The Politics of Guns in America
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-17/politics-guns-america
Five years ago a gunman killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus in America's worst mass shooting. Two years ago a gunman critically wounded former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people. Two months ago teenager Travon Martin was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida. Each time a tragedy involving firearms becomes national news, advocacy groups and politicians call for stricter gun control. But little action has resulted. Pro-gun groups argue violent crime in the U.S. is a major reason to expand gun rights, so more Americans can protect themselves. Diane and her guests will explore the politics of gun control.
Guests
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, The Brookings Institution, columnist, Washington Post and author of the forthcoming book, "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent."
Daniel Webster
co-director, Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
John Velleco
director of federal affairs, Gun Owners of America.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The thing that bothers me about these laws are that they are so vague and they feed into fears. Would it be okay to shoot politicians if you feel "threatened" by their policies? What if you you're just annoyed? Can you shoot first and say you felt threatened later? Why just guns? Why not knives? Would it be okay to poison somebody if you feel threatened?
As soon as I head Diane refer to assault weapons and Ak-47's I knew which way this show was going to go.
Only in America do we care more about protecting gun owners than assuring health care for everyone so they can be contributing members of society. I have no interest in returning to the days of the wild, wild west where everyone was packing and took the law into their own hands. And why this "shoot to kill" mentatility - reallly!!!- would like to be with some of those shooters on their judgement day.
How uncivilized are our priorities?
And for those gun toters who profess to be Christian, remind me where Jesus said "go forth and be armed."
And btw - it is the Democratic party not the Democrat party.
Wasn't Fast and Furious was started before Erick Holders day
I would like to live in a world where I don't need a gun to feel safe was my point. Thanks for getting that. I can see you are a surface reader and not a point taker.
Mark.H wrote: "If I remember correctly, before the Fast and Furious became public knowledge I heard a representative of the NRA speaking out against restricting selling of weapons to suspected straw buyers because by definition a straw buyer is a legal purchaser of firearms"
No. it was about known straw purchasers being allowed by the ATF to buy firearms illegally from gun dealers with the OK from ATF and walk them across the boarder. About 2000 guns crossed the boarder this way.
Mark.H wrote:
"While I believe in ownership of firearms I think the NRA and it's blind opposition to all legislation boarders on lunacy"
Better learn all the facts before making statements like this!.
I would like to live in a world where guns are not a fear. Thanks for seeing the point. I can tell you are a surface reader and not a point taker. Do you still believe in the easter bunny too?
stephen h wrote:
"Wasn't Fast and Furious was started before Erick Holders day"
No, guns were not allowed to cross the boarder unrestricted until Eric Holder took control.
Tricia wrote:
"I lived for a time in Switzerland, where, because they did not have a standing army, their “militia” consisted of issuing every adult male a weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel) and requiring military training and reserve service until the age of 30. At that time, he could choose to give the weapon back or keep it.
Perhaps the US could follow this model “in order to maintain a ‘well regulated militia,’” issue every adult male a firearm that would have been in use at the time the Bill of Rights was passed – black powder, perhaps -- without ammunition; force them to undergo military training and then serve in the reserves until the age of 30. The purchase or ownership of any other firearm would require a permit.
This way, no one could cite the first phrase of the amendment in defense of gun ownership."
--------------------------------------
You actually do not want the U.S. to follow the Swiss model. In fact, your caveats regarding ammunition restrictions, only black powder muskets, and obligatory permits is more extreme than Sarah Brady.
Why do you trust the Swiss with weapons more than Americans? The Swiss couldn't even be trusted to return to Jews their assets that were stolen by the Nazis and stored in Swiss vaults.
Listening to E J Dionne is like listening to a professional liar for the left, he is completely a tool of the left, paid for by Leftist dollars as evidenced by his connection to the Brookings Institution , which is a way to funnel money to liberal activists.
As usual, it is always 2 libs-1 conservative on the Rehm show as you would expect since they expect the news presented in a style that fits their views.
The left is completely dishonest, just refuse to compromise with them on anything. Better to keep things locked up like they are now, then return to the left getting anything it wants under any circumstance.
Their agenda is really off-track, what with the financial crunch and the private sector not hiring, and it will weaken them greatly - so keep it up, private sector.
sharayaha wrote:
"I would like to live in a world where guns are not a fear. Thanks for seeing the point. I can tell you are a surface reader and not a point taker. Do you still believe in the easter bunny too?"
Point taken, you don't like the first amendment or the second amendment.
sharayaha wrote:
"Leave the military man alone.... he's the one who went out and fought to save your freedoms while you sat on your ass in america watching jeopardy.... be it you agree with wars or not this soldier risked his life for yours and everyone elses on this forum.... you think about that the next time you get snarky with anyone from the armed forces'
------------------------------------------
The poster who identified himself as a Marine is the one who made snarky comments about his fellow Marines. Who knows what this person did in the military, if they were even in the military. What makes you think this person did any fighting to protect my freedoms? In fact, he wants to deny my 2nd Amendment right.
Need I remind you that Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman were Marines.
nothing that in my 61 years have i found more dangerous than a coward with a gun! Bears, Rattlesnakes, Cottonmouth, Knife welding drunk, nothing
First off, a gun is not a defensive weapon! I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this! I know because my own father was confronted at his home by a man with a gun and robed. He had a house full of guns and not one of them would have protected him. As a nation we are told by the NRA that the more we are armed the safer we will be and the truth is as the most heavily armed country in the world we are the least safe.
Just look at the statistics of accidental deaths caused by guns - in my family there have been three!!!!
If you embrace death by guns, embrace the NRA…
sharayaha wrote:
"I would like to live in a world where guns are not a fear."
--------------------------------------
Because you have an irrational fear of inanimate objects, firearms should be banned from the world. Got it. What do we do about your fear of sharp implements?
Tim Johnson wrote:
"First off, a gun is not a defensive weapon!"
-------------------------------
Great. Now we know there is no point for law enforcement officers to be armed.
mann mom wrote:
"The thing that bothers me about these laws are that they are so vague and they feed into fears. Would it be okay to shoot politicians if you feel "threatened" by their policies? What if you you're just annoyed? Can you shoot first and say you felt threatened later? Why just guns? Why not knives? Would it be okay to poison somebody if you feel threatened?"
-----------------------------------
Since Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder, obviously it is not OK. Would it be OK to point out that liberals are incapable of making valid analogies?
E.J. Dionne referred to himself as "timid."
Lib. Now what are you saying? You'll equate the US with Afghanistan to prove a point. It's some world you contend with... or fear you'll have to.
How about this?
That we protect our rights to be well-armed with the power of verbal persuasion. If we're vigilant about this, we'll never need to resort to arms.
But then again, if you need to carry in order to buttress your ability to make an argument, maybe you'll align that urge with reality in failed state like Somalia or Afghanistan.
So why can't I take my gun to work? Unconcealed. The constitution says nothing about needing gun to be concealed or not being able to take it to work.
What I don't understand about this discussion is the failure to name the core issue -- supporters of the gun lobby agenda are acting out of irrational fear. They are engaging in fear mongering (e.g., the lone woman against three assailants). That's just insanity. Proponents of gun control need to call a spade a spade and stop acting as if the gun lobby crowd are rational. The gun lobby uses the same fear tactics that gave us Jim Crow laws, the Chinese Exclusion Act, Executive Order 9066, voting exclusion laws, and mandatory sentencing for minor offenses. These are the same tactics behind the current anti-immigrant rhetoric, the assault on voting rights, and women's rights. Their agenda is NOT about individual or constitutional rights -- they are gripped by irrational fear and paranoia and want to enact laws that pervert the constitution to justify their madness.
CP Thornton wrote:
"So why can't I take my gun to work? Unconcealed. The constitution says nothing about needing gun to be concealed or not being able to take it to work."
-----------------------------------------------
Check your state laws on the issue. Maybe you can.
A key part of the solution it would seem would be if you want to sell your gun(s) you would have to go through a broker/dealer to do this. I can buy stocks and bonds on my own - but to sell them I must go through a broker/dealer. If I want to buy futures contracts I must go through a broker, same if I want to sell them.
The NRA and others do have a point in that it is our Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. But the 2nd Amendment itself says "A well regulated militia", part of the well regulated would be keeping people out of the militia that are mentally disturbed - ergo they could not have guns. A part of the well regulated militia would be those with felonies - they couldn't have guns. There are ways to make it constitutional. But I agree that an outright confiscation of all weapons is unconstitutional and would be wrong.
" All I seem to hear from them are objections to any restrictions that are suggested."
That is what’s referred to as a "straw man". I am a lifetime NRA member and an LEO and I can affirm that laws are for the lawless. No one has an issue with background checks and restrictions on felons and the insane from purchasing firearms, but outside of that nearly every piece of legislation restricting gun rights only places an undue burden on lawful citizens and does nothing to address the criminal element the authors claim it’s for.
There is a pretty good parallel to be drawn between abortion rights and gun rights, both argue for a very broad interpretation of what the right means but the media portrays one as inherently extremist and one as very much in the mainstream (I’ll let you guess which one is which). And to expropriate a talking point from the pro- abortion side: If you don’t like guns, don’t get one.
libertarians r us needs to get a job as he apparently has nothing to do all day except write posts.
libertarians r us, you need to get a job as apparently all you have to do all day is post on the internet.
It is easier to get a gun than to get to vote in this country,thanks to extremist organizations like A.L.E.C..
Diane,
I have to wonder how the American Revolution would have turned out if George Washington and other founders of our country had to pass background checks to own a gun.
It seems to me that the underlying reason for the second amendment was to allow citizens to arm themselves in opposition to a tyrannical government. What good is that right if the government has a list of every person who owns a gun?
Thanks,
Vincent Earl
Salt Lake City, Utah
@Patsy Nomore
Spoken by someone who doesnt own a firearm I imagine.
To purchase a firearm you must do the following as a minimum, many municipalities are more stringent.
1. Present a valid BATF approved photo ID.
2. Agree to a NICS background check … and pay the $5 it costs.
3. Wait 1 – 3 days to receive you firearm, depending on what type it is and what state you are in.
4. Have a permanent record of the transaction in all its details recorded an a 4473 form.
Maybe you are onto something though ... maybe it should be as difficult to vote as it is to buy a firearm. Sure would keep a lot of idiots away from the polls.
Clearly gun rights posters here won the debate. All the anti rights posters have are cheap shots, bleary eyed visions of a violence free utopia, deliberately distorted views of the second amendment and the constitution and a total lack of understanding of history. Pathetic!