Gun Control In An Election Year
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-24/gun-control-election-year
In the wake of the Colorado shootings, national debate over gun control is in the spotlight, but most politicians are remaining silent. Diane and her guests discuss the absence of political debate over gun control in an election year.
Guests
Ladd Everitt
Director of Communications at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Robert Spitzer
Chair of the political science department at the State University of New York in Cortland, and author of "The Politics of Gun Control."
John Velleco
director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America.
Juliette Leftwich
legal director, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Gwen wrote: "The militia is the National Guard and the US Army Reserve"
Not at all!
John Valleco is an idiot. He's reiterating the NRA tired old line that guns don't kill people, people kill people. " but he's ignoring the fact that people use guns to kill people and the more lethal the weapon the more people they can kill indiscriminately. He's blathering on about his constitutional right to own and carry weapons like the AR 15. What about my constitutional right to be free from fear of the use of such weapons.
Drunk driving has killed more United States citizens than gun crimes and terrorism combined. Where is the outcry for prohibition? Where is the department of homeland sobriety? There isn't one because the American people realized it is unfruitful. It is the same case with firearms. The danger of liberty is actually the essence of liberty and to limit is to destroy it altogether.
We are not in another country. This is about guns in America. It is not about knives, cars or other analogies you people like to create. Guns kill people and more guns kill more people. Self defense with a gun is NRA propaganda.
Jokr8790 wrote:" What about my constitutional right to be free from fear of the use of such weapons"
That right does not exist in the Constitution.
any sane gun owner who practices shooting routinely is buying ammo in groups on the order of 1000s..... a quick search of pricing on the internet will show you why.
on a related note, many concealed handgun owners actually practice with their firearm MORE frequently than the police. and FWIW, if the Aurora shooter was shooting from near the movie screen, who was behind him to get accidently shot? the body armor would have been a problem though.
If your impression of firearms is what you've learned from Hollywood, you are truly uninformed.
following the logic of your guest who is advocating unfettered access to weapons and ammunition, Why should I not have the right to purchase a machine gun in the event I am attacked by a gang of home invaders. How about a stinger missile launcher in the event A deranged pilot attacks my home from above? Why do we draw a particular line when it is suggested by your guest that the more "protection we can buy
the better?
TarHeelMoe wrote: "We are not in another country. This is about guns in America"
Yes it is, and we have a Constitutional right as a people to have and own military grade firearms.
Statistics from other countries can be false. If you get shot in the UK and get an infection and die, you died of an infection not of a gun shot wound. My late husband and I taught many NRA safety classes to young people and adults and when we were in Bossier City,LA the accident rate dropped considerably. We did things like shooting pumpkins, containers of red jello. The impact of shooting these things is remarkable and unforgettable.
If you get shot in this country and die of an infection, statistics show you died of a gun shot wound. We spent 5 years in England.
John Velleco's offhand assertion that a average but armed theatergoer would have been in any way effective in last week's incident is laughable on the face of it. The shooter had a bullet proof vest and helmet, and the front of the room was filled with gas.
So you would have someone whose only training (if any) has been at a range in broad daylight, firing through the darkness and smoke in the general direction of a well armed and armored target. My prediction is that in such a scenario, more people would have been killed.
The US Government can't start wars fast enough, but we won't protect our own borders. The Department Homeland buys 40 Million rds of .40 caliber ammo and they can't give away assault vehicles and drones to local law enforcement fast enough. The Goverment is nearly bankrupt and reasonable people believe that a collapse is possible. Why in the world would anyone expect the civilian population to trust the Government with the safety of our families. THAT is what's insane.
First Samuel Williams is a hero for defending the innocent patrons of the internet cafe, to say he is "lucky" for not hitting anyone but the robbers is a very low comment. He hit who he was shooting at, bottom line. Second, we as American citizens have the right to defend ourselves from psychopaths like James Holmes, therefore it is not illogical to equip yourself with legal weapons that can defeat someone armed like him should they decide to attack you. It's a simple matter of force vs. force. Police departments know this, governments know this, but it seems most liberals don't know this. Thorough background checks are necessary, gun bans will only limit the right of lawful citizens to protect themselves from people or groups of people like James Holmes. Sorry to ruin your gun control party, but criminals are not going to hand over their weapons. Bad things happen in this world, it is in everyones best interest to be ready for such events, but I think most people don't want the responsibility and necessary precautions of acknowledging that we live in a dangerous world.
I submitted my question/comment on-line to Diane but it was not asked on air. I'll post it here.
I am wondering about the demographics of the people now purchasing the assault weapons and the high numbers of ammunition, since 2008, when these private weapon purchases started to increase. I suspect that these purchases correlate with the increase in overt racism in the U. S. that became more evident beginning also in 2008. Finally, I also suspect that if the demographics of those purchasing high powered weapons and ammunition included primarily people of color, that the law would be changed without a second thought. Does anyone have data on the demographics of those purchasing these weapons?
wonderingminds wrote:" I am wondering about the demographics of the people now purchasing the assault weapons and the high numbers of ammunition, since 2008, when these private weapon purchases started to increase. I suspect that these purchases correlate with the increase in overt racism in the U. S"
I "wonder" if you think race baiters are racists? I do and you are!
wonderingminds wrote:
"I am wondering about the demographics of the people now purchasing the assault weapons and the high numbers of ammunition, since 2008, when these private weapon purchases started to increase. I suspect that these purchases correlate with the increase in overt racism in the U. S. that became more evident beginning also in 2008."
You do realize that a name-brand AR-15 is going to cost ~$900. How is a middle or low income racist going to afford that? Your hypothesis fails the smell test.
I'm not sure I understand why it is alright for one citizen to carry concealed weapons into public places and stockpile an arsenal under current laws, yet another citizen is banned from smoking cigarettes in public places.
Where are the rights of protection for those law-abiding citizens who choose not to own a machine whose only function is to kill or maim another living thing?
Putting up metal detectors in our schools and public places, or a sticker on the door stating guns aren't allowed is not the answer. Adding insult to injury, as taxpayers, they end up supporting the convicted murderers who spend their life in jail as well.
John Velleco's arguments were idiotic!
When the 2nd amendment was written, the U.S. military was extremely weak & very disorganized. An armed militia was necessary for the protection against strong foreign armies. This is no longer the case and an armed militia is no longer necessary.
What we get is an over-armed individual like DR's guest who felt it necessary to own an assault rifle with hundreds, if not thousands of bullets to fire at an attacker. Really? If you're that bad a shot maybe you should go back to the firing range.
The standard issue rifle in WWII was deemed suitable when it only had a capacity of only a handful of bullets. And it was used to fight off attacking multiple soldiers.
One point of misinformation that need to be corrected: a caller indicated that at a gun show in Virginia, individual-to-individual sales of automatic weapons routinely takes place. This is false.
The only way this could happen would be if the 2 individuals were both Class III license holders. In general most Class III license holders are also Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders for business purposed. In any case, the legal transfer of an automatic weapon includes a $200 tax. Since the vast majority of class III and FFL holders are fine, upstanding, law-respecting citizens (contrasting with many of the voters for the party who dream of gun control), it is highly unlikely that they would risk a felony by selling an automatic weapon at a gun show in VA.
If Mr. Velleco were to be diagnosed with a brain tumor, and a treatment for that tumor was 70% effective, would he forgo treatment because it wasn't 100% effective? Not likely. Does it make sense to oppose stricter gun regulation on the grounds that the regulation would not completely eliminate gun crimes? Should we eliminate drunk driving laws because some people drive drunk anyway?
satulysses wrote: "When the 2nd amendment was written, the U.S. military was extremely weak & very disorganized. An armed militia was necessary for the protection against strong foreign armies. This is no longer the case and an armed militia is no longer necessary"
Wrong! it was written and enacted to prevent tyranny HERE. "being necessary to the security of a free State"
Joe S. wrote:
"Should we eliminate drunk driving laws because some people drive drunk anyway?"
Why does anyone need a 42-round magazine?
to which I reply:
why do bars need parking lots?
"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." Pretty simply and straightforward.
The Framers of the Constitution clearly did not envision a future society that would or could be armed with military-grade weaponry, including automatic firearms. In 1789 the "arms" generally available were limtied to such things as single-shot pistols, muskets, muzzle-loaders, knives, sabres, bayonettes - mostly items of personal, close-contact defense in a world concerned with invasion and occupation of farms, homes, businesses and home-rule government by invaders (i.e., the British). In 2012, does that selfsame 1789 amendment permit me to arm myself with anything availalbe that I deem apprpriate to my defense?
Missle-launcher? Taser? Laser? Cruise missle? Grenades? Biological weaponry? Cluster bombs? A tank? Land mines? A gunboat? Flamethrower?
We will remain a throwback society until we cast off the idea of an armed populace as essential to our survival. Guns need to go the way of the dinosaur.
If Trayvon Martin had been carrying a gun the liklihood is that Zimmerman would have shot him from a distance before he'd have a chance to use it and if Martin had used one and survived he most likely would have been convicted of murder and sentenced accordingly because in Florida especially the "Stand Your Ground" defense is only good for white people.
Here is something that needs to go nation wide:
-Complete a thorough background check
-Do a complete mental health evaluation
-Complete a family, neighbor, employer, and friend interviews
This was the same process I went through to join the military. Follow this up with the weapon they want to be shipped to a local police precinct to pay for training on that weapon. This would give our police departments money that they so desperately need. If you really want a gun then you need to be serious about owning a weapon. If the process is too long or is too expensive fior you then you need to look at what is more important to you.
Good to hear a reasonably civil discussion of this complex issue. Both sides of this debate need to show some understanding of -- and respect for -- the other side's concerns.
A free civil society is consistent with a responsible armed citizenry, as the Framers made clear.
Having said this, it would not hurt to have a _rational_ discussion about training and stability requirements for possession of modern military pattern weapons. Perhaps operated by private range groups, not the federal government.
Such a discussion cannot happen if gun control advocates dismiss those of us who value the 2nd Amendment -- and actually know something about these weapons -- as 'right wing nuts'.
Disturbing to read so many of the comments here.
Thanks Diane, and De oppresso liber.
Zzoott Zzootticus wrote "The Framers of the Constitution clearly did not envision a future society that would or could be armed with military-grade weaponry, including automatic firearms"
The second amendment is about government tyranny, not hunting or target practice. Obviously the people would need military grade firearms to accomplish the task of combating a tyrannical government. The "Framers" were not dumb and they were fully aware of advancements in firearm technology.
So, following that logical pattern, where does the argument take us as a society? Your response would suggest that, indeed, as the government - or the many governments - are indeed equipped with a variety of armament, I likewise have that right of arm-bearing. Thus, under your argment, my rights should not be abridged, and I should be permitted - in fact, the Second Amendment provides me with the right - to equip myself with anything available to the miltary, anywhere.
Fully agreed with SpecialForcesVet's comments - the arguments need to be both civil and logical, not ideological. I personally value the whole of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. What I don't value is the fearmongering.
tgrah1827 wrote: "If the process is too long or is too expensive fior you then you need to look at what is more important to you"
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand?