criminalizes emotions, if society takes no steps towards comprehension of how the emotional system has evolved to harmonize good feelings with a sound mind and a healthy body and positive actions, if society fails to evolve out of its aberrant belief systems, then society will always produce another Newtown.
In the aftermath of the Newtown shooting are men and woman, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, is our society ready to look at what our culture is creating by continuingly ignoring our basic human-ness and what makes us a human being? We are a physical, mental and emotional being that perceives and acts. And, it is within this natural and harmonious interdependence of characters, the spirit of humanity is being lost by a culture that accepts ideas, thoughts, and percepts that run contrary to our evolution as a species.
Survival of the species has always meant a harmony and cooperation between the actions of the mind, the actions of the body, and the actions of an emotion system and whose basis of evolution must be revisited and acknowledged. Any false-positive correlations between feeling good and the biochemical balance of strength and well-being and the very cognition of this well-being and aptitude would eventually lead to an individual’s destruction and removal from the gene pool. Climbing a tree for food may mean survival of the individual and society, but when action is based on the good feelings of strength and capability when the capacity and strength is not physically or bio-chemically present, the results of such acts of survival will come crashing down.
Has our culture and society contemplated the meaning of, or analyzed the relationships between, or developed working ideas and conceptualized instruction and education, or even comprehend the significance and importance of using the emotional compass for guiding the mind and body’s actions through this maze we call life? That is, does our culture have an understanding or where-with-all of the importance of acting within the emotional strength of good feelings and its corollary physical and biochemical balance of strength and harmony? Rather than understanding the nuances of the emotional compass, the emotional system has been criminalized as being un-trustworthy, faulty and something to be subjected to the ideals and authority of the parents, church, school and a political society. And, even medical doctrine states that mental aberration is an illness where bio-chemical imbalance is causal, without symptomatic meanings or implications. Maybe there is supposed to be a chemical imbalance because cognitive actions are out-of-sync with evolutionary design. Using pharmaceuticals without the rehabilitating the natural mind-body-emotion harmony is to maintain and nurture dysfunctional behavior and, as we have seen, the insemination of tragedy.
The evolutionary nature of the emotional system dictates a harmony and a positive correlation between emotions and biochemistry and the cognitive mind. To singularly pharmaceutically treat the biology without also reestablishing the emotional-cognitive connection where good feelings correlate with the cognition of well-being and the emoting actions from this cauldron of feeling good and even joyful, is to create an unfathomable aberration whose actions will truly be insane. Our culture and society dictates that action within physical pain and the emotional guidance stemming from sources other than those from within has value and will be rewarded whereas evolution dictates that action within emotional and physical pain is the precursor to extinction. The psychological-psychiatric-pharmaceutical merry-go-around has been a cornucopia of inbred theories and solutions profiting all involved accept the patients and victims these ideas are meant to help.
Help, cure, well-being and joy in life stems from reestablishing a person’s internal emotional compass. Yet if society criminalizes emotions, if society takes no steps towards comprehension of how the emotional system has evolved to harmonize good feelings with a sound mind and a healthy body and positive actions, if society fails to evolve out of its aberrant belief systems, then society will always produce another Newtown.
There are more restrictions to driving a car, buying smokes, buying booze, flying across the country and voting in this country than there are to buy a firearm.
In recent years, repubs have been excited about making changes to our Constitution. They've wanted to repeal the 14th amendment for purely partisan political purposes. They have proposed constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and abortion. In that vein, perhaps we should repeal the 2nd amendment. When do the rights of a gun-owning minority trump the safety of all of us, especially our children? I am so tired of hearing that we all have a right to bear arms. Well, we also have the first amendment rights of free speech, but that is not an absolute right. We cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater; we cannot write or say things we know are absolutely not true about a person or we are subject to libel laws. Even the second amendment also comes with restrictions: you can't own a tank, or hand grenades, or a nuclear weapon. So, what is the compelling argument FOR the second amendment? Your peashooters will not stop an airstrike, or a tank brigade, so keeping the government in check is a crock. Can anyone name a single instance where the government has not done something for fear of armed citizens rising against it?
Are we going to be a country armed to the teeth, watching thousands die each year from gun violence, or are we going to finally see the light and act like the civilized nation we claim to be?
The "Left" has had a anti-second amendment agenda for 50 years.. they use emotional incidents to stir public opinion.. they are like vultures..they feed on the dead to push their political agenda
Now is the time to have some REAL gun control.
EVERY ime there is a MASS SHOOTING I pray it's NOT my son that's the shooter.
Why? Because as a child he threatened people and spent time in a mental facility. When he graduated from high school - he joined the U.S. Army!
Since then he was married - and when the Sheriff called to see if we knew where he is currently located - we had no idea - but when the Sheriff explained they were trying to serve a PFA against him - I made certain the Sheriff knew to send more than one officer to serve the PFA.
Lately I learned from my daughter that he has a load of weapons that he loves to shoot outside his house!
I believe this country is now ready to stqart some type of reform and I certainly hope you will stand up against the NRA and do something!
One idea is why not require gun owners to carry some sort of insurance on EVERY gun they own? After all - to drive a car - I need insurance!
The gun owner would have to list EACH gun with his insurance policy - and the policy would be in place no matter who the shooter was - the owner - or a thief.
All I know is something must be done - NOW - before another school is attacked by a coward that has a mental illness! After all - it could be MY son next time.
Now is the time to have some REAL gun control.
EVERY ime there is a MASS SHOOTING I pray it's NOT my son that's the shooter.
Why? Because as a child he threatened people and spent time in a mental facility. When he graduated from high school - he joined the U.S. Army!
Since then he was married - and when the Sheriff called to see if we knew where he is currently located - we had no idea - but when the Sheriff explained they were trying to serve a PFA against him - I made certain the Sheriff knew to send more than one officer to serve the PFA.
Lately I learned from my daughter that he has a load of weapons that he loves to shoot outside his house!
I believe this country is now ready to start some type of reform and I certainly hope you will stand up against the NRA and do something!
One idea is why not require gun owners to carry some sort of insurance on EVERY gun they own? After all - to drive a car - I need insurance!
The gun owner would have to list EACH gun with his insurance policy - and the policy would be in place no matter who the shooter was - the owner - or a thief.
All I know is something must be done - NOW - before another school is attacked by a coward that has a mental illness!
MSNBC - note that very recently, China had a similar crazy violent attack - 22 people were injured by a knife.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15901085-villager-slashes-22-kids-with-knife-at-elementary-school-gates-in-china?lite
I think this is relevant to what happens when guns are less available - 22 victims *injured* not killed with a knife, not a gun.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to stop using the phrase "gun control" and start using what we mean -- "gun safety." I don't think most of us care whether gun enthusiasts want to go to a safe licensed gun range and blast away, even with their AK's... It's when their lonely teenagers can decide to go out in a blaze of glory at the mall or in school that we have these debates (and then do nothing).
Frank Luntz learned the McLuhan lesson well, giving us "right to life" and "death tax" as the defining terms in both conservative and liberal discussion.
It's about time we refer to the issue with the real goal in mind.
Whenever I hear the term 'assault weapon' I know I'm talking to someone who doesn't know anything about weaponry. It makes them easy to dismiss.
Before everyone assumes I'm a "gun nut" opposed to regulation, I'm not. I am, however, opposed to policies that are based on fear and misunderstanding of something rather than knowledgable reasoned positions.
As I see it, there are a few simple things which, taken together, would go a long way to reduce the gun violence in the USA.
1) Ban all handguns, period. They are too easy to conceal, there is scant evidence that they do more good than harm, and they are the type of weapon used in most gun crimes. Get rid of them.
2) Ban all magazines, clips or drums holding more than 10 rounds. 10 semi-automatic shots aren't enough, then whatever you're shooting probably needs military grade weaponry, or you're too poor a shot to be using a weapon. One or the two.
3) Require registration of all firearms. Require that the owner and all members of their household submit to annually to both a comprehensive firearm safety training and a full psychological examination.
4) Require every state to fund, build, staff and support a quality public mental health in-patient treatment network. Allow for civil commitments of low level offense criminals who are showing signs of mental illness. Allow for the public funding of self-committed patients as well.
Hogwash! Assault weapons by definition and cold reality do in fact exist, and people who talk about them are not ignorant about weapons unless they are ignorant about weapons. These are military weapons sold to civilians, both rifles and handguns. The assault rifles come with anti-recoil devices, which make killing easier, much easier. Try shooting a regular rifle without such a device multiple times in a short span, you will then clearly see the remarkable ease that assault rifles give you to find the target. AR's simply don't kick you back like shotguns or regular rifles do. Your calls to ban handguns and spend alot of cash on mental health are fine, but lets see how that plays out with todays budget constraints.
Lebowsky Dude - ever go varmint hunting? Gas charged recoil and floating barrels are pretty much required 'cause you're going to be shooting a lot . . .
Indeed, the Bushmaster is a nearly perfect varmint gun for that reason.
Or how about just target shooting for fun?
The Bushmaster is not a military grade weapon even though it features a few cosmetic similarities and even a few functional similarities.
What anti recoil devices are you talking about? The AR style rifle in this case uses a 223 cartridge. I don't know of any special anti-recoil devices installed on any AR platform rifle. It's recoil is relatively light when compared to a regular 30-06 bolt action or semi-auto hunting rifle because the bullet and powder charge are much lighter. A bolt action 223 has relatively light recoil too. The military's version of the 223 caliber bullet, the 5.56 mm FMJ, is particularly deadly because it tumbles on impact.
Again we need more light than heat on this subject. If you are going to be a proponent of gun control you should at least understand how they work.
In IDing assault weapons, the obviously ludicrous definitions overrules the ludicrously obvious. And thus, we are lost in the paralysis of technocracy, where the technology rules.
Seems the better thing to do, would be: make people who want to buy a gun (of any kind that we can buy as of now) get evaluated by a psychiatrist so they can identify any mental health issues.
Next, require that they get a license for their guns. Like w/ driving a car that can kill people, if you at least make people who drive, have a license (you won't eliminate car accidents) but you'll save more lives than you would if you didn't require a license to drive.
Dems should bag the assault weapons ban idea and think more progressive. I for one (liberal!) could care less if all guns were banned, but I'm not asking our elected officials to do that. Instead, put things like psychiatric exams & training/safe keeping programs that lead to gun owners having a license, would be a way to not divide us over this issue.
Nancy Lanza, by all accounts, was an avid, dedicated, and competent shooter and gun enthusiast. She owned numerous, high-quality firearms. If the theory proposed by NRA sychophants--that armed people can stop violence before it gets under way--is correct, then she would still be alive.
But, she was shot 4 times in the face while she slept. Why didn't she shoot her son instead of the reverse? Because she was sleeping, you idiots! Your argument is as dead as the victims of Sandy Hook, people. She had guns and knew how to use them and look what that accomplished...26 innocent lives taken in less than 10 minutes. I enjoy shooting, and have for many years, but this argument is riddled with holes. The answer is more gun control, NOT more guns. Time to reset and re-frame this debate.