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.
weapons of mass destruction plural of weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
Noun
A chemical, biological, or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.
All rifles, ALL, not just "assault rifles" accounted for 2.5% of murders last year, clubs hand hammers 3.6%.
Get real on the W.M.D. BS.
"Get real on the W.M.D. BS."
Beat me to it, Ron L. Hate to call it "dishonest", so we'll just call it "hyperbole"!
At the risk of being redundant:
Look, the fact is the words of the amendment may be interpreted two different ways and the sticky point is the latter 14 words. So here are the two interpretations:
1) A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because they may be needed to be part of the militia. (your interpretation)
2) A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because the militia of the state is armed and consequently, an armed citizenry is our guarantee against tyranny.
Now, what was the intent? What I assert is that the intent of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of government against its citizens [this is THE key point, and I refer you again to the archives.gov site on The Constitution], and in the case of the Second Amendment to secure against the tyranny of the government, not to provide a method of staffing a militia! Within the context of the Bill of Rights, an amendment that simply staffs a militia is completely out of place. And I know that is the intent, because it is the intent, language, and historical context of every other of the first ten amendments.
I hear a lot of rhetoric about "staffing a militia", but no one can seem to answer this point. Why would an amendment protecting the power of the government, potentially against its own citizens, come in the middle of nine other assurances that the citizens will be protected from a tyrannical government, particularly when this was the purpose of providing the amendments in the first place? It's a simple question, really.
In response to Ron:
Perhaps’ WMD’s was poor word choice granted. It’s sort of like bringing up the subject of Nazi’s in these discussions.
I merely wish to reiterate that : A sane person should realize that no one should need a gun capable of killing dozens of people in a few seconds for self-defense.
And that “right to bear arms” in B of R, had the added stipulated condition- so as to maintain a well trained “militia”; And was not carte blanche recognition that everyone should arm themselves to the teeth so that (as some seem to maintain) we can be prepared to use them against our own country.
I think your reading a lot in a somewhat ambiguous sentence if that’s what you believe.
But... You’ve a right to your opinion.
A loose reading of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the debates that created it, gives the objective casual observer the clear message that those founding fathers did not like or in fact hated the idea of a big onerous federal government. To come away with anything else would indicate a problem with personal cognitive function.
.
.
Drew Kelly wrote:
"And that “right to bear arms” in B of R, had the added stipulated condition- so as to maintain a well trained “militia”; "
That's your interpretation, Drew Kelly. And I believe the Bill of Rights itself is instructive as to why your interpretation is wrong. The other reading is, in sum, "because the militia must be armed to protect the free state, the citizens themselves must also have a right to be armed, lest we end up trading one condition of tyranny for another".
Then there is this simple question ... Why would an amendment protecting the power of the government, potentially against its own citizens, come in the middle of nine other assurances that the citizens will be protected from a tyrannical government, particularly when this was the purpose of providing the amendments in the first place? It's a simple question, really.
Drew Kelly wrote:" bringing up the subject of Nazi’s in these discussions."
It was Clifford who brought up Nazi's, he does so on a daily basis by equating the tea party, republicans and the NRA to Nazi's "neonutzis". It was interesting to read the Nazi gun control laws however, at the very least it should cause pause for thought. Gun confiscations always follow the same path, the British tried it in this country, obviously the people would not put up with it.
This website is really messed up, I hope they fix it.
ECG:
I searched albeit not too extensively for your “citizens must have right to be armed, lest we trade one tyranny for another” idea in founding documents without success.
I don’t understand how you, Scalia, or anyone else can read 2nd Amend and come up with idea that the second half of sentence is not related to the first.
I don’t agree with the premise that it meant folks should stock up on weapons so as to prepare to battle our own gov.
I believe founders were “good with” responsible gun ownership at he time. After all it would seem unimaginable that after going through Revolutionary War and realizing that a lot of folks hunted, they would banish all guns.
But they couldn’t have foreseen the weapons available today- perhaps that’s why in their wisdom they left the 2nd Amendment a bit ambiguous.
"their wisdom they left the 2nd Amendment a bit ambiguous."
We can lead you to the water but we can't make you drink.
Their intention is and was crystal clear, all you need to do is read it understanding the meaning of the words at the time it was written.
It is not string theory!
Drew Kelly: Thanks for the civil reply. The second half of the sentence is ABSOLUTELY related to the first, it's just a matter of how you interpret it. I repeat:
Why would an amendment protecting the power of the government, potentially against its own citizens, come in the middle of nine other assurances that the citizens will be protected from a tyrannical government, particularly when this was the purpose of providing the amendments in the first place? It's a simple question, really.
That is why an interpretation of the Second Amendment as "Because the government will be armed to maintain a free state, the right of the people to be armed as well should not be infringed" makes sense.
A good discussion of a very complex topic. There was only an hour, so of course there is the frustration of not having enough time to dig into the issues more deeply. I'm sure that Diane will be scheduling more programs on this topic.
One of the guests (forgive me for not remembering which one) made what I thought was an unfair remark about the NRA not caring whether guns are sold to law-abiding citizens or criminals, and that gun manufacturers care more about profits from gun sales than about safety. I doubt that is the case, and I don't think such cheap shots help advance the discussion.
On the other hand, I don't agree (to put it mildly) with the NRA's prescription of having armed police in every school in America as the first and foremost approach to keeping us safe from crazed killers. The NRA sponsored TV ad about that is beyond the pale, misleadingly implying that Obama is a hypocrite whose own children benefit from armed protection while other Americans' children do not. If there are some of you who haven't seen that commercial, you can find it on the Internet. If I didn't know better, I would have guessed it was a fake ad from Saturday Night Live. But no, it's from the NRA. :-)
Some folks want school teachers to carry guns on their hips. I'd ask them, "Why stop there?" If that's the solution, then why don't we just have every law-abiding citizen packing a gun (or two)? Just think of how much safer we'll all feel if, when we go to the mall, the theater, or the beach, we are surrounded by hundreds of strangers with guns. And I look forward to women asking me, "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" And believe me, I plan on packing a BIG gun. :-)
To Katecomments: Your ideas (RE: registering, testing, licensing, insuring) are very interesting and I think they deserve some consideration. :-)
"Some folks want school teachers to carry guns on their hips".
At BEST, hyperbole. But really a Strawman argument. No serious person is saying that.
"I'd ask them, "Why stop there?" If that's the solution, then why don't we just have every law-abiding citizen packing a gun (or two)? Just think of how much safer we'll all feel if, when we go to the mall, the theater, or the beach, we are surrounded by hundreds of strangers with guns. "
Reductio ad absurdum.
After you finish learning about the strawman argument, you should study reductio ad absurdum. You're the master of both, and in debate, they both fail. Sorry.
This will get you started ... "Reductio ad absurdum tries to demonstrate that a statement is false (or in this case an idea is a bad one) by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.
And I'll leave you with ...
Lay that pistol down, babe
Lay that pistol down
Pistol packin' mama
Lay that pistol down!
ATTENTION:
This is a notice in response to a comment directed to me by Ecgberht. Ecgberht is a troll, "someone who posts inflammatory messages in an online community with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." I would add to the official definition that trolls derive some neurotic personal satisfaction from causing disruption; the degree of satisfaction is proportional to the amount of disruption.
Ecgberht has shown disrespect to many of the participants in this forum and also to Diane Rehm. Ecgberht's disruptive behavior has been noted by the moderators of the DR show. Ecgberht has changed his name several times, keeping one step ahead of the moderators (hence his current name, Ecgberht2).
As much as I'd like to completely ignore Ecgberht, he has made it clear that he intends to harrass me (which is what I would expect from a troll), and so I feel compelled to post this notice. I will continue to do so for each new discussion in which Ecgberht attempts to engage me.
Ecgberht, perhaps you will be tempted to flag this comment as offensive. In that case, I will work with the moderators of the DR show to resolve this issue. I have no intention of allowing a troll to ruin the discussion forum for a program as good as the DR show. Even if you somehow manage to behave yourself, please respect my wish not to communicate with you.
ATTENTION
This is a notice in response to a comment directed to me by Samcot. Samcot is a message board bully. Samcot often misrepresents the posts of others. The inability to debate honestly is the cardinal sin of a message board, and he is guilty of it via the strawman argument and reductio ad absurdum. For example, Samcot might claim that another poster has been forced to change his login to "keep one step ahead of the moderators" when he knows that is patently untrue. When bully's are unable to debate honestly, they do their best to enlist the help of others (since they are themselves ineffectual) to try to get others censored.
As much as I'd like to completely ignore Samcot, when he posts untruths on the message board, it is clear that he has no interest in accuracy or open debate and discussion of ideas, but only trying to force others off the board with whom he disagrees. So I feel compelled to post this notice. I will continue to do so for each new discussion in which Samcot attempts to lie, obfuscate, bully, or attempt to censor. Threats are in direct opposition to the DR Show Code of Conduct
Samcot, as I have explained, I only mark posts that attack me ad hominem. I'm letting your "troll" attack slide for now, though it is untrue by your own definition. My posts are on topic (though topics on these boards often drift which is typical in message boards), and I never EVER try to force someone off the board through intimidation, and I often debate others who have opposite views. Our exchanges prove that you have no interest in honest debate - your only interest is running me off the board because you are so ineffectual at it. I have no intention of allowing a bully to do that. You have asked me not to communicate with you. I've told you before that I have no interest in communicating with you unless you post flasehood or strawman arguments, so that is completely under your control.
You don't run this board, Samcot.
For those who would like to listen to another good discussion on gun laws, I recommend the January 17 podcast at the Commonwealth Club of California. You can get the podcast from their website or from iTunes. A little further back, November 1, 2012, there is another discussion with a panel of experts called "The Mind, Madness and Gun Violence."