Federal And State Efforts To Reduce Gun Violence
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-16/federal-and-state-efforts-reduce-gun-violence
Later this morning President Obama is scheduled to announce his proposals reduce gun violence in this country. He’s expected to highlight the need for better background checks, limits on the sale of high capacity magazines and a new ban on assault weapons. His push comes a month after the mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. New York is the first state to take action in the aftermath of that tragedy. A new law signed yesterday by Governor Andrew Cuomo imposes new restrictions on gun ownership and it strengthens rules to prevent mentally ill people from gaining access to guns. Please join us for an update on federal and state efforts to reduce gun violence
Guests
Jon Cohen
director, polling, Capital Insight, the independent polling group of the Washington Post
Fawn Johnson
correspondent, National Journal magazine.
Richard Feldman
president, Independent Firearm Owners Association
Ladd Everitt
director of communications, The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Congressman Jim Langevin
2nd Congressional District, Rhode Island (Democrat)
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The opinion to get rid of the scourge of guns isn't heard at all in the conversation. A friend that is a teacher dislikes guns and is troubled by talk of having all teachers armed. "What about my right NOT to own guns.'. The 2nd amendment may be some peoples tradition but it is not my tradition . Neolin, a Delaware chief who lived in 17th century believed that guns offset the reciprocal balance between the people and animals &other people & never owned one as did his tribal members. It is time we put this scourge back into pandora's box.
What is the role, if any, of insurance in the conversation about guns and ammunition? Why not require ALL privately-owned guns be insured, just like cars? Seems that would allow people to own as many as they like so long as they can afford the insurance rates. And those rates could correspond with the lethality and risk associated with each type of gun as well as things like the owner's training, storage, amount of ammo, number of children in the house, etc. It would be a boon for the insurance industry and be a "softer" and perhaps more acceptable way to achieve a "well-regulated militia."
Laurin Stennis
Birmingham, AL
Another unbalanced and one-sided show. Everyone on the show seems to be calling for more gun control. Let's leave one-sided shows to Fox.
"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." What is meant by "well regulated Militia," , what body/bodies would be authorized to regulate that militia, and what would regulation entail? I fail to see this point being addressed in the discussion of gun ownership.
Focusing on guns because it is 'easier' than delving into the mental health issue is short sighted. In other countries where guns are not available, bombs are used.
ECG wrote: “What I assert is that the intent of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government against its citizens”.
If what you assert is true than citizens should arm themselves with weapons of all stripes including high tech missiles, attack helicopters, nuclear bombs, - so as to have a fighting chance against a “gov gone wild”.
I may be “low-info” in that I may have not fully studied this particular issue as intensely as you, I don‘t know, but your “assertion” and it’s implications seems like absolute nonsense to me.
It seems you‘re interpretation of “..a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”- defies common sense of what the founders would have intended.
It is very frustrated to hear comments like "I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment" or "the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to defend myself and my property" or (worse) "the 2nd Amendement protects us from an oppresive government" or (even worse) "we need a 2nd Amendment solution."
The 2nd Amendment clearly refers to an organized militia, not an unorganized militia, and it is certainly not a license to kill. This is important in the context of a country that is not allowed to have a standing army, as was the wish of the Founding Fathers (see Article I, Section 8).
I support the Constitution too, ALL of the Constitution.
This show is almost worthless. These are just feel good, "do something" solutions that don't address the source of the problem.
I COMPLETELY agree, eb66
"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."
WELL REGULATED, it says.
Merriam-Webster.com says...
"Definition of REGULATE
1
a : to govern or direct according to rule
b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning
2
: to bring order, method, or uniformity to
3
: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of "
We are not well regulated.
DrewKelly wrote:
"so as to have a fighting chance against a “gov gone wild”.
It is the Second Amendment that KEEPS the government from "going wild". You may think the military is all shock and awe ... and it is ... on the other hand, consider the difference in outcomes between a government coming against its citizens (for whatever reason) armed ... and then unarmed. While the eventual outcome might be the same because of that shock and awe, what would happen to us as a country? It is the ugliness of that result that keeps even tyrannical leaders from coming against an armed citiznery. Someone raised the parallel case of Germany before WWII and claimed it was not apropos. I disagree. Specifically, consider how the result might have been different for German Jews had they been able to keep their arms. An armed population makes for an ugly scene if a government becomes tyrannical. It's much easier if the population is unarmed. That's the reason for the Second Amendment and why the words "right" and "infringed" are a part of it.
Thanks to poster "Kris" for these:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
A comment was made by the gun supporting panelist...Why did the shooters in these mass killings go into the buildings in the first place? He was addressing the mental health issue. This would have a perfect place for the host or panelists to address the assault weapons isssue & they didn't.
No matter how crazy someone is, they could not hurt or kill so many people so fast without an assault weapon. Addressing mental health issues is important, but let's not lose sight of the problem we have with the access unstable people have to assault weapons...weapons specifically designed to kill people!
"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."
Lets deconstruct this shall we
the format is reason followed by rule
Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a FREE state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
In other words the basic idea is "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
And one given reason for that is, the security of a free state requires a well regulated militia.
This does not require that the a well regulated militia be the only event in which the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Simply it justifies the rule, not limits it.
If you find this hard to follow please consider lessons in the English language or cognitive thought.
DFraser wrote:
"A comment was made by the gun supporting panelist...Why did the shooters in these mass killings go into the buildings in the first place? He was addressing the mental health issue."
You could also interpret the question as, "why did the shooters in these mass killings go into these particular buildings in the first place?". The answer to that question is, Because they were gun-free zones. With only ONE exception (the Gabby Giffords shooting), EVERY one of our mass shootings has taken place in a "gun-free" zone. There's a reason for that.
People, don't let arbitrary details distract you from the truth!
We are a free country.
Our 2nd Ammendment clearly states,
"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."
Whether you want guns or no guns at all, you have every right to make that choice for yourself. However, you do not have the right to make that choice for anyone else.
The conversation needs to be redirected back to the actual text of the Bill of Rights.
There is no disputing the fact that we are not well regulated. That's where we need to start.
katecomments wrote:"People, don't let arbitrary details distract you from the truth!""There is no disputing the fact that we are not well regulated."
The truth! well then you would have to accept that "well regulated" in the second amendment meant, proper functioning or trained, not loaded down with federal government or state government laws.
I chose not to listen at all today, this kind of ignorance gets really old.
I also chose not to listen to our esteemed opportunist and chief, surrounding himself with children for the sake of optics to try and take away Constitutional rights. The fact is I have to rely on the reactions of a lot of people like you, utterly ignorant people who don't know what their talking about but claim they do.
@katecomments:
Your incorrect, out of context application of the definition of the word "regulated" is in direct conflict with the word "infringed". Sorry.
Just heard Emperor Barack decree his extra-legal changes to our country's laws ... under cover of children.
Number of dicta that would have changed ANYTHING that happened at Sandy Hook? Zero.
America's gun violence is perhaps best regarded as a culture bound syndrome, like anorexia among White American women, or "nervios" among Hispanics. The presence or absence of firearms, of a gun-culture, doesn't seem to be the determining factor, since Canadians are heavily armed and not afflicted with the senseless shootings. This means that even if an individual is mentally ill, there are cultural and political reasons that their madness presents as mass murder rather than in some other way. In this way the insanity of these shooters is acknowledged without excusing or distracting from the deeper contexts and the need for a profound cultural change that must be at the core of any real solution.
After today,there is NO doubt left that the NRA is in fact a terrorist organization. They said nothing when Ted Nugent threatened the life of the President.Today the NRA put a target on the backs of the Obama girls... DESPICABLE SCUM !!
Clifford wrote: 'After today,there is NO doubt left that the NRA is in fact a terrorist organization"
The only thing with no doubt is the fact that you demonstrate all the attributes of someone who is mentally ill and has indeed become everything you claim to hate.
"The right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution, and is therefore fundamental to the liberty interests of all Americans. I believe elected officials have a duty to ensure that these interests are not abridged. My position on the 2nd Amendment is simple: existing laws related to firearms and their possession are a sufficient framework by which to ensure the safety of all Arizonans. Rather than focusing on new legislation, we must first be vigilant in our enforcement of the laws that are on the books. We must step up outreach and education efforts to ensure that gun safety is at the top the agenda, and work together to mitigate tragic accidents that result from unsupervised firearm use by children. Parents talking to their children about gun safety and practicing gun safety in front of them will accomplish this goal, new legislation will not".
- Janet Napolitano - September 9, 2002
I would have thought:
“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.” in 20th century English meant:
(Because) a well reg (apparently meant well-trained) militia is necessary for security of free “country”, people’s rights to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
This would seem sorta wise for our forefathers to say to it’s citizens, “hey folks, the world is still dangerous, Brits are still around, French still own substantial part of our continent, Napoleon is conquering Europe, etc.- It might be a good idea to remain vigilant, so as to come to aid of our infant nation should we come under attack.”
But several posts above have properly enlightened me.:
It actually means:
(Because) a well-trained militia (means not trained at all) is necessary for security of our country (means whenever folks get the urge they should attack their own country), people’s rights should not be infringed upon (means any weapon- no matter how horrific should be in the hands of anyone at any time for any reason imaginable).
Thanks for clearing that up. How blessed are we to have Fox “news”, Rush, ECG, mnemecek, NRA to clear up any misunderstanding we may have had.
At the risk of being redundant, here goes:
a. Allow any citizen to own arms i.e. the weapons defined in the 2nd Amendment = single shot muskets
b. Arms are a necessary part of defending te citizenry as a part of a militia i.e. arms are monitored, registered, and maintained by trained personnel as part of the militia.
In other words, no bazookas, multi-shot guns, grenades or grenade launchers, no lasers, no poison sprayers, no lethal radiation devices, no remote electrocution machines, no sound blasters, no biological arms, no pikes, no cudgels, no morning stars, no personal cannons, no explosives launchers, no lethal rubber band launchers. JUST the technology defined by the 1789 forefathers.
By the way, Nazis were never a majority party.......they rose to power because of split government, all via negotiated arrangements with the conservative leaders of Germany; they were but one of many minority parties. Nazis never really espoused socialism - by definition, socialism does not exclude any group or sect while Nazis have always excluded specific groups, races, religions, and members of ethnic backgrounds. Please omit Nazis from future threats and potential paranoia......the 2 party setup in the US basically precludes the rise of enough political splinters to allow a similar minority party to come to a position of power.
NO! Abe. Didn’t you read the amendment? It says “ .. being necessary to the SECURITY of the (country)..”. This OBVIOUSLY means that it’s folks patriotic duty to own weapons capable of killing dozens of folks in a few seconds so as to try and OVERTHROW their country whenever the whim should occur.
Jefferson, after hitting his wine cellar all night long once wrote: “Tree of Liberty must be refreshed with lots of meaningless self-destruction” or something like that-
you have to read between the lines some to the gain proper perspective on these things.
HonestAbe wrote: "At the risk of being redundant, here goes:
a. Allow any citizen to own arms i.e. the weapons defined in the 2nd Amendment = single shot muskets"
Redundant! that's not the word I would use. For a guy who apparently is incapable of understanding the words used and their intent in the second amendment you see a "defined" type of weapon there? I suppose this kind of thinking should be expected from those who have given up there manhood to the government
I guess Televisions, radios and computers are a reason to get rid of the first amendment also.
Drew Kelly, it goes like this.
" The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
Jefferson understood that "liberty" was an anomaly throughout history, and if not fought and died for when needed, it would be taken. Human history is drenched with the blood of tyrants, it's foolish to think that that is securely behind us.
It’s also foolish to think that every single thing a founding father ever said is “golden”. For one they often didn’t agree with each other. Jefferson, especially said some off the wall things including, unlike most his contemporaries, being great fan of the mob lynching and guillotines of French Revolution.
Glad you’re keeping a watchful eye out for tyrants, but I don’t think this should be an excuse for justifying easy access of all citizens to “WMD’s” as some gun rights advocates seem to suggest.
tech difficulties, sorry.
.
.