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.
Zzoott Zzootticus wrote: "Fully agreed with SpecialForcesVet's comments"
After that incredibly foolish post you wrote about the Framers, I did wonder about your about face reasoning.
Zzoott Zzootticus wrote"I personally value the whole of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. What I don't value is the fearmongering"
Who are you kidding, no you don't!
SpecialForcesVet wrote:"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"
Now how would this work? COME ON! "not the federal government" right.
partisan politics wrote: Who are you kidding, no you don't!
Any chance you might respond to my earlier query and statement - can I, indeed, under the Second Amendment, arm myself with whatever any invasive or tyrannical force might likewise be armed with?
No response - I thought as much.
We need intelligent discussion - not knee-jerk posturing - on such a critical issue. Consider taking the former, and leaving the latter.
It's fellows like you that end up as the next James Holmes.
Utah State Legislature passed a law that local communities could not ban target shooting.
"There have been 486 Utah fires so far this year. Of those, 426 were human-caused and 21 are believed to have been started by people shooting firearms." http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54472392-78/shooting-fire-font-utah.ht...
Only recently has the State thought about banning target shooting.
6,000 rounds of ammuntion...like everything else, buying in bulk saves money. You can buy 1,000 rounds of ammo online for roughly the same price as 300 rounds from a local brick and motar store. If you own two, three or more calibers, it's pretty easy to have 6,000 rounds "stockpiled". Given the price of ammo has doubled (or more) and continues to rise, it seems wise to buy in bulk for the best price.
I must chime in on the comparison made by John Velleco of owning an assualt rifle to keep your family safe against murders to that of a seat belt.
Speaking as one of the silent majority and the 99%, when will common sense prevail in America? When will gun owners stop quoting the 2nd amendment and the founders intent out of context? If the silent majority continues to accept the unacceptable without speaking out then,
our democracy will surely be lost to the outspoken minority who places their own personal agenda above that of the common good.
I'm a retired Fed Law Enforcemet Officer. When I began we were issues 5 or 6 shot revolvers to carry. As more firepower became quite common due to NRA influence, semi-auto handguns became necessary as well as specialized weapons for use by SWAT. I own guns, but I also believe that mere possession of magazines in excess of 10 rounds should be an automatic two year sentence. Military style rifles should be banned with the same penalty of two years for mere possession.
Steve--Reno, NV
Zzoott Zzootticus wrote: "Any chance you might respond to my earlier query and statement - can I, indeed, under the Second Amendment, arm myself with whatever any invasive or tyrannical force might likewise be armed with"
This is not a serious question, it is bait that I won't bite on!
Zzoott Zzootticus wrote: "We need intelligent discussion - not knee-jerk posturing - on such a critical issue. Consider taking the former, and leaving the latter. It's fellows like you that end up as the next James Holmes"
Your describing yourself not me. Your posts are filled with platitudes and conjecture nothing more.
Steve Myerson wrote: "I'm a retired Fed Law Enforcemet Officer-I own guns, but I also believe that mere possession of magazines in excess of 10 rounds should be an automatic two year sentence. Military style rifles should be banned with the same penalty of two years for mere possession.
A former law enforcement officer that longs for the police state and cares nothing about the Constitution, why beat around the bush, you want ALL firearms banned from private ownership you just won't admit it.
partisan politics: Obviously you are shutting everyone down that is trying to have a serious discussion. I only shared an idea. It isn't perfect but it is an idea to help this country. I believe that the 2nd amendment needs to be updated to modern times as there are new revelations on human nature that were never taken into consideration when it was first written. If you have ideas to help solve this issue please share them.
tgrah1827 wrote: 'partisan politics: Obviously you are shutting everyone down that is trying to have a serious discussion. I believe that the 2nd amendment needs to be updated to modern times as there are new revelations on human nature that were never taken into consideration when it was first written"
There is nothing here on all these pages of comments that resemble anything other than knee jerk opposition to the second amendment. If people do not and will not try to grasp it's meaning and intent, serious discussion is not possible. The only way the second amendment can be legally changed is by the constitutional amendment process. No one is suggesting that, they only seek to undermine our Constitution, and yea I got a big problem with that.
tgrah1827 wrote:"there are new revelations on human nature that were never taken into consideration when it was first written"
Ridiculous, condescending and conceited
How many civilian people have actually successfully used semi-automatic shotguns to "protect their families from home invasion"?
It seems that we have reached a point where the NRA's desire to give EVERYONE unfettered access to all types of guns and ammo is killing and wounding innocent people who want to peacefully assemble.
I've never heard them say that anything should have been done to prevent mentally ill people from being able to purchase semi-automatic weapons...that is insane!!
To posses 6,000 rounds of ammunition is normal for an avid gunowner, but is is ludicrious to say that for an average gunowner.
"Good for South Carolina", about the Walmart in South Carolina where the one person could buy 9 mm bullets WITHOUT id. Really!? Sorry that is a JOKE!! WE ARE TALKING *WEAPONS* HERE, *NOT* HAMSTERS!! It sounds to me John is saying here he believes in NO RULES with regards to weapons. And while some crooks would get weapons and ammo illegally anyway, this kind of access just makes it easier for them where they don't even have to worry about going through an illegal source.
I have concluded that there is no way to enact reasonable gun laws as long as the 2nd Amendment bestows gun ownership as a “right.” The founders lived at a time when single shot muzzle loaders took several minutes of preparation to shoot a bullet that likely had no accuracy beyond a few yards. Now we have handguns with standard 15 rounds that can be expended in 10 seconds, and cartridges that hold even greater ammunition. Legislative attempts to place restrictions on purchases of guns or ammo are stopped cold by the 2nd Amendment, which the Supreme Court has found to be an individual right to gun ownership. That is why I have started a petition on Change.org to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Only then can we have a reasonable discussion on how society should control guns. Here is the link: http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-seek-repeal-of-the-2nd-amendmen...
this debate, like the failure of drug laws, and the hatred created by abortion legislation is off mark. We are failing to address the issues behind what causes these social ills. you won't stop these nuts with laws...only with changing the culture. prevention and community is the key.
Steve Myerson wrote:
I own guns, but I also believe that mere possession of magazines in excess of 10 rounds should be an automatic two year sentence.
You do realize your 2 year prison term would include the 11 million owners of Marlin model 60 .22 rifles, the best selling .22 rifle since 1960, don't you? They hold more than 10 bullets in their magazines. Just pointing out how ridiculous that comment was.
How about a ban on body armor?
The only people that wear it are anticipating a dangerous situation, and the only people that should be knowingly entering such situations are professionals like the police.
bowzer wrote: "The founders lived at a time when single shot muzzle loaders took several minutes of preparation to shoot a bullet that likely had no accuracy beyond a few yards"
They had very accurate rifles "rifled barrels" at that time, they had cannons and bombs and were fully aware of technological advancements in weapons of war. They were not idiots, they sought to give "the people" the tools necessary to restrain federal government growth and prevent it from becoming tyrannical with the drafting of the Constitution. The Constitution by it's very design was a document created for the long view. Not the short sighted view as illustrated by your comments.
Since anything is possible, how does a private citizen obtain a drone or a fighter jet,
bazooka, tank, etc., I mean I need to fight fire with fire right?
I especially need a plane in case 12 guys decide to fly one into my house.
The reason gun owners want semi-automatic weapons is usually because they don't want to be trained, they all want to be Rambo. Just scatter bullets everywhere and hopefully you'll get the bad guy. This is not about protecting your family, this is all about ego. This is about the rush one feels when firing a weapon normally meant for war. If that's what one wants, then join the military.
We have laws in place that require training to fly a plane and if you want to fly a fighter jet, then you have to join the military. Unless, you have unlawful motives; then there's no need to get a fighter jet (aka, AK 47, etc.) as a private citizen is there?
mchaun wrote:
Some years ago, a Judge in Middlesex County, VA, going along with a nationwide trend, announced that the Authorities were going to reduce the number of concealed weapon permits allowed.
There was quite a bit of protest at the time, but subsequent legislation mooted the whole question by allowing almost anyone to get a permit. As expected, there were blizzards of big talking bloviating from the Gun crowd about how bad they were and how the Government better be careful of going too far, and seizing guns, restricting ownership of guns, blah, blah, blah like Today's DRShow and countless others.
From time to time, the Marines come up to the County to say Hey to Mrs. (Chesty) Puller, visit the General's Grave, run Marathons and the like.
One Weekend, they decided to hold a simulated weapons disarm and Urbanna was swarming with Marines looking for weapons in every corner of the Town.
Did the MAAOGCCPM (The Middle-aged and Old Guys CCP Militia) reach for their Muskets to put down the Tyrant that dared to threaten their guns??
'Fraid not, nary a peep, from the over the hill gasbags at the sight of all those Jarheads!!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
April 17, 2012 - 3:35 pm
The fellow who mentioned being able to buy ammo easily at Walmart in South Carolina reminded me of an incident I witnessed when I was living in the Greenville, SC area in the late 70s.
I worked in a large warehouse at the time. One day, one of the employees came to work wearing a highly-visible holster. Not surprisingly, residing in said holster was a highly-visible 45 caliber Magnum. We worked ten hour shifts. He carried that gun the whole shift. Occasionally he would take it out and show it to others. Management was aware of the situation. But nothing was done.
I knew the gun owner slightly, and he always seemed like an OK kind of guy.
But that day, I made a point to keep my distance.
So it seems that South Carolina is still kind of lenient when it comes to handguns. I would be surprised if you could still take one into the workplace now, although I could be wrong.
This whole handgun issue, and indeed every single issue that plagues us today, is the result of human nature in all its many characteristics. In this case there's the characteristic of selfishness, perhaps mixed in with a little evil. We want our own way, and we occasionally wish that someone else was dead.
That's why the world can never solve it's problems. Human nature is unchangeable. We are left with trying to have sufficient laws to keep the carnage to a minimum. But our evil natures won't allow us even that.
I'd say we are in a mess that we can't get out of.
ABQNM wrote: "Since anything is possible, how does a private citizen obtain a drone or a fighter jet,
bazooka, tank, etc., I mean I need to fight fire with fire right?"
private citizen's can own all the above, I don't know if drones are available on the open market at this time.
What if...in nazi germany...more Jews had more guns??? with even a "handfull" of bullets less of them would have ended up murdered.
ABQNM wrote:
Since anything is possible, how does a private citizen obtain a drone or a fighter jet,
bazooka, tank, etc., I mean I need to fight fire with fire right?....Unless, you have unlawful motives; then there's no need to get a fighter jet (aka, AK 47, etc.) as a private citizen is there?
Exaggeration aside, if you lived in Arizona where our own federal government was handing out thousands of assault weapons to known murderers and drug dealers, and scores of bullet riddled and beheaded dead bodies were found within miles of your town, I bet you would reconsider purchasing a weapon capable of defending your loved ones from such an attack and learning how to operate it. But you could always just cross your fingers and see how that goes.
Couldn't e-mail or call this morning as I listened to this discussion. But a couple of thoughts kept popping up in my head for the gentlemen who insisted he need his gun to protect his family. (1) As president of the Gun Owners Association, does he receive any monetary or in kind remuneration from the NRA or from gun manufacturers? (2) We've had so many stories lately about gun accidents. Recently a three-year old shot his father to death here in Indiana. Not too long ago a young woman was shot when she accidentally entered the wrong house late at night. The homeowners were devastated but she was dead. However, I have yet to hear any stories in the news about anyone saving his or her family with a gun. None. Just plenty of news about kids hurt with family guns and drive-by shootings. Why do we continue to by this gun lobby rhetoric?
Yes, the police are trained to use firearms, yet they still kill innocent people.
"trammart wrote:
One of the speakers said that "hundreds of thousands" of people save themselves or others each year using handguns for self defense. What is his source for that number?
July 24, 2012 - 10:39 am"
It's Cr_p!. The NRA used to list reports of people who prevented real or imagined injury to themselves or others by brandishing or firing a gun and it ran 20 to 30 per Month.
And the reports almost always involved unarmed intruders entering the Victims homes.
Armed Residents stand a good chance of being killed by serious armed intruders in shootouts and woe betide the Resident who fires on cops breaking down his door.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Rational thought would conclude that murder being illegal and yet that did not prevent this massacre from happening, then why would some gun law prevent it. Remember the Tokyo gas attack? That was carried out with a little knowledge and household cleaning products.
How many highway fatalities must there be before we ban cars?
You are proud of that comment? Proud to have federal troops disarm legal gun owners. Are all gun owners criminals to you?
Mexico has the strictest guns laws in the world...How has that worked out for them? Apparently the criminals do not obey laws so they started a little war. Now who could stop them? Why don't you go down there and tell them your little story about how the military should disarm all citizens? The drug lords would love it if all citizens were disarmed especially by a very corruptible military.