« Saudi Arabia severs ties with Iran (by CP) | Main | "I favor democracy in the ME." Pat Lang »

04 January 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It's kinda amusing to read all these 'defense of 2A' and 'power grab' comments from the mostly pro-gun posters.

Yet no one has made any suggestions on how to address the very real problem of gun deaths in general and gun violence in particular, in a manner that would satisfy your concerns. Yes, yes, that's not our problem to solve (or worse, what problem?), you say. Why waste a perfectly good opportunity to carp?

Just saying.



"carping?" I remind you of the rule here against personal attacks. This includes attacks on individual motivations. As Obama said today, 30,000 Americans die by gun each year. 2/3 of those deaths are suicides. Tell me how you can prevent suicide by gun. A decision to kill yourself is often a fairly rational response to hopeless situations. Example: someone buys a gun. Ten years later this person decides to shoot himself with that gun. How would you have prevented that? Sandy Hook? A mentally ill teenager's mother legally buys firearms. federal background checks are done and passed. She gives her mentally ill son unlimited and unsupervised access to these guns. He kills her and then all those people at the school. Obama's proposals would not have prevented that. He can cry over it all he wants but that is the truth. IMO the only way to prevent Sandy Hook and suicide by gun is to confiscate guns as in Australia. We have heard Walrus's (an Australian)view on that. It is a failure and has merely resulted in higher rates of crime with guns. Let's hear your view on what gun control really should be. pl

John Minnerath

I listened to BHO at his press conference.
Not easy for me to do and as usual after listening to him speak I'm left wondering if he's firing on all cylinders.
He seems to believe a great GUN LOBBY is thwarting his every move. Does he mean the NRA?, yes they have an effective lobbying arm, but the real gun lobby is the millions of gun owners who contact their legislators wanting their 2nd Amendments protected fully.

I'd like to know where all these gun shows are where so many guns are sold with no background checks. I've been to a lot of them and in every case before a vendor can set up a table he has to show a valid FFL. And if that person has an FFL there will be a background check done and an ATF 4473 filled out.

I don't buy guns on line because I like to see them first. But, I have a lot of friends who do.
All said guns are shipped to an FFL holder and logged into his books, then the buyer goes to the FFL and the gun is then transferred to him.
That's the way it's always been.

I saw nothing but a desperate lame duck attempting to make himself look good.


Gun Control is simple. Some are for it and some are against it and their positions are pretty solid or unbendable. The only rational thing to be done is to Tax the Hell out of them bullets.
Somebody has to pay to clean up all them messes made with them suicides, gang bangers, murders etc etc. so Tax the bullets to pay for all the money expended by us taxpayers on the gun related problems. Once done everybody needs to shut up about this problem as it is a self paying one once done. Then we can all move onto the the next problem.

William R. Cumming

The President also stated his position the mental illness should be covered in Background checks for firearms. What is mental illness?

Outrage Beyond

Since the question of how to address gun violence has been raised, here is one idea. Although imperfect, it might make a difference, to some degree.


We accept the fact that driving a car is a dangerous activity and insurance is required. (At least, most people accept this proposition.) Leaving aside such matters as the fact that cars aren't mentioned in the Constitution and differing interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, requiring liability insurance for gun ownership has the potential for increasing oversight and providing modest corrective action without (much) governmental intrusion.

Gun liability insurance could be provided by the private marketplace, without government intrusion. In most cases, coverage could likely be provided by a rider to a homeowner policy. If police officers were required to have liability coverage, cancellation of such coverage after a "bad shoot" would remove such officers from the force, without an opportunity to get back on by switching agencies. If someone has a history of possible straw purchases or guns that go missing and are used in a crime, coverage could be cancelled. If you're responsible in using and storing weapons, your coverage cost might be very modest.

I'm sure the participants here can find numerous problems with regulating guns via the private insurance marketplace. I can think of numerous flaws too. But I would suggest it's a lesser evil than overreaching government control.



"Yet no one has made any suggestions on how to address the very real problem of gun deaths in general and gun violence in particular, in a manner that would satisfy your concerns."

I recommend a nationally known political leader start a "conduct matters" group and get some billionaire cronies to help fund it. I'm sure it will be just as effective in stopping violence as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson etc. and their groups have been in stopping violence in places like Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore. Maybe they could even convince whoever is backing "Black Lives Matter" that the police are killing far fewer black men than gangs are and get them involved too.


I think the point of regulating private transfers is for after-the-fact. E.g., if a gun is used in a crime and it was acquired by an improper private transfer, they can now prosecute both the perpetrator of the crime, and the provider of the gun.


@John Minnerath, your answer is here:

The Twisted Genius

Old Microbiologist,

I wouldn't be tinkering with directed energy weapons if I were you. That's sure to attract the attention of Homeland Security these days. I'm sure they would have a fit with the black powder cannon I made as a kid. It fired a cement filled Ballantine Ale can with a spike in the center of it. I was in grammar school at the time. I'm pretty sure we would have both fallen afoul of the same law the overzealous Federal prosecutors used on the Hammonds, the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). It's a beaut.


May I remind all here, that while discussing 2nd amendment and American citizen's right to bear arms, background checks and all, on both sides of the argument, a little caution is required as to the definition of an American Citizen. US hands out US citizenships like candy for as long as I remember, mind you, not Americanness, or feeling, or claiming being demonstrably a proud American who has bought into the American ideal lock stock and barrel in all of its implications and demonstrations.

To become an American citizen, it takes 5 years after being admitted into US following a green card which can be obtained by blood relation clause, time spent in US through a B1 work visa, refugee or asylum clause, airplane birth, or marriage to a US citizen as we have seen in San Bernardino massacre. Lets also remember that those who wish to harm America have time in their hands, and furthermore, requirements to become an American Citizen are a joke at best. No one asks if you would fight for America, if your country is in a war of survival with your former country where your kin still lives. The answer is not material anyway, because it can not be verified.

I personally know many people who have American citizenship, but you can not call them Americans, for they have no true loyalty to the country, its ideals, and spirit, some even can not speak halfway decent American English, some even do not live or work in America. Case in point is, former Prime Minister of Turkey, Tansu Ciller and firebrand former MP Merve Kavakci, an Islamist to boot, are US citizens. Both have their loyalties and ideals rest somewhere else, nowhere near American ideals. To top it all, a 25 percent Americans living in US are non US born citizens. So, who you call an American citizen?

So there is a false premise in the argument about American Citizen's right to bear arms from get go. Obviously, any conclusion that stems from a false premise will culminate in false conclusions at best. Personally, I love guns, being a hunter and fisherman, a history and military buff. I also believe that tyranny in the 21st century will not come to my door with machine guns at the ready and in blue helicopters hovering above. Tyrants of this world are too sophisticated in 21st century to know that tyrannizing will not work this way anymore. How about threatening you, or me, with what we need most, for which we can not live without, be it oil, food, medicine or peace, and force us still to become their slaves, and at best their unwilling supporters from afar, for us just to survive. Against someone holding all of those weapons over our heads, like Damocles' sword, M4s, M1s, M14s, SKSs and Schmeissers will be useless, except for for a few opportunists or maniacs for a quick score. So, gun ownership and practice should be categorized as a hobby, a continuing and respected tradition, a reminder of what it took a wild land to be tamed and made into a success. That is what it took back then. It will not now, or in the future. Code writing, however, may.

Japanese still like their whale hunting and tuna fishing, part of their tradition, despite all the hell they are getting from the rest of the civilized world.

The Gun ownership and practice of it, whether for actual hunting, for hobby, or even to teach young men and women as a skill that may be needed some day, even if just for continuity with their ancestors who also loved, used, or collected guns must be regulated as fishing is regulated with licensing, quotas, seasons and as to who can fish where and when, down to the size of the fish one can catch at a particular time of the year. As a hobby it is regulated for the long term sustainability of the stocks for the future generations, and is not a political issue, or a reason detre matter.

I believe in the flexibility of the constitution, the world has changed tremendously since its inception, but the basic principles of reason and human nature has not changed at all. Reasonable people are adapt at adapting to the changing times. I don't agree with a particular industries' rhetoric exploiting a peoples most sacred beliefs, worst fears and sacred adherence to the basic principles responsible for the existence of their country to be used, in short, to protect the financial gains and power that they command in order to maintain their now obviously impractical continuation of the status quo.

Gun debate must be ended by a simple paradigm shift, hobby and tradition, or a citizen's right to physically be able to protect himself against tyranny by maintaining and owning battlefield grade weapons. But Tyranny in 21st century comes in many forms in our integrated, globalized, internet age world.

An acknowledgement will go a long way by both sides of this argument, that the threats and its methods of the 18th century as foreseen has changed, therefore requiring a consensus of clear thinking minds to submit to the idea of the flexibility of the constitution as being capable of evolving due to the redefined nature of the threats and its remedies as the times require.

How this is all achieved, who gets what, where and when, in short, politics of it, in other words how this sausage is made, is beyond my knowledge radius. This is not a single issue, it is tied to citizenship, tradition, history, public perception and the honesty and farsightedness of politicians who shape policy for the benefit of all, and those come after us.


Ridiculous... Stupifingly ridiculous...

Swami Bhut Jolokia

pl, no personal attack intended--I used the word in the traditional sense of "excessive complaining".

I recognize there are no easy solutions to addressing gun deaths/gun violence (please note I did not call it gun control--that was the phrase you used in your response above). We have a tradition of gun ownership in this country, mostly by responsible citizens, and there's much to be said for continuing that tradition.

Which is not to say we should not discuss the issue honestly and openly. The minute the subject is brought up, even in polite company, everyone's hackles are raised and there can be no productive debate.

I honestly don't know what the solutions may be, but I know we won't find them by ignoring the problem or talking past one another.




What is ridiculous? pl



I know people with PTSD disabilities who have received letters from the VA ordering them to surrender their firearms to a competent authority. Already happening.



You accept the racial reality that most of the gun violence is committed by feral blacks killing each other, and figure out how to convince a race with an average IQ of 70 how to stop killing each other for petty BS.


outrage beyond,

lmao show me where the Constitution makes a right to driving.

There's a reason why the 2AMD is right behind the 1AMD.



That's one reason people won't seek mental health care. You will be guilty in perpetuity. I'm sure there is a pill rather than a treatment, all in keeping with the true spirit of Obamacare.

robt willmann

Fred, Tyler, Walrus,

Yes, it is not just the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (its original name is better) and its regulations that must be carefully observed. Those who want to block the possession and use of guns, and, where possible, confiscate them, are looking at all centralized avenues to do so. The Veterans Administration, and now, the Social Security Administration, are being used to block and deny the receipt and possession of guns. In Social Security, an older person can appoint someone to receive his / her check and help deal with Social Security. There are reports that the Obama administration wants the Social Security Administration to transfer its list of the people who have appointed someone to help them into the database for "background checks". Remember that whoever is in the background check database is not allowed to receive or possess a gun. Social Security is denying that "all" of the people on that list are going into the database, but that is not yet clear.

Just like in the former Soviet Union, the "psychiatric evaluation", "mental illness", and "mentally unstable" concepts are starting to be used both in the area of firearms, and regarding political and economic protest. I think in 2013, Obama and VP Biden did some so-called executive action regarding guns, and Biden was the front man. One item may have been put into a regulation by the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the Un-Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). It has been claimed that your doctor is supposed to ask you about guns, and then transfer that information to some government agency. It appears as if your doctor is going to be told to report about a patient's mental state or mental status. In other words, if these reports are correct, the law of a "physician-patient privilege" no longer exists as a matter of reality. Bank employees have been ordered to be informants since the Anti-Patriot Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56).

In his speech yesterday, Obama said that "it" (some issue of guns) "won't happen overnight", and likened it to the drive to let women vote and to the civil rights movement for Blacks in the U.S. What was he referring to that will not happen overnight? "It" has already happened; as I described above, the centralization of authority over guns in the U.S. has already taken place, including the claimed power to decide who can and cannot receive or possess a gun. It was done with just two laws: the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Bill in 1993. About 200 years of tradition, practice, and gun law in the U.S. were wiped out and turned upside down in just 25 years through only two federal laws.

I expect that the game now will be phrased in terms of "background checks", because that mechanism means that I (as a central governmental organization) can block you from getting a gun just by your name appearing in a database for some "reason", and I decide what the "reasons" are and what the words in the reasons mean. Once I have you quibbling and arguing over what is included in background checks, you have already agreed to what I have wanted all along: the power to control guns throughout the whole country.


I don't think the elites are much concerned about black deaths in urban areas whether caused by the police or gangs, except as a useful platform for political hay.

I think both are significant issues.


Heradotus, the real one would have been very inquisitive about your strong opinion, as I am, which would fall apart at the seams after two questions. You just took some serious airtime here, and occupied space. Next time you do this, your comments, I hope, will be reviewed by all here with a strong magnifying glass made for detecting even the minutest irrelevance.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad