As Rachel explained last night, Vice President Biden and his task force on gun violence met yesterday with opponents of gun control, including officials from the National Rifle Association, and the meeting was not exactly productive. It appears the Obama administration and the NRA are not on the same page. Try to contain your surprise.
But that doesn't mean the day lacked newsworthy developments.
The vice president noted that his panel is moving forward with a series of recommendations, which will be ready ahead of schedule, and if you watch the clip, you'll notice he referenced a part of the gun debate that's generally overlooked: federally-funded research.
In fact, Biden specifically said his Gun Violence Commission is exploring "the ability of any agency to do research on the issue of gun violence."
When policymakers look for "common sense" reforms on gun policy that enjoy "consensus" support in the American mainstream, they generally talk about measures like restricting high-capacity clips and background checks to prevent suspected terrorists of purchasing firearms.
But if policymakers are making a list of no-brainer reforms, I hope research on gun violence is added to the mix -- because the status quo is ridiculous.
To review what we discussed a few weeks ago, the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby hasn't just fought to kill restrictions on firearm ownership, they've also blocked basic data collection. As a result, there's "no current scientific consensus about guns and violence," in large part because the NRA "has been able to neutralize empirical cases for control."
The most thorough and authoritative analysis is the 2004 report by a panel of leading experts, "Firearms and Violence," sponsored by the National Research Council. Its startling conclusion was that we simply don't know enough to make scientifically grounded judgments about which approaches -- from gun-control measures to permission-to-carry laws -- are likely to work.
The panel's primary recommendation was simply: "If policy makers are to have a solid empirical and research base for decisions about firearms and violence, the federal government needs to support a systematic program of data collection and research that specifically addresses that issue." Or, as an expert quoted in the Times article on the report said, "The main thrust of it is, we don't know anything about anything, and more research is needed."
With this in mind, one might assume that research on firearms and their use would go up, so social scientists could get a more accurate picture from which policies could be made. But since 2004, research has actually decreased, as research funding dried up.
Maybe academics focused attention elsewhere? Hardly. The NRA successfully lobbied to "choke off" research grants, working from the assumption that less data would mean less knowledge, which in turn would lead to less policymaking.
We know how this happened. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began expanding its research into gun-related deaths as a public health issue, so conservatives in Congress added language to the appropriations bill that finances the CDC: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."
That language never went away.
This doesn't have to be ideological. Maybe you're skeptical of new gun laws; maybe you support them. But I'd like to think knowledge has a certain intrinsic value, and there's no point in having a policy debate in the dark.
As a rule, when an organization insists ignorance is helpful to its larger ambitions, it speaks volumes about the merit of the group's ideas.
Leave a Comment:
On the past two shows, Rachel has mentioned that "less than 1% of NRA-endorsed candidates won in the last election" for a 99% failure rate. I believe the NRA's failure rate in the last election was actually 100 PERCENT!
If you check, the candidates that the NRA endorsed that went on to win were never really in jeopardy of not winning, even without the NRA's endorsement, living in deep-Red districts, making their endorsement essentially worthless.
But I'd like to think knowledge has a certain intrinsic value,
Unless you are Republican, where facts run counter to your goals.
There has been a bit of talk about information that the gov't is prevented from collecting, or has but is not allowed to disseminate, or some combination - I am not too sure of the details. Is there something that a FOIA request could written up for, even if it is for raw data that has been collected but not collated?
Consider the advent of electronic medical records... does any doubt exist that there is a list of AIDS patients somewhere? Gun owners don't want to be on a list, it's the first step to confiscation.
That said, there is plenty of info available. Gun sales, gun injuries and death, determinations of homicide vs suicide, crime rates, etc. No list of ownership is needed, just like ballots are cast in secret.
Shooter did you even read the article. No where in the article was a suggested that a "list of gun owners" be created. Even the comment you responded to did not seem to suggest this. The article suggests that we do some research on gun ownership and gun violence in America to determine what types of common sense reforms would actually work. You should be all for this if your confident that there will not be a link between ownership and violence.
Actually, Shooter, I was not really talking about databases of gun owners, or anything like that - I was thinking more along the lines of what is discussed here:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/the-blockade-on-science-on-gun-violence/?hp
But, as long as you're bringing it up - Yes, I believe that in order to own certain types of guns, you ought to have to register them. There has been an idea kicking around to classify certain weapons in the same catagory as grenades and rocket launchers...Not all guns. just the ones that can do so much damage so quickly like, say, a grenade. Or the gun used in CT.
Gun owners don't want to be on the list? That's sad. Those 20 kids in CT didn't want to be on the kind of list they ended up on, either. You have to be on a list to get many caustic, damaging items, including certain chemicals. The government knows what cars we own. Get over it.
Once again Blankman, you prove the point that "ignorance isn't bliss and "...when an organization insists ignorance is helpful to its larger ambitions, it speaks volumes...".
It must be tough living in your fear-filled bubble world.....
Shooter since the advent of machine guns and sub machine guns it was a matter of common sense that these weapons should not be available to the general civilian population. Every man, woman, and child in the 20s and 30s didn't need a Tommy Gun, and they don't need an AR-15 or AK now.
Only in the last few decades have the gun laws been perverted by monied interests to allow the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic military style rifles and handguns with extremely high capacity magazines.
Sorry, someone's desire to have 30 semi-automatic rifles with the capability of unleashing hundreds of rounds a minute does not trump the safety of the civilian population.
We need to get as many of these guns off the street now with buyback programs as we can, and we need to stop the unregulated sale of these weapons. It's not fair to law abiding citizens of one state that has common sense gun laws to be threatened by the negligent laws of another state that allow the unregulated sale of these weapons to anyone without some sort of background check and waiting period.
Why do you want to make it so easy to allow criminals to get these guns?
No longer. Common sense and rationality will prevail and fringe anti-government elements will no longer be allowed to dictate gun policy.
Shooter, as usual, you are on the wrong side of history.
Blanks used the AIDS card, did you see that?! Where are you, 1980? And, there's this little practice called hipaa.. You're going to grab at any straw, I know, but can you really live with continuous remote control slaying? (That was a snark question!)
We have to register and license our cars and trucks and have to have a license to drive one. Every state has a data base on who owns and operates a motor vehicle. You also have to have insurance and in some states you have to carry proof of ownership, a little card you get when you renew your license plates. No one is saying the government is going to take our cars away from us. Every five years you have to renew your drivers license and every year your license plates. If you drink and drive, you can lose your license and in some states even your vehicle.
Why can't we have something like that for guns? The constitution does not say we have the right to own and carry guns. It says arms. The nature of arms has changed over the centurys. If you take the constitution in its broadest sense, every one should be able to own a fighter jet, and even an atomic bomb. That is why we need to exercise a little common sense. The constitution obviously meant that people had the right to serve in a miltia. That means that everyone has the right to sign up for the National Guard or the army, navy, or air force and that anyone who shows the leadership and the proper skills can become an officer. In earlier times only those who owned property could serve in the army and rise through the ranks. You had to be a qualified voter. Thus owning a gun or a sword in earlier times was a sign that you were a full citizen with the right to vote.
" federally-funded research."
"Warning! Danger, Will Robinson!"
A group of Serious Thinkers- AKA Simpson-Bowles- will retire to a Hooters in Hawaii to contemplate the issues, and report back in five years.
A good bit of research has already been done, and Kevin Drum has reported on it: Lead (in paint and gasoline) is the "smoking gun" in this violence. No links, because his work is all over the internet and cable TV. Use your Google!
I deal with lead paint issues all the time, and was fascinated by those findings. The report dealt mostly with the gas issue, but I'd really like to see more detailed research done in the older sections of our cities, where poor housing conditions contribute to keeping kids from success.
There is an excellent report on the issue of leaded gasoline and the blowback from residual lead in the environment in the New Scientist just recently. I don't have the exact reference, but you can go to the www.newscientist.com and look it up.
In the first few days after the Sandy Hook tragedy I was heartened & encouraged to see that you,& others at MSNBC, weren't just jerking your knees straight to "Gun Control". It was good to see you, & others, also seeming to focus on the *more important* facet of this issue, the *lack of access to mental health care* in this country. Then I began to become more & more disheartened as saw you, & all those others, abruptly stop talking about mental healthcare *completely*, & focusing exclusively on gun control. I watch you & Lawrence everyday & in the past week I have not heard you *once* mention mental healthcare in any way, let alone in regards to the latest mass shooting tragedy. Yet, on the other hand, you have spent almost the entire first half of your show every day this week on gun control. What happened to looking at ALL sides & aspects of an issue?
Interesting how you take MSNBC to the woodshed over coverage of supposedly only one aspect because you only want coverage of one aspect.
It's possible that they have backed away from the Mental Health aspect because studies show that a very small percentage of gun violence has been perpetrated by the mentally ill. And if you remember the NRA's response is to start a data base of crazy people but not gun owners. I agree, our mental health system needs attention and has for sometime now. Wasn't it Reagan who closed the facilities that cared for the mentally ill and dumped them on the streets? Mental illness costs money like all health care in this country and nobody wants to spend money they just want to make money.
Mental health definitely will play a role in the fashioning of a new, more rational and sound gun policy, but the bottom line is this: The best way to prevent unstable people from obtaining high capacity weapons is to regulate the access to them, like you would any other product that is inherently dangerous.
There are a myriad of laws and regulations for operating a motor vehicle, high capacity weapons should have the same treatment.
Well, then thank goodness for the Affordable Care Act, which will make mental health care more accessible to more people.
There is those days when a big major light comes on and you go I got it eureka. And today is one of them. What can I say Jesus you were an absolute genius plus much more. Ssshhhhhh. Hehehehehehe hohhohoho. What can I say Jesus you are just so clever.
...
Shooter
We moderate our civil and constitutional rights all the time. Your right to free speech doesn't extend to shouting "Fire" in a crowed theater, and your freedom of religion doesn't extend to sacrificing children.
Also data on health issues is compiled by the CDC and other organizations to protect health and safety of the nation. Similarity with the FDA, The EPA and the CPSC. Should we stop research for these agencies as well?
Being on a list of registered gun owners is not a first step toward "Confiscation" save only perhaps from people who shouldn't have the damn things in the first place.
Everything you just said is paranoid and delusional, not to mention fallacious and illogical on it's face.
Shooter Sorry don't know what happened there I was replying to your post at #2.1 but for some reason it bumped mine all the way down here
Yes, this comment system can be squirrely at times.
Yes a list is the first step to confiscation. Question, what aspects of gun ownership would be researched? The only thing I can think of is who has what. That's the beginning of the list. As for paranoia, who would have thought a newspaper would publish a list of who has what? But it happened, no?
Research on gun violence would be more like this...is there a common gun type that is used in mass murders?
No list, just research that can lead to better regulations.
It would also clarify the current fact-free debate about statistics of "good guys" actually successfully defending against "bad guys."
They're coming for your guns, Shooter. Who knows what else "they" will do. Be ever-vigilant. Never sleep. Motion sensors and strategically-placed cameras are your best bet. Oh, and guns.
The conservatives were right. Gun related deaths weren't and still aren't a public health issue. The flu has killed more children this year than gun violence. The CDC still hasn't figured out how to stop this carnage.
Gun related deaths are not a public health issue? Please please please tell me this was meant to be /snark. I don't have the figures in front of me but 60k per year die in gun related deaths, how is this not a public health concern. Not only that, that ignores gun related injuries. Also I am very very very dubious of your claim that the flu has killed more children than guns this year. First because I doubt there are stats on that out in the past 11 days, second because the flu has a very low mortality rate.
Ahhh... the flu strawman appears...
Some are killed by "Acts of God"- the flu, floods, fires, meteors from space.
And some are killed by "Acts of Man". Do not conflate the two.
I'm sure if the flu could be outlawed - if we could wage a successful "war on influenza" - we would.
I'm also sure if Obama tried to wage a "war on influenza" conservatives would whine that he was denying influenza's Right To Life whilst simultaneously making it harder for doctor's to make a living helping patients with the flu. They'd opine "what if the flu could kill a baby destined to be the next Hitler? Obama didn't let Nature Do What Must Be Done!" And of course, if you still caught the flu. Rush & Glenn Beck would warn that the government would put you on a list to be "monitored" and prophesy that list would eventually be a hit list.
The point is that gun deaths aren't a health issue they are an enforcement issue. The CDC has nothing to do with the problem. A war on responsible gun owners is not going to solve any criminal issues. Also the Sandy Hook shooter's mom was not a responsible gun owner. She knew her demon offspring had a serious problem and didn't lock up her weapons.
First of all Inspector Clouseau, there is no war on responsible gun owners. Millions of responsible gun owners are perfectly fine with changing the laws when it comes to semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, and the unregulated sale of these weapons and ammunition.
Second of all, the enforcement issue you proposed is ludicrous on it's face. The laws on the books are a farce, and the agency tasked to enforce these laws, the ATF, has purposely been underfunded and essentially stripped of any authority, by the politicians who are financed by the armament industry. This is going to stop.
Federal regulations must be across the board on sales of high capacity firearms. Background checks have be to re-instated and gun show loopholes closed. Criminals and other unstable people should not be allowed to travel to states without any gun control laws, go to a gun show or wherever, and puchase as many guns and ammunition as they can afford without any questions asked.
We need real laws with an agency that can enforce them. The safety of the general civilian population trumps the desire of a gun enthusiast to own as many of these types of weapons as they want without any sort of check or balance. These types of weapons should be regulated and there should be some sort of licensing and a special category that people have to qualify for to obtain weapons like this, similar to how we licence the operatoin of motor vehicles and the like.
For too long our gun laws have been perverted by the NRA and the armament manufacturers that finance it. It's time to restore some sanity and rational, logical thinking.
Okay Citizen pain in the a$$crack
You have absolutely no information to back up your conspiracy theory except for the blathering of msnbc and the like. Crazy Steve Benen even put up the stats today about how much money comes from the NRA. He even said that the NRA gave money to oppose Sherrod Brown and gave money to support him. Is Liberal lefty Sherrod brown on the payroll of the gun companies too?
There is no gun show loophole. You have never been to a gun show in your life. (No questoins asked, What a dolt) Private citizens can sell their firearms in a private sale in this country. Get used to it or move to England . I don't think the crime rate there will bother you too much. Heck they only use baseball bats to kill you there. You can't even tell me what constitutes an assault weapon is. And I'll bet you fifty bucks that Obama And Biden couldn't either
And finally you fool. Just ask any federal firearms license holder if the ATF is toothless.
Inspector Clouseau, what are you spewing out of your facehole you bloviating ignoramus?
I've been to many gun shows all over the south, so I do know what I'm talking about. As a matter of fact there was one in my hometown just this past weekend, and I could have walked out of there with as many AKs and SKSs and AR-15s I could afford, and all the ammo to boot. So it is your ignorant ass that needs to educate yourself.
And I'm not even going to get into the state of the ATF. I think it would be too complicated for your lizard brain.
Now why don't you go back to drinking your PBR, and watching Fux Noise or Wrastlin'.
Better yet, go wander around the woods near the pigsty you call home with the rest of your fat ass pot belly ignorant redneck inbreds looking for black UN helicopters, and let the grown ups deal with this issue.
Inspector: Get ready for profound disappointment. And this notion you have that only wingnuts understand guns is quite faulty. It's become such a common strawman on these boards it's astounding. I do give you credit for the flu strawman, thats a new one to me. As far as baseball bats and england, those are stale as month old hot cheetos.
Lebowski dud
Who played the strawman in the wizard of oz?
Wittle citizen Has a poopie diaper. It's been said that the guy that gets angry loses the argument. You will always lose. BTW it's a good thing that they didn't do a mental health background check on you while you were there if anything you say is true.
I responded to your post in an adult manner son. Your response was to get juvenile.
One of these days I'll learn to just leave to man-child trolls alone. Sigh.
Again, You have nothing to back up what you spew I call you on it and you go off on a personal attack barrage. Liberals do that when they are cornered. Thanks for the fun afternoon though.
We do not manufacture and sell the flu virus, except in modified and supposedly harmless form for vaccines. Viruses are not citizens; we cannot pass a law to control viruses.
All civilized societies make laws to regulate the behavior of their citizens in order to assure the liberty and the safety of the whole. Freedom does not mean one is free to engage in distructive behavior. Everyone's freedom ends where his/her neighbor's freedom and safety takes up.
Back what up Inspector Clouseau? What did I state that you say I can't back up? Let's hear it son, it's time to start explaining yourself instead of vomiting baseless accusations. We'll see if you have the brainpower to formulate a coherent and articulate argument backing your claims.
Okay that first statement is a complete paradox. If people are dying as a result of something then it automatically becomes a health issue. The fact that it's happening via guns as opposed to the flu doesn't matter. People are still dying and people need to be cared for in the best way possible. As to your second claim please provide evidence that supports your argument. How many people have died of the flu in 2013 versus that of gun violence? Or how about how many people died of the flu in 2012 versus that of guns violence?
hahahahahahahahahaha. So let me get this straight. If the CDC doesn't try to handle a problem that therefore means it's not health related? WHAT?! You do realize that CDC doesn't deal with a lot of issues that are health related, yeah? This is just hilarious. Apparently you operate under the belief that the government decides what type of problem an issue is. And here I thought you were afraid of the big bad government....
Who started a war on responsible gun owners? What is a responsible gun owner? What is this war?
The argument is that she shouldn't have had the guns in the first place. If she didn't have the guns her son couldn't have shot people so readily. This isn't a counter-argument nor does it prove what is or isn't a responsible gun owner. She obtained all her weapons legally. Changing the laws about who can obtain guns legally would've been the only way to prevent this tragedy (in the guns department, anyways). That is unless you're advocating that the government do routine checks on the homes of gun owners to verify that their weapons are safely stored? Again I thought you were anti government, not pro government expansion?
So you immediately state that no information exists of the NRA funding campaigns to influence their decision making...and then you follow that sentence by asserting that the NRA does fund campaigns to influence their decision making. Congratulations: you've just debunked yourself in the span of ONE sentence.
The chart put up by Benen, if you had bothered to actually read it, wasn't looking at total donations. It was looking at total donations of people who actually won. In other words it was looking at the success rate of the NRA during last election cycle. You are assuming that this number is stagnant (a claim no one else has made beside yourself) and you are assuming that failure to win lots of elections this season somehow directly contributes to the overall level of influence the NRA and the rest of the "pro-gun" lobby has had in the past. These are entirely two separate issues. This is such a ludicrous leap in logic.
And yet again here you contradict yourself in the spread of ONE sentence. What is the gun show loophole? It is that private persons making firearm sales do not have to run background checks. They only have to be made when the weapon is coming from a dealer or manufacturer. That's it. Congratulations: you've just proven that you don't know what the gun show loophole actually is. And I'm assuming that your conclusion that there isn't a gun show loophole totally came independently from your own personal analysis and not because of the fact that you read this on some right wing blog. You chastise other people for not using independent thought over a subject you yourself were apparently too stupid or too lazy to research. Bravo.
What people are stating in regards to the gun show loophole is that you should be forced to make a background check on all sales- NOT just those from dealers or manufacturers. But another possibility is to make it illegal to sell a gun without having the sale notarized or without having the weapon registered on it's change of hands. None of these options would prevent private sales, but they would require regulation to follow. Essentially you'd be treating a firearm like any other tool that can be used to cause mass murder (cars, planes, trains, boats, etc).
Oh as for what constitutes an assault weapon? That would be any tactical assault rifle (which is what assault weapon stands for). It's a lightweight weapon (considered a plastic gun), that has semi-auto burst fire options or can easily be modified to shoot in burst fire or as an automatic, a weapon that can hold and fire magazines carrying more than 30 bullets at a time, a weapon that is not designed for use specifically for hunting or self-defense (but rather for tactical assault), and a weapon that is not bolt-action. There are even more requirements we could put into place, but I am just exemplifying here that tactical assault rifle actually is a classification of rifle despite how much right wingers try to pretend like it's not. I actually have a sneaky suspicion this is because right wingers don't actually own as many guns as they pretend to. If you asked any law enforcement office in the country what the difference was between a hunting rifle and a tactical assault rifle he/she'd probably laugh at you and say what the hell is similar to them aside form the fact they have the name rifle assigned to them? But it doesn't fit into the ideology so it roundly gets discarded.
When is the last time someone intentionally murdered another human being with the flu?
Cit Pain
What you fail to "back up with facts instead of feelings is the conspiracy theory that the ATF is "purposely underfunded". let's see the results of the independant investigation. It doesn't exist.
Cartoon
hahahahahahahahahaha. So let me get this straight. If the CDC doesn't try to handle a problem that therefore means it's not health related? WHAT?! You do realize that CDC doesn't deal with a lot of issues that are health related, yeah? This is just hilarious. Apparently you operate under the belief that the government decides what type of problem an issue is. And here I thought you were afraid of the big bad government....
If they don't deal with alot of problems that are health related, then why in the heck are we paying them? The government (and the lib media) does decide what problems (or non problems) are issues. According to the current government the disposition of issues are decided on from "focus groups" BTW I'm not affraid of government, I'm affraid of government run by Berkely grads.
Who started a war on responsible gun owners? What is a responsible gun owner? What is this war?
Again, the media and the liberals. The "we need more laws crowd" We have enough laws out there already that aren't being followed. How about the law against killing people? That is the big one that all of these mass murdering aholes seem to be breaking. Yeah we need more laws, so libs can feel like they are actually doing something. More feel good crap.
A responsible gun owner is one that has undergone the training needed to fully understand the operation,care and maintenance that is required to safely operate, store and secure said firearm. Adam Lanza's mother did not secure her firearms.
The gun show loophole doesn't exist. It is a misnomer designed by the left to make things look worse than they are for political gain. Licensed dealers at gun shows have to do background checks. The majority of saales at gun shows are done by gun dealers. In order to set up a booth to sell firearms you have to be a dealer. Private individuals can bring firearms to the shows and sell them to dealers or other private individuals. The left wants everyone to believe that there are mass sales of guns unchecked at gunshows to further their anti gun agenda.
Finally, any mechanic worth his salt can configure a semi automatic hunting rifle to become fully automatic. BTW there is already a law against that. Just like minimum barrel lenght and such. The left sees plastic handgrips and laser sights and thinks "assault rifle" This is just not true. Ordinary citizens can not buy fully automatic guns. There is already a law against that too. WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE LAWS we need enforcement of the ones we already have. You sir will never understand what the real problem is until you take off the liberal blinders. Any one with two revolvers and a shotgun could have done the same damage at Sandy Hook or Aurora Colo. So we don't need more regs on clips either because it doesn't matter to criminals. They will circumvent any laws to do there work.
Rachel I love you dearly but this comment is about your drone segment last night. I know Fox News is propaganda and proves it every night but don't be hypocritical either. I know your dislike of drones but when you threw that picture and article up from the HuffPo that showed all that damage you were having your audience believe that was caused by a drone which is was not. It was done by Pakistani militants suicide attackers which they had done on their own people. In might not be alot but you are better than that. Don't do what Fox does on a nightly basis and you will keep up your good reputation. Please don't be a hypocrit. Still a fan, just some advice so take it for what it's worth.
Can anyone - ANYONE - please explain to me WHY owning high-powered semi-automatic rifles with large capacity clips is ok? Something other than "We got 'em so you can't take 'em away, 2nd Amendment blah blah blah" chest-thumping mentality. I'm serious...in all the blather the NRA and the RWNJs have thrown at this, not ONCE has anyone defended the semi-automatic or large capacity clips as necessary for "X" reason(s). Doesn't that raise a red flag?? The Right Wing Entertainment Complex is deliberately causing fear by repeatedly reporting that Obama is out for a gun grab so these types of weaponry is are experiencing enormous sales....and WHY??? To protect yourself from....what?? The Government? Really??
I would imagine that there were people in Russia, Germany and Syria (the list goes on) that thought they didn't need any protection from the government either. I bet the settlers in the new world figured they didn't have to worry about the powers that be in england too.
Just saying.
The Zombie Apocalypse of course! dah!
inspector,,??
By what means would you "protection yourself" from the government? I'm pretty certain your AR-15 wouldn't cut it,, just saying.
Sorry Gregg
With all the taxes I have to pay I can't afford an AR15. I do have a .22 squirrel rifle that will hold 9 shots. It has the same firing mech that an AR has though, the only difference is that it has a beautifull walnut stock instead of a composite one.
We have a constitution to protect us from dictators, kings, etc.. We are a nation of laws. A large percentage of our tax money goes to support and equip a military that is supposed to protect us from foreign invasion. We have police forces to protect us from one another. All our governments are supposed to be republican in nature -- republican meaning no hereditary monarch or aristocracy. We elect our law makers and executives.
What all those who want to arm the citizens to protect ourselves from criminals and crazy people are advocating is that each citizen should be a law unto him/herself. We are going to end up with more Travon Martins. Some vigilante decides that an innocent, unarmed teenager is a threat because his skin is dark or he/she is dressed in a way the vigilante does not like. What happens to due process of law and all the constitutional protections for the accused.
I keep referring to the movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance because it is such a good dramatization of what happens when everyone has to be John Wayne in order not to be beaten and bullied by some thug with a couple of other thugs at his back. I will say what Ransom Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart) says when he first arrives in Shinebone: What kind of people are you?
What kind of society do we want? I personally do not want to have to own a gun. For one thing my house is much more likely to be burgerized because the crooks want guns. They do not much want anything else that I have.
Inspector Clouseau, you say the stock of the gun is the only difference between a .22 and a AR-15 that shoots a .223?
I was going to ask which Alabama mudpit you crawled out of, but whoa, you're on a different freakin' planet.
There are things such as caliber, velocity, foot pounds per square inch, that differentiate those two guns.
Imagine shooting a squirrel with a .223! C'mon man, you can do better than this.
See Jon Stewart from 1/8/2013...we can't have a discussion about gun control because some gun owners fear a mythical dystopic future and prevent us from dealing with our actual dystopic present. 30,000 deaths by gun/year.
CitPain
They do make AR replicas that are 22 caliber. The point is that the average person that watches network news sees a plastic ,pistol handled rifle and thinks it is an assault rifle. Hell Feinstein doesn't know the difference, and she was one of the authors of the first assault weapons ban that made my semi auto .22 illegal. I know the difference but the general population doesn't. Those are the people that MSNBC and the like seek out to comment on "sensible gun laws". They do this crap on purpose because Yes the liberal media thinks that only the empirical government should have firearms. BTW if you hit the squirrel in the head with a .223 round it is still good eating. LOL
bflynch
Police have guns to protect themselves not you. You still believe that poor little Trayvon was innocent? Innocently banging that guys head on the concrete. Just because they only showed a picture of him when he was 12 years old doesn't make him an innocent. How about the prosicution hiding the color photo of the real victim? Given the same situation I wouldn't have let him get that close to me.
When have we ever seen the Right Wing or it's Supporters use ignorance to push an agenda/policy?
KEEP THEM STUPID
A little fear, confusion, distraction from the issues put into the mix helps.
When the Right Wing/GOP/NRA want you to be stupid, there's a problem. A bigger problem are the WILLFULLY STUPID.
"I'm ignorant and stupid and I insist on being ignorant and stupid"
Enough ignorance already!!
The premise of using your 9mil or your ar15 to protect yourself from the government is as dumb as the premise that the same people who have always wanted to over restrict guns all of a sudden should be able to
I wish everyone here stopped allowing "Shooter" to shape the dialogue. Whoever he or she is simply warps issues and makes the discussions that were once so lively and informative here into boring exchanges.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-w-silberberg/troll-patrol_b_574004.html
What to do about trolls recently
Who’s the largest consumer of military guns, clips, and ammunition? I think it’s the U.S. government. Could the government influence the manufacturers to limit or stop selling these items to the public? This could be done by only dealing with manufacturers who act responsibly or by offering incentives in contracts. Could this be one of President Obama’s executive options?
GIVE ME GUNS OR GIVE ME DEATH said the NRA,, isn't that the same thing?
The NRA has never said anything like that. BTW I'm not a member .
It's those violent video games, they started WWII you know!
-Blanks
Now, how to stuff the genie back into the bottle.. I actually support Cavey S. McCaverson and staff on this one!
"Li'l Buckaroo" says: A real good way to stop gun violence is to stop wars. When there are no wars, there won't be a need for violence.
Rachel I watch your show, never missing an episode, thank you for your indepth commentary on all issues.
Saying that I wish to let you know that I am against "any" type of restriction on gun ownership. Even to the extent of data collecting by any group. Our forefathers intentionally stated in the constitution that we have a right to armed insurrection, the second amendment declared our right to bear arms.
In view of the extreme political partisanship that is going on in congress, one might think that arming oneself is necessary.
Humans have always found a way to kill each other with many items from using their bare hands to weapons of mass destruction. Having a means of protection is my means of protecting myself against those who want to do me harm. Therefore I will stand with the NRA on this issue.
Which side of the NRA do you Stand with? The Member's who call for Tighter Restrictions or the Leadership that doesn't?
wiki, are you part of a "well-regulated militia"? Read the 2nd amendment. It doesn't guarantee an unregulated right to own arms - and I don't see any right for armed insurrection in the constitution. Remember there was no Ntl Guard, no Army, Navy, no gov't armory of weapons, etc. in 1792 when the amendment was written. The only way this start-up country could defend itself in 1792 was to have citizens with their weapons (muskets) available to be part of a "well-regulated" militia.
And before any constitutional scholars argue that the first part of the 2nd amend is interpreted as a "purpose" clause to explain why everyone could have arms, why is there not a single "purpose" clause in any other amendment to the constitution? Plenty of other constitutional scholars interpret that "well-regulated militia" clause as restricting arms to a "well-regulated militia" - which we have in the Ntl Guard and the Armed Forces. This was the interpretation by all supreme courts up until the Heller case in 1982 (thanks to the NRA and Scalia). So an individual's right to unrestricted owning of arms was never the interpretation before that.
PS: The USA would not be here without the French army, their weapons, training and disipline to aid the colonists.
Ooops, the Heller case was 2008 - yes only 4 short years ago
This is never stated at any point in time in the US Constitution. In fact armed insurrection is grounds for the death penalty according to the constitution. You should really read this thing. The US Constitution specifically states you have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia. And most experts do not believe they were talking about hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns. They were talking about arms as in armaments. IE MILITARY grade weapons, explosives, and armaments. Additionally the term "the people" was used to refer to the colloquial power of the society. Men/man were used to refer to individuals. It states "the right of the people" which should be interpreted as the right of the governing bodies (the states to be more appropriate) and not that of you the individual.
The Supreme Court operated with this understanding until recent years. It's only been 4 years ago that the US Supreme Court made a complete reversal on that position. That overthrew every other single SCOTUS ruling in the 200+ years of our US history regarding gun laws.
So paranoia is now grounds for owning a gun? You do realize that would mean you're a mentally ill armed person, yeah?
But if humans have always found a way to kill each other then you automatically negate the need for a firearm. Just by stating that you can kill someone using your bare hands means that you don't have a logical reason for owning a gun for protection. This means you're merely engaging in the game of escalation ie. he brings a knife, I'll bring a gun. That isn't evidence for self-defense, that's evidence for why hyperbole is dangerous.
All I can say is, Amen and very lucid and well-stated!
I'm a little confused over the part about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Who will decided who is mentally ill and who is not? In the sixties a gay person would have been refused a gun. Is depression considered a mental illness? Will there be some database of mentally ill people somewhere? Will you have to be go for a mental health check and that person will decided if you have the right frame of mind. If it was up to me anybody wanting a gun I would consider crazy so nobody would pass.
Hey dad can I borrow the 30-06 for a deer hunting trip this weekend. Sure son let me just run down the to gun store so we can do a backround check real quick.
1.) The second amendment DOES guarantee an individual right to own a handgun no militia membership required according to the exact same 9 people who say Obamacare/ACA is legal.
2) Guns are not a public health issue CRIME and SUICIDE are
3) For the 1000th time this is the only major issue where the facts lean toward the Republican(largely though not entirely) argument if you would like a congress and judges that would throw out Obamacare which actually does fix a public health crisis keep forcing this issue
1) It was 5 people saying ACA was legal and 5 people overturning the history of gun regulation and the application of the 2nd Amendment. You're confusing majority with unanimity.
2) If guns contribute to the problems of crime and suicide then they automatically become a public health issue.
3) What facts lean towards Republicans on this issue? And why do you believe it will give Democrats the minority? The majority of gun owners and the majority of American citizens agree with the Democratic position. If elections are won by popularity then there isn't a reason for Democrats to back down on this subject.
Even Scalia agreed that some limitations on gun ownership are permissible. Most Supreme Court decisions are split decisions, and controversial, too. Unfortunately, the bad ones take decades to overturn. I nominate Citizens United for the Plessy Ferguson award.
1) President Obama the constitutional law scholar came out in support of the Heller decision, has twice repealed gun restrictions and in my opinion would have signed reciprocal carry in trade for some ACA votes.
2) Jay Rockefeller retired today, let me know when the Democratic candidate in that race comes out for gun control and how that goes for them
3) Mark Begich is a NRA life member running for re-elect in red alaska, I have my doubts Mark Pryor wants to vote against the NRA in Arkansas, Max Baucus is like AAA NRA rated and running for re-elect in Montana, Tim Johnson similar situation. Kay Hagan probably not looking for NRA trouble in North Carolina
4) Crime is a problem so is suicide LEGAL guns are not, and illegal guns are well already ILLEGAL and the restrictions in the states with the biggest gun problems are ludicrous if not unconstitutional. The Plaxico Burress case annoys me in particular.
Okay how was that point by point fellas?
2nd Amendment reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
***
THE NATIONAL GUARD IS THE MODERN MILITIA RESERVED TO THE STATES BY ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 15 & 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION. (FN8) IT HAS ONLY BEEN IN RECENT YEARS THAT THE NATIONAL GUARD HAS BEEN AN ORGANIZED FORCE, CAPABLE OF BEING ASSIMILATED WITH EASE INTO THE REGULAR MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. FROM THE DAYS OF THE MINUTEMEN OF
LEXINGTON AND CONCORD UNTIL JUST BEFORE WORLD WAR I, THE VARIOUS MILITIAS EMBODIED THE CONCEPT OF A CITIZEN ARMY, BUT LACKED THE EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING NECESSARY FOR THEIR USE AS AN ITEGRAL PART OF THE RESERVE FORCE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (FN9) THE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ACT OF 1916 (FN10) MATERIALLY ALTERED THE STATUS OF THE MILITIAS BY CONSTITUTING THEM AS THE NATIONAL GUARD. PURSUANT TO THE POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION (SEE N.8), THE GUARD WAS TO BE UNIFORMED, EQUIPPED, AND
TRAINED IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS THE REGULAR ARMY, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARDS AND CAPABLE OF BEING “FEDERALIZED” BY UNITS, RATHER THAN BY DRAFTING INDIVIDUALSOLDIERS. (FN 11) IN RETURN, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL EQUIPMENT TO THE GUARD, AND PROVIDED FEDERAL COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE GUARD, SUPPLEMENTING ANY STATE EMOLUMENTS. THE GOVERNOR, HOWEVER, REMAINED IN CHARGE OF THE NATIONAL GUARD IN EACH STATE EXCEPT WHEN THE GUARD WAS CALLED INTO ACTIVE FEDERAL SERVICE; IN MOST INSTANCES THE GOVERNOR ADMINITERED THE GUARD THROUGH THE STATE ADJUTANT GENERAL, (FN 12) WHO WAS REQUIRED BY THE ACT TO REPORT PERIODICALLY TO THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, A FEDERAL ORGANIZATION, ON THE GUARD’S RESERVE STATUS. (FN 13) THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE 1916 ACT HAS BEEN PRESERVED TO THE PRESENT DAY.
Maryland, for the use of Levin v. United States 381 U.S. 41, #345
Argued March 15, 1965 Decided May 3, 1965---AFFIRMED
***
In the wake of the Arizona and Aurora mass murders, and the Sandy Hook mass murders, the gun debate has been rightly re-ignited. I have been sickened by the NRA’s and the GOA’s jingoistic and fanatical reasoning and non-solutions they have proposed by their respective leaders, Wayne “Whack-job” LaPierre, and Alex “Psycho” Stone. Their sheer obliviousness and intellectual dishonesty are blood-curdling. If we’re going to have a debate about guns and gun control, at least we can now have a re-framed and honest debate on the issue. I own guns and have enjoyed shooting for
many years, and believe there should not be unfettered access to, and purchases
of, guns. No one, in my opinion, should be allowed to own and purchase military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines…they’re not practical for hunting or home protection. The implications of the NDA of 1916, clearly and unequivocally define and interpret the 2nd Amendment as applicable to our National Guard units…NOT individual citizens. Individual citizens do not have the right to “bear arms” as of the passage of the NDA of 1916. The original intent of the founders is quite clear: “A well-regulated militia…” is our present-day National Guard. Individual citizens are not “well-regulated”. The responsibility of securing our liberty and freedom is vested in individual states’ National Guard units, not in individual citizens. Thus, we are left with this looming question: do individual citizens have a legal right to “keep and bear arms”?
Much ado about "gun bans", espec. "assault" weapons.... "bans" (prohibition, drug war) have poor history of effectiveness... And there is the SCOTUS problem...
BUT, 2nd amendment does not specify "infringement" from "whom"... Gun & ammo manufacturers charge high $$ for products without it being "infringement".... So why not more effective emphasis of TREATING THE SOCIAL COSTS OF GUNS LIKE CIGARETTES?? Add costs (taxes on manufacturers and users, covering social costs) that discourage and fund other interventions & community buy backs... Dull, but established tactic with cigarettes, less "hot button controversy" but more long term effective than "bans".....
We can argue the "right" of it (I am a smoker), but I used to pay 1 penny per cigarette. Today it is closer to 75 cents EACH.... roughly $3,500 per year for what "should cost $300ish.... Why not $3,000 aquisition fees for guns (including background and mental health checks) and $3 =>$5 each bullets? They keep their "freedom", but pay the costs... we get a safer society in long term.
That's a great idea, but the SCOTUS problem you reference is not so insurmountable. According to Jeffrey Sachs, author of “Price of Civilization,” as reported today in the Sun Journal, New Bern, SC, by Steve Turro,
There is solid ground to revisit a 2nd Amendment challenge that would, at the very least, narrow the legal meaning and intent the the amendment's language, "A well-regulated militia..." which, since the passage of the NDA of 1916, applies to the National Guard and not individual citizens. Maybe now is the perfect time for some astute counsel to mount such a challenge and get a ruling, aside from Heller, that would allow for some very rigid restrictions, limitations, and regulations on the purchase, sale, and ownership of guns and ammunition, in addition to your thoughtful suggestion of taxation.
Dear Dr. Maddow:
The Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, and Sandy Hook shootings have been tragic beyond measure. It would compound the tragedy, however, if the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, and that's clearly the direction those hoping to solve the problem of gun violence want to proceed.
You are my favorite liberal pundit. Yes, occasionally you come down a bit to the left of my own views, but by and large, your presentations and interviews are consistently (if you'll pardon the expression) fair and balanced.
However, you're not taking that approach on this issue. Since that terrible day at Sandy Hook, you have consistently assumed and argued that civilian gun ownership has no positive social value, and that only "gun control" can solve the problem. Not only is this untrue, the fact that it is untrue has been carefully documented, and you seem to be going out of your way to avoid allowing even the possibility of that truth to be introduced into the argument.
Fact: In 1994, when few states had legalized the carrying of concealed weapons, Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck conducted a study of 5000 randomly selected households, and was able to extrapolate that in 1993 2.5 million civilians had used their firearms defensively, thereby avoiding death or injury.
Dr. Kleck's methods were unassailable. Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, one of Kleck's most passionate critics, who described himself as, "...as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," and whose opinion of guns was, "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns -- ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people," defended the methodology of Kleck's study, saying, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator."
So, in 1993, when far fewer people were licensed to carry a concealed firearm, roughly 2.5 million people used their own guns to defend themselves from violence. That study has not been updated, but given that since then something on the order of another 25 states have passed conceal-carry licensing, the numbers of defensive uses seem likely to have increased significantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
In 2011, between 10,000 and 12,000 people were killed by gunfire. That was bad.
In 1993, 2.5 million fewer people were injured or killed by bad guys, because the good guys had guns. That was good.
In 2012, I wonder how many good guys escaped injury and death because they were armed?
My wife and I are licensed and go armed whenever we step outside the house. We have worked for 30 years in the felony courts, and all our friends among law enforcement agree with our decision to carry those weapons.
In today's society, hunting and target shooting are peripheral issues. The key reason for carrying a gun is self-defense.
Please stop dodging the issue.
Very truly,
Bloatedcoder
Rachel,
Why not set up a demo with assault weapons ? You could have pumpkins lined up and have someone with an assault weapon fire on them while a "good guy" with a gun tries to stop the attack. No matter what degree of marksmanship the "good guy" has I'm sure many pumpkins would end up giving their lives. The position of the NRA is totally ludicris.
You might be a gun nut if.....
You clean your gun more than you clean yourself!
You start a conversation with how's you guns..
You have a gun rack in your pickup!
You have more guns than underwear!
You think blaze orange is beautiful!
You have the full collection of Dirty Harry movies!
You think Ted Nugent is a sportsman!
When you take your kids to the zoo you fantasize shooting the animals.
You have camouflage pajamas!
You make crafts from spent cartridges!
You get upset if someone calls your rifle a gun!
Two of your kids are named after gun makes Remington/ Winchester.
Your living room walls have run out of space from dead animals.
Your family portrait has guns in it!
Your a lifelong NRA member!
You have a tattoo that says " You can take my gun when you can pry it from my cold dead hands!
Feel free to add if you wish!
One more.............
Your house is on fire and you run back in to save your copies of Guns & Ammo and leave your Playboys behind!
Then you truly are a certifiable GUN NUT!
Gee Rachel no drinks on Friday? On the wagon?
If your on the wagon...can you have one for the road? Who ever said that it must have been a long time ago!