Part of me is troubled that we still can’t discuss gun safety issues in a forum like the SOU, but another part of me says it is wise our President chose not to do so. Given the nature of the NRA’s lobbying efforts/extortion, and Republican and Democratic office holder slavish fealty to the NRS, we really can’t even have a meaningful gun discussion. A shame really. Just look at Tucson, and the number of police officers shot during the last two weeks. Well guns don’t kill people. People kill people. They could have just as easily used nail clippers instead of guns.

He just needs time to figure out how to circumvent the Constitution that he doesn’t believe in.

Assault Weapons ban, please Mr. President.

An assault weapons ban doesn’t sound too controversial right now. I can’t imagine he’s going to impose a significant amount of gun control measures.

Ricia said:
He just needs time to figure out how to circumvent the Constitution that he doesn’t believe in.

I’d suggest you are pushing around a Kart ‘o Krap, but I would hate to insult Krap.

Good news for NRA and Gun dealers (Manufacturers and Sellers). Gun cost always rise when this happens.

The far left howls and Obama panders, but they both forget one thing….

Not every gun owner out there is a Republican. Not every hunter and person keenly interested in the right to protect their home and family from people who don’t give a damn about gun restrictions or law is a right wing gun nut.

Many, MANY Democrats are all of the above. I would advise the Democrats to tread lightly here. The far left, even though it makes the most noise with the aid of their media sockpuppets, do not represent all Dems on this.

On second thought….go ahead. Make gun restriction noises. Let’s see how this plays out.

Harry Flashman said:
The far left howls and Obama panders, but they both forget one thing….

Not every gun owner out there is a Republican. Not every hunter and person keenly interested in the right to protect their home and family from people who don’t give a damn about gun restrictions or law is a right wing gun nut.

Many, MANY Democrats are all of the above. I would advise the Democrats to tread lightly here. The far left, even though it makes the most noise with the aid of their media sockpuppets, do not represent all Dems on this.

On second thought….go ahead. Make gun restriction noises. Let’s see how this plays out.

I agree that he will tread lightly on this, but in light of the Tucson shooting and other shootings like the ones involving Florida law enforcement officers probably make this a safe time to talk about guns. Just as the “far left” doesn’t represent all Dems on this, the NRA doesn’t represent all Reps or Americans on this.

The Real Royal King said:
Part of me is troubled that we still can’t discuss gun safety issues in a forum like the SOU, but another part of me says it is wise our President chose not to do so. Given the nature of the NRA’s lobbying efforts/extortion, and Republican and Democratic office holder slavish fealty to the NRS, we really can’t even have a meaningful gun discussion. A shame really. Just look at Tucson, and the number of police officers shot during the last two weeks. Well guns don’t kill people. People kill people. They could have just as easily used nail clippers instead of guns.

So are ALL efforts of lobbying “extortion”. As a member of the NRA they represent my interests. As members of NARAL, ACLU, NOW, etc. have their interests represented by their lobby of choice. Just because the NRA is effective does not in itself make it “extortion”. Members of Congress are free to vote their conscience… and pay the price at the polls (or reap the rewards if people fee that way).

Color Me Badd said:
Assault Weapons ban, please Mr. President.

paulmdoro said:
An assault weapons ban doesn’t sound too controversial right now. I can’t imagine he’s going to impose a significant amount of gun control measures.

Who gets to define “assault weapon”? My Ruger Mini 14 .223 is used for small animals (like groundhoags) but add a few things to it and the function doesn’t change, but it now becomes an “assault weapon”. Just a reminder folks full-auto guns have been banned since the 1920′s. And the 10 year ban didn’t remove hi-cap mags… it just made them damed expensive. Time to buy stock in Glock.

tatboy said:
Who gets to define “assault weapon”?

Probably the NRA.

paulmdoro said:

” Just as the “far left” doesn’t represent all Dems on this, the NRA doesn’t represent all Reps or Americans on this.”

Agreed.

I’m a conservative and a gun owner. In fact, a gun has been the tool of my trade for 28 years and I carry every day.

There has to be some room for compromise on this issue. The far left wants a disarmed society, which is stupid beyond belief to any rational person who doesn’t live in some liberal bubble somewhere.

The far right thinks everyone should be able to own a bazooka and their very own tank. I don’t think that’s necessary either. A 30 round magazine for a Glock? Please. For what?

I don’t own one single assault rifle but I can assure anyone out there who thinks coming into my home or robbing me at gun point of one thing – what I do have will kill them just as dead, just as fast.

Liike I said, there has to be some room for compromise on this issue.

RRKING on guns . Well , I do like to dress up as Annie Oakley .

Harry Flashman said:
paulmdoro said:

” Just as the “far left” doesn’t represent all Dems on this, the NRA doesn’t represent all Reps or Americans on this.”

Agreed.

I’m a conservative and a gun owner. In fact, a gun has been the tool of my trade for 28 years and I carry every day.

There has to be some room for compromise on this issue. The far left wants a disarmed society, which is stupid beyond belief to any rational person who doesn’t live in some liberal bubble somewhere.

The far right thinks everyone should be able to own a bazooka and their very own tank. I don’t think that’s necessary either. A 30 round magazine for a Glock? Please. For what?

I don’t own one single assault rifle but I can assure anyone out there who thinks coming into my home or robbing me at gun point of one thing – what I do have will kill them just as dead, just as fast.

Liike I said, there has to be some room for compromise on this issue.

Good post Harry. I completely agree.

tatboy said:
So are ALL efforts of lobbying “extortion”. As a member of the NRA they represent my interests. As members of NARAL, ACLU, NOW, etc. have their interests represented by their lobby of choice. Just because the NRA is effective does not in itself make it “extortion”. Members of Congress are free to vote their conscience… and pay the price at the polls (or reap the rewards if people fee that way).

I have problems with many lobbying efforts. Although the NRA is particularly egregious and strident, I can’t say that NARAL is less egregious. It simply has less money to throw about.

You view the ACLU and a lobbying organization? I will disclose that I was given an ACLU membership when I graduated from law school, and I have kept it up. However, I don’t think it lobbies nearly as heavily as the NRA or NARAL and the C of C.

tatboy said:
So are ALL efforts of lobbying “extortion”. As a member of the NRA they represent my interests. As members of NARAL, ACLU, NOW, etc. have their interests represented by their lobby of choice. Just because the NRA is effective does not in itself make it “extortion”. Members of Congress are free to vote their conscience… and pay the price at the polls (or reap the rewards if people fee that way).

My father-in-law is in the NRA and I’ve seen some of the literature he gets from them. It’s pretty hysterical, over-the-top fearmongering. Obama is going to ban guns and take your guns away. Stuff like that. And why is it that teacher’s unions get bashed for their actions when they do the exact same thing the NRA does, represent their members?

paulmdoro said:
My father-in-law is in the NRA and I’ve seen some of the literature he gets from them. It’s pretty hysterical, over-the-top fearmongering. Obama is going to ban guns and take your guns away. Stuff like that. And why is it that teacher’s unions get bashed for their actions when they do the exact same thing the NRA does, represent their members?

Have you seen the mailings from NARAL, PETA, etc???

tatboy asks:

“Who gets to define “assault weapon”?”

Excellent question, and one of the sticking points in the issue. (And, no, that Ruger mini-14 wouldn’t be an assault rifle in my book. Great gun for coyotes and other such critters.)

But – what about an SKS? What about the AK-47? Even to AR-15? How many people do you know who actually hunt with those weapons? Home defense? Poor argument because a 12 gauge with 00 buckshot is every bit as deadly in the close quarters of the home. Maybe even more so.

I’m not advocating the outlawing of those guns. I know a lot of people who have them and they are all law abiding decent people. I’m coloring the argument the left will use.

tatboy said:
Have you seen the mailings from NARAL, PETA, etc???

No, but I’m sure they are no more extreme than the NRA. And if those are extremist groups, isn’t the NRA is well?

The Real Royal King said:
I have problems with many lobbying efforts. Although the NRA is particularly egregious and strident, I can’t say that NARAL is less egregious. It simply has less money to throw about. You view the ACLU and a lobbying organization? I will disclose that I was given an ACLU membership when I graduated from law school, and I have kept it up. However, I don’t think it lobbies nearly as heavily as the NRA or NARAL and the C of C.

I would argue thau ACLU as become a lobbying group through the years. Yes they still defend “civil liberties” that they support or see as having value to defend. A large portion of their victories are going after small entities like Joplin, Mo to remove it’s fish from the city symbol (I think it was Joplin, it’s been a few years). But much of their advocacy I feel goes in to the lobbying category.

paulmdoro said:
No, but I’m sure they are no more extreme than the NRA. And if those are extremist groups, isn’t the NRA is well?

Exactly… they are the same. The are extream to push a 100% point of view. That is the point of lobbying. The other side is pushing 100%… so they do as well to represent their members interests.

The Real Royal King said:
I will disclose that I was given an ACLU membership when I graduated from law school, and I have kept it up.

Now you’re a lawyer too? Heh…this just get’s better and better…..forgive me but your comments don’t exactly reflect those of an attorney. Nice try though.

tatboy said:
Exactly… they are the same. The are extream to push a 100% point of view. That is the point of lobbying. The other side is pushing 100%… so they do as well to represent their members interests.

It’s unfortunate that fearmongering and distortion are used, but I guess that’s part of the game.

Harry Flashman said:
tatboy asks: “Who gets to define “assault weapon”?” Excellent question, and one of the sticking points in the issue. (And, no, that Ruger mini-14 wouldn’t be an assault rifle in my book. Great gun for coyotes and other such critters.) But – what about an SKS? What about the AK-47? Even to AR-15? How many people do you know who actually hunt with those weapons? Home defense? Poor argument because a 12 gauge with 00 buckshot is every bit as deadly in the close quarters of the home. Maybe even more so. I’m not advocating the outlawing of those guns. I know a lot of people who have them and they are all law abiding decent people. I’m coloring the argument the left will use.

Exactly… it make NO sence. It’s JUST political. My 12 Ga. semi-auto with 00 Buck and a tube extender is a hell of a lot more dangerous to “assault” with than any of the rifles you mention (which we all know are the ones they will go after b/c they “look” bad) but they won’t go after it b/c it won’t sell to the general population. It remindes me of Dan Rather always running that stock footage of a guy shooting a full-auto M-16 everytime he did a story on gun violence or gun control. It provided good visuals (even though it was missleading). I also love how MSNBC always refer to semi-auto guns as “automatic”. Which by anyone’s definition is missleading or a lie.

timzank said:
Now you’re a lawyer too? Heh…this just get’s better and better…..forgive me but your comments don’t exactly reflect those of an attorney. Nice try though.

RRKING on employment . That ‘ s secret agent / attorney / Texas Ranger / ballerina / coyote / vote rigger / organizer / Tupperware salesman , please !

So what does sensible gun control look like? Or is that an oxymoron? Should people be able to buy whatever weapons a company chooses to manufacture?

The Real Rabid Kook said:
You view the ACLU and a lobbying organization? I will disclose that I was given an ACLU membership when I graduated from law school, and I have kept it up. However, I don’t think it lobbies nearly as heavily as the NRA or NARAL and the C of C.

True, Kook. They don’t lobby nearly as much as they sue. Perhaps the NRA should take a tip from them.

Color Me Dumbb said:
Assault Weapons ban, please Mr. President.

Do we have an “assault weapons” problem? Assault weapon = scary black rifle. I think I’ve found the solution.

Pablo said:
True, Kook. They don’t lobby nearly as much as they sue. Perhaps the NRA should take a tip from them.

The NRA isn’t shy about suing are they?

The Lantern of Truth said:
RRKING on employment . That ‘ s secret agent / attorney / Texas Ranger / ballerina / coyote / vote rigger / organizer / Tupperware salesman , please !

I’d think “spooge mopper at Lions Den” would be the most likely line of work for Teh King. Certainly the most satisfying for him.

Pablo said:
Do we have an “assault weapons” problem? Assault weapon = scary black rifle. I think I’ve found the solution.

You gotta remember how easily the congregation at the church of liberalism is convinced of anything their leaders show them or tell them. They are truly a devout flock.

It’s an indisputable fact that more civilians and police officers have died as a result of assault-type weapons since the ban was lifted in 2004.

timzank said:
I’d think “spooge mopper at Lions Den” would be the most likely line of work for Teh King. Certainly the most satisfying for him.

RRKING again . Left out my hairdressing career . ” If your ‘do is not a King ‘do , it simply will not do ! ” .

Publius219 said:
It’s an indisputable fact that more civilians and police officers have died as a result of assault-type weapons since the ban was lifted in 2004.

Link please…

timzank said:
You gotta remember how easily the congregation at the church of liberalism is convinced of anything their leaders show them or tell them. They are truly a devout flock.

Plenty of people from all political persuasions let their leaders tell them how to think. This isn’t limited to liberals. I know people who repeat verbatim what they hear from talk radio without question or consideration.

Publius219 said:
It’s an indisputable fact that more civilians and police officers have died as a result of assault-type weapons since the ban was lifted in 2004.

link please

timzank said:
link please

The thing with statistics is that each side has no trouble finding some that support their argument. I’m sure that’s true in this case as well.

Publius219 said:
It’s an indisputable fact that more civilians and police officers have died as a result of assault-type weapons since the ban was lifted in 2004.

I’m assuming you were going to use this: http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/59/ until you actually READ it and realized it doesn’t say there was an increase, it simply lists news reports on incidents it feels are germane.

If there is a study out there that backs up your claim, let’s see it. I can’t find one.

paulmdoro said:
The NRA isn’t shy about suing are they?

They’re not nearly as prolific as the ACLU.

Pablo said:
They’re not nearly as prolific as the ACLU.

The group or the number of lawsuits?

” If your ‘do is not a King ‘do , it simply will not do ! ” .

King, that’s much better than your old slogan: “A good man is hard to find, but a hard man is good to find.”

timzank said:
I’m assuming you were going to use this: http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/59/ until you actually READ it and realized it doesn’t say there was an increase, it simply lists news reports on incidents it feels are germane.

If there is a study out there that backs up your claim, let’s see it. I can’t find one.

Oh this is great.

The federal assault weapons ban was allowed to expire by President Bush and the Congress in the fall of 2004. This is a listing, from newspaper clips, of the use of assault weapons in crime since the ban expired.

Most reporters wouldn’t know an assault weapon from a squirt gun. An assault rifle must be capable of automatic fire and such weapons are very tightly controlled and are not generally available to the public. I cannot recall an incident in recent memory in which such a weapon, legally owned, has been used to commit a crime in America. In fact, I can’t even recall where one illegally obtained has been used, though I suspect it may have happened along the Mexican border somewhere. That would be the border with the country with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

Actually, I just recalled this incident in which the gunmen were criminals who couldn’t legally own weapons, and the automatic weapons they had were illegal themselves. So, more restrictive laws wouldn’t have helped because they would have just broken those too.

writer said:
“A good man is hard to find, but a hard man is good to find.”

RRKING . That ‘s still on the sign in the salon parking lot . And on my business cards . And on the t-shirts we hand out at our soirees . And tattooed on my sit-upon . And embroidered on my throw pillows . …

Publius said:

“It’s an indisputable fact that more civilians and police officers have died as a result of assault-type weapons since the ban was lifted in 2004.”

Better check again.

Most police officers killed by gunfire are killed by handguns, not assault rifles. Please avoid passing off your opinion as fact.

I struggle with gun control. I know that as a liberal I’m supposed to be anti-gun and support any and all gun control measures. But I have family members who are gun owners and hunters and NRA members and I believe myself to be practical about the issue. I think there is general agreement about sensible gun control measures, like background checks and preventing violent felons from purchasing firearms, etc. But regarding stuff like an assault weapons ban, what do you guys think? Is it pointless, just a feel-good policy that accomplishes nothing positive?

paulmdoro said:
But regarding stuff like an assault weapons ban, what do you guys think? Is it pointless, just a feel-good policy that accomplishes nothing positive?

It focuses on cosmetic issues and really doesn’t do a whole lot to make anyone safer. Actual assault weapons are not available to the average person, and that is a sensible restriction. When they passed the “assault weapons” ban, the manufacturers of the banned weapons simply made minor tweaks to make them legal again, and the end result is that the availability and functionality of the weapons didn’t change a bit. From Wiki, these are the features of an “assault rifle” that were banned:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Aside from a grenade launcher, which of those features poses any significant danger?

Pablo said:
It focuses on cosmetic issues and really doesn’t do a whole lot to make anyone safer. Actual assault weapons are not available to the average person, and that is a sensible restriction. When they passed the “assault weapons” ban, the manufacturers of the banned weapons simply made minor tweaks to make them legal again, and the end result is that the availability and functionality of the weapons didn’t change a bit. From Wiki, these are the features of an “assault rifle” that were banned:

Aside from a grenade launcher, which of those features poses any significant danger?

Yeah that’s a pretty obvious answer.

Leave the gun control thing alone. First of all, it’s politically toxic. It’s only something that appeases the far far left. Secondly, it IS a Constitutional right. lastly, there’s the logical argument about gun control. It PUNISHES law abiding citizens and emboldens criminals since they will benefit from an unarmed public. Loughner was not using an “assault weapon” either. It’s stupid for Obama to broach this subject. Just have states clamp down on loopholes that allow mentally unstable people to buy guns and lave it there. Going after it federally is a BIG mistake, practically and politically. I hope Obama’s advisers are looking at the polls on gun control. Leave it alone.

paulmdoro said:
I struggle with gun control. I know that as a liberal I’m supposed to be anti-gun and support any and all gun control measures. But I have family members who are gun owners and hunters and NRA members and I believe myself to be practical about the issue. I think there is general agreement about sensible gun control measures, like background checks and preventing violent felons from purchasing firearms, etc. But regarding stuff like an assault weapons ban, what do you guys think? Is it pointless, just a feel-good policy that accomplishes nothing positive?

Paul, I am left of center as well and fully support gun ownership rights. Don’t let ideology shoebox you into accepting a position that OTHERS profess. ;) I am more safe when my law abiding neighbors are armed than not.

Utah considers making semiautomatic pistol a state symbol NOT A SPOOF!!!

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/01/utah-considers-making-gun-state-symbol/1?csp=usat.me

Right. Maybe right after the 2012 elections.