January 16, 2013

Obama resorts to the "if there’s even one life that can be saved" rhetoric.

"If there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, we’ve got an obligation to try."

These are his gun control proposals, including those executive actions that don't require any of that troublesome interaction with Congress.

I loathe the absurd argument that if there is only one life to be saved then we must do something. Obviously, we do not follow that logic generally. For good reason!

IN THE COMMENTS: elkh1 said:
The mother saved three lives, hers and her twin sons' by firing five shots at an intruder.

"if there’s even one life that can be saved, we’ve got an obligation to try." We must require every citizen 18 and up to own a gun for protection. 

207 comments:

1 – 200 of 207   Newer›   Newest»
Rumpletweezer said...

Even Imus this morning was singing the "We have to do something" song. It's irresponsible. Where, o where, are the grownups?

Wayworn Wanderer said...

Surely, somewhere, someplace, somehow, there is as least ONE life that can be saved if President Obama resigns from office, right? A Pakistani civilian who will be killed by a US drone? A right winger who will die of apoplexy?

He must do what he can and resign today and save at least one life.

rhhardin said...

Even more imporant is signalling that the Constitution rules the government, instead of the opposite.

Civil society saves a lot of lives.

It would be nice to keep it.

The other stable social order is hit the guy on the head and take his stuff.

Alex Ignatiev said...

But but but won't somebody think of the children?

After all, Jimmy Savile did.

My constitutional law professor, who clerked for Earl Warren and Stanley Reed, and who served on the Warren Commission, always said, "Whenever politicians talk about saving the children, reach for your wallet to make sure it's still there!"

Seeing Red said...

He & the dems ignore the Constitution, why should we pay attn to Executive Orders?

MadisonMan said...

That's the kind of rhetoric that is used for any Government solution to a so-called problem. See, for example, the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act.

tree hugging sister said...

Hew down the bridge, Sir Consul, with all the speed ye may!

I, with two more to help me, will hold the foe in play.

In yon strait path, a thousand may well be stopped by three:

Now, who will stand on either hand and keep the bridge with me?’



That line's been running through my head continuously lately...

Shouting Thomas said...

Maybe the hysteria will start to die down now.

If I read one of the pertinent articles correctly, one of the proposed fixes is armed police in schools!

Of course, there's also quite a bit of bureaucratic fat... 1,500 social workers!

elkh1 said...

The mother saved three lives, hers and her twin sons' by firing five shots at an intruder.

"if there’s even one life that can be saved, we’ve got an obligation to try." We must require every citizen 18 and up to own a gun for protection.

dreams said...

Everything has a cost benefit ratio.

sydney said...

Think of all the lives we could save we just sat in our chairs all day and never moved from one place.

X said...

the president needs to respect people's civil rights. he took an oath. so did I.

Henry said...

Sounds like a call to allow armed principles to me.

bpm4532 said...

He's an intellectual fraud.

Mitchell the Bat said...

A single death is a tragedy, a nation in economic ruin is a statistic.

TMink said...

Our President is taking policy advice from 8 year olds now. Things will likely improve with their superior maturity and experience.

Trey

mikee said...

I accept the President's challenge to save lives, and point to the research stating that between 750,000 and 2,500,000 defensive gun uses, usually without firing a shot, occur each year in the US.

These defensive gun uses overwhelm the criminal use of firearms.

So, per the President's criteria, there is no need for further gun control and Illinois needs to implement shall-issue concealed carry of handguns ASAP.

mccullough said...

Urban blacks don't have fathers. No amount of gun legislation is going to change that. Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, and Baltimore are heavily black with high illegitimacy rates and lead the nation in homicide rates.

Obama said nothing about this.

EMD said...

The accompanying How the NRA exerts influence over Congress graphic is nice.

Do they do that graphic for other interest groups?

Lucien said...

THe same goes for the PResident's argument that we must listen to the voices of our children when they fear for their safety.

What we should do is explain to them that they are safe and face almost no chance of being shot to death in school, and that they should ignore the people who are trying to scare them.

X said...

as well as new gun trafficking legislation that would “impose serious penalties on those who help get guns into the hands of criminals

you better hope that shit isn't retroactive G.

EMD said...

So are we legalizing drugs or not?

ricpic said...

All citizen activity relating to VIOLENT GUNS must be reported to THE AUTHORITIES!!!

AJ Lynch said...

Under these new regulations, would the feds have to bust down Jesse Jackson Jr.'s door and confiscate his guns because he is cuckoo?

Big Mike said...

How many individuals will be inhibited from acquiring a firearm for home defense, and then die in a home invasion? How many women will be raped and killed?

That's a lot of lives potentially lost to save just one life.

rhhardin said...

Remember that everything is aimed at soap opera women.

It's a mutual business arrangement with the MSM.

I don't know that the Obama is a piece of shit observation plays well with the narrative.

ricpic said...

President Obama's kids are more important than your kids, peasant!!!

damikesc said...

We have to do something to protect kids?

Fine.

Outlaw abortion and ban cars.

Otherwise, don't waste my time with how we need to do something.

Roberto Severino said...

Twenty-three executive orders just to satisfy that whole flawed rhetoric you pointed out! I can already tell where this is going and it will not end well in my opinion.

Deb said...

The list also included a statement clarifying that the Affordable Care Act, his signature health-care initiative, “does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

They can ask. Do I have to answer? Will a doctor refuse to treat you if you don't?

Scott M said...

So, per the President's criteria, there is no need for further gun control and Illinois needs to implement shall-issue concealed carry of handguns ASAP.

You assume he has "criteria". This would assume that he has a set of rules/conditions and then acts on them in a consistent manner.

See Libya. Then see Syria.

chrisnavin.com said...

Clearly we need another task force to follow up on this one.

We'll need more mental-health professionals in schools, and maybe a mental health hotline. Lots more social workers. Maybe veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan (which dear leader has ended) can be posted at schools as part of the Homeland School Security force.

Unionized and diversity laden, of course.

dmoelling said...

Since this is all traditional Progressive stuff, there are no documents produced in Congressional hearings etc. that the proposed changes would save even one life! Strikes me that we should at least know a little bit more about Newtown than we do now.

Here in CT the Governor has stopped taking his daily briefings from the State Police on the Newtown killings, even though the report is due out in March. One retired reporter in CT figures the Governor could at least provide answers to a few questions:

"On the basis of the information the governor now has at his disposal – which he considers complete and sufficient – he should be able to answer a few questions.

What was the police response time to the shootings?

At what time did the first call come in?

Who made the call?

By whom was the call received?

What information was given by the caller?

Who were the first responders?

From the time the first responders were notified, how long did it take them to ready themselves to leave their point of departure?

How long were they in transit?

What is the average response time of a fire call in Sandy Hook?

The weapons used by Adam Lanza during his killing spree were owned by his mother. his first victim. Were the weapons properly secured?

How were they secured?

Did Adam Lanza have free access to the weapons?

Following the killing of his mother, did Adam Lanza go directly to the school?

Had Mr. Lanza any contact with faculty at the school prior to his killing spree?

If so, who did he contact?

When was the contact made?

What was the nature of the contact?

The Lanza’s were divorced. Before the shootings, was Adam Lanza in communication with members of his family other than his mother, such as his brother and father, neither of whom were living in the same area?

If Adam Lanza did contact his brother or father prior to the shootings, what was the substance of the contact?

It has been reported that Adam Lanza may at some point have been under the care of a doctor. If so, who was the doctor and what was the nature of his illness?

What was his treatment?

Was Adam Lanza at any point prior to the shootings taking medication?

If so, what kind of medication was he taking and for how long?

It has been reported that Adam Lanza’s mother had considered committing her son for treatment. Is there any evidence to suggest that Mrs. Lanza was considering committing her son on an involuntary basis for treatment?

What information have forensic scientists been able to recover from the shattered hard drive of Adam Lanza’s computer? What information not made available to reporters has been recovered by other investigatory means?

If Adam Lanza had survived and faced prosecution for having murdered 20 young children and 6 faculty members at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the state of Connecticut could not have executed him – provided he was found guilty after all his appeals had been exhausted, a needlessly complex process that takes a dozen or more years – because the Democrats in the General Assembly had, following a multiple murder in Cheshire, abolished the death penalty. Would the governor favor a restoration of the death penalty for multiple murders of a kind committed by Adam Lanza?"



http://www.donpesci.blogspot.com/2013/01/no-more-briefings-please.html#links

bagoh20 said...

We know there will always be guns around, and Samurai swords and butcher knives, and any gun control will never eliminate even the guns from crazy hands.

Knowing all that in unequivocally true, how can you allow the school where you send your children all day, every day to be totally devoid of protection from any crazy person with those weapons. How can you demand more protection for you bank deposits than your children's lives?

One life indeed.

Henry said...

Two quotes from the article:

One:
Obama was flanked by children who wrote him letters in the days after the massacre

Two:
The White House on Wednesday blasted the [NRA] video. “Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,” press secretary Jay Carney said.

Got that? It's okay to use children as pawns in a political fight. Just not the president's children.

Hypocritical elitist.

Marshal said...

Our at work. They covered the import to them (Obama sure is Presidential, isn't liberalism great) and omitted actual list.

"Obamacare does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

More proof the left's blather about "privacy" is bullshit.

Original Mike said...

Everyone should be required to be attended, at all times, with a personal Emergency Room doc.

Scott M said...

Take a look at the last four or five big-press mass shootings. Do any of the perpetrators in those cases have any medication in common?

Seeing Red said...

So let it be written, so let it be done.

What right or rights 1 king grants, another can take away.


I do not have the right to defend myself from predators or psychos.

Ah, well, progressivism does lead to death.

Mark W said...

CNN's coverage keeps referring to a national "debate" about guns. We all just got told that new executive orders now control. Where's the debate...?

Larry J said...

Over 30,000 Americans die in auto accidents every year. Make the nationwide speed limit 10 MPH. If it saves even 1 life, it's worth it, right?

People choke to death eating, so outlaw food. People die from falls around the home so outlaw showers, ladders and stairs. People die during exercise and from lack of exercise, so what should we do?

phx said...

Take a look at the last four or five big-press mass shootings. Do any of the perpetrators in those cases have any medication in common?

Good Q ScottM. Do they, or are you just askin'?

Jay said...

We could save more, a lot more, than "just one life" if we banned swimming pools.

Did the idiot President talk about that?

edutcher said...

OK, have every adult without a criminal record, of sound mind, and interested in the idea issued a firearm and send them to Benning, Bragg, etc., and make them qualify according to Airborne, Ranger, or whatever applicable standards and appoint them LifeSavers.

Give them a tour of duty at a neighborhood school one day a week at their normal pay.

Jay said...

We'd save more than a million lives per year if we banned abortion.

Did the Cornball Brother President talk about that?

SteveR said...

With that brilliant justification, we best outlaw cars, bikes, sports, .....

Obama really only cares about one thing, demonizing republicans in every way possible to try to gain back control of the House in 2014. Thats why he's still in campaign mode.

bpm4532 said...

people are starving and dying around the world because of high-food prices resulting from America's ethanol addiction.

If it will save one life we must stop burning food for fuel.

phx said...

I do not have the right to defend myself from predators or psychos.

Of course you do. By any means necessary - even at everyone else's expense, not so much.

EMD said...

even at everyone else's expense, not so much.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

Michael said...

If my doctor asks if I have guns in my home, I will politely tell him that it is none of his damn business!

bpm4532 said...

the president just demonstrated that it's ok to use children as political pawns. That sounds like a green light to use his children as political pawns.

Keystone said...

"It's for the children" always sets off my BS detector.

Crimso said...

How many women die every year from complications resulting from legal abortions? Is it at least one?

Bring back Prohibition! (At least two orders of magnitude more people die every year from alcohol than any type of rifle)

Ban acetaminophen! (More people die from it than rifles)

Ban water! (An order of magnitude more are killed by drowning alone than by rifles, plus the bottles are clogging our landfills)

Remember, it only takes one life saved to justify.

AllenS said...

How much are his recommendations going to cost? Did he mention a figure? How will we pay for it? Are we just going to add this cost to the present deficit?

Michael said...

From seano.org
2011 Deaths
323 by semi-automatic rifles
496 by hammers
650 by knifes
12,000 by Drunk Drivers
195,000 by Medical Malpractice

You are 600 times more likely to die by using your OBAMACARE than by a semi-automatic rifle. So, do you feel sick?

Brew Master said...

EMD said...
even at everyone else's expense, not so much.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.


It means, no, he doesn't think you have the right to self defense.

bpm4532 said...

The democrats had better be ready. When this revolt comes, the military, national guard, and the police forces won't be of much use to them.

Carol said...

I wonder how many of these gun-grabbers would feel the same if they'd ever actually shot a gun themselves. They're totally gun-phobic, and think the things will just jump and start shooting by themselves. Especially the talking head pussies who insist Something Must be Done.

AllenS said...

Let's ban illegal drugs! How many people die of drug overdoses?

tree hugging sister said...

I do not have the right to defend myself from predators or psychos.

Of course you do. By any means necessary - even at everyone else's expense, not so much.


If it was up to our current President, that answer would probably be a resounding "NO", in ALL CASES...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2977073/posts

As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home.

Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support.


God, I DESPISE this Imperial asshat.

phx said...

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

It's about what the parent commenter meant by "I do not have the right to defend myself from predators or psychos." Apparently that writer believes that his "right to defend himself" doesn't exist if there is gun control.

Say if we limit large cap magazines, and the courts uphold the limitations - that doesn't mean you don't have the right to protect yourself. It means you don't have a right to protect yourself with large capacity mags.

Alex said...

phx - you rabid leftism is peeking through again.

BDNYC said...

If there's even one life that can be saved by ...
... banning automobiles ...
... banning alcohol ...
... so forth ...

AllenS said...

phx, just how many people die in a year from rifles that have large cap magazines? Out of the 500+ killed in Chicago last year, how many died from rifles with large cap magazines?

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
President-Mom-Jeans said...

More of the usual feel good and sound important liberal blather from the least qualified president in history. The part about getting doctors involved is incredibly creepy, but no worse than the rest of the shit sandwich that is Obamacare. Oh and some more money pissed away on democratic constituencies like social workers, surprise surprise.

Nothing to actually protect children, but Obama doesn't give a shit about them. Just props, although I do find it ironic that hundreds of little minority children get shot all the time but it takes a bunch of dead honkys for him to make a move.

The rest of the proposals are going nowhere in the Senate, not to mention the House. I'd like to see the Republicans force a senate vote to force the issue come the next election, but Harry Reid the pederast probably will be able to stop it.

Obama got his photo op and was able to bleat "it's for the children." That's all this was, although fuck if I know what that douchebag is still campaigning for. I guess its easier than governing.

phx said...

The democrats had better be ready. When this revolt comes, the military, national guard, and the police forces won't be of much use to them.

If I'm a Democrat, I'm making THIS person the face of the NRA.

I know s/he's not, I know people in the NRA who would never think anything like this. But no doubt, they got their problem children and why shouldn't they be exploited by their opponents? It's so easy.

phx said...

phx - you rabid leftism is peeking through again.

Alex, I'm sure everyone is interested in your report card on my rabid leftist beliefs.

creeley23 said...

I don't remember a president who so routinely lied, misled, and presented brain-dead arguments as much as Obama.

If Obama voters had integrity, which apparently they don't, this would bother them. But he's their guy and that's all that matters.

gbarto said...

Aaron Swartz committed suicide when facing rough charges from an aggressive federal prosecutor for circulating copyrighted files on the internet.

Now Hollywood wouldn't like it if we stopped prosecuting people who distribute copyrighted files on the internet, but if it saves just one life...

EMD said...

Say if we limit large cap magazines, and the courts uphold the limitations - that doesn't mean you don't have the right to protect yourself. It means you don't have a right to protect yourself with large capacity mags.

How does this change the future of the next Sandy Hook?

Stop treating the symptoms and look at the root cause.

Revenant said...

As I expected, his 23 executive orders amount to basically nothing. Quite a few of them are actually stuff he was SUPPOSED to be doing instead of vacationing in Hawaii, like "nominate an ATF director" and "require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system".

I expect his demands for expanded gun control laws to go nowhere fast as well, especially since it is unlikely he'll make any effort to support them.

Levi Starks said...

If these effective measures can be taken by executive order now, One must wonder what Obama's been doing for the last 4 years,

If just one child could have been saved had he acted sooner, then I find him a accessory to the murder of those dead children.

How many rounds of golf would he have had to give up to have taken earlier action? In fact, exactly what was he doing at the time the attack took place?

phx said...

EMD I agree there are multiple causes. Gun control won't eliminate mass killings. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered as part of the effort.

BTW, I haven't decided what I think should be enacted on guns. I personally don't have a problem with handguns and rifles, certainly not in the home - careless, dumbass gun owners notwithstanding. I don't have a problem with the debate however.

Brew Master said...

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

A CCW permit holder, stopped in a routine traffic stop, would the police have to return the gun on the scene or be able to hold it until a 'background check' is performed?

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Except in the case of the ones we sent to Mexico, don't want to know what happened there do we?

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what exactly would be the health reason a doctor would ask about a gun in the home, lead exposure from handling bullets?
I know this is an attempt to get household gun information in the backdoor through the medical system, since Obamacare is design to bankrupt insurance and then take it over as single payer at the federal level.
My doctor, if asked, will be told to FO, and I'll be looking for a different doctor.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.


And this has what to do with it again? Other than addressing another hole in Obamacare and Medicare?

What a craptastic list of garbage that will do nothing to deter a madman bent on mass murder.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

Now if this was used to Promote gun responsible gun ownership, coupled with an awareness program that citizens have the right to defend themselves and others using deadly force, I'm all for it.

I don't think that is what they mean though for some reason.

Alex said...

I never understood the concept of locking a gun up in a safe. If an intruder breaks in, you won't have time to unlock the safe and retrieve the gun. The gun has to be ready for retrieval in seconds.

phx said...

Some gunowners don't own guns to defend themselves against intruders or the UN NWO invaders. Some are sportsmen.

You know, the ones the NRA doesn't care about.

Scott M said...

I never understood the concept of locking a gun up in a safe. If an intruder breaks in, you won't have time to unlock the safe and retrieve the gun. The gun has to be ready for retrieval in seconds.

There are safes that will allow you to do just that. Mine takes less to get into than opening a drawer and cannot be opened by anyone but me.

Scott M said...

A CCW permit holder, stopped in a routine traffic stop, would the police have to return the gun on the scene or be able to hold it until a 'background check' is performed?

It depends. Despite the pedestal we tend to place police and fire-fighters on (deserved in most cases), they, just like any other profession, employ humans and human ability follows a bell curve.

Most of the cops that would stop you in such a case would be trained in the proper way to handle such a stop. At the upper end are those that can quote the regs and know how to deal with people.

At the lower end, though, are the idiots that barely made it through the academy, are probably there because they took a lot of shit growing up, and have authority issues. They are also the types that end up costing their departments tens of thousands in legal fees and damages, who then have to return the weapon anyway.

Tim said...

"...if there’s even one life that can be saved, we’ve got an obligation to try."

So, Obama is talking about limiting access to abortion, which kills 1.2 lives annually in the U.S.?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Empty noise from Phx, much like his hero King Putt.

How are executive dictates a fucking debate?

Answer, they are not, and fuck you.

Tim said...

"...which kills 1.2 (million I meant to write) lives annually in the U.S.?

Alex said...

There are safes that will allow you to do just that.

Really show me one.

Scott M said...

Really show me one.

First, tell me how you secure your loaded firearms.

phx said...

Answer, they are not, and fuck you.

I'll put you down as "Wants to defend his family against UN New World Order invaders."

Jay said...

phx said...

Some gunowners don't own guns to defend themselves against intruders or the UN NWO invaders. Some are sportsmen.


Um, and then what?

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with "sportsmen" hunting, collecting, or hobbies.

So you have no point.

As usual.

Shanna said...

Everything has a cost benefit ratio.

If they don't teach anything else about business in schools, everyone in the country should at least learn about a cost benefit ratio.

I would also throw in Break Even points.

Understanding these two concepts will save you a world of trouble. Oh how I loathe the 'we have to do SOMETHING' argument in politics. It is almost always a precursor to presenting a stupid, ineffectual or actually harmful idea.

Scott M said...

I'll put you down as "Wants to defend his family against UN New World Order invaders."

Ah. Because there's no middle ground between Mayberry and imagined foreign takeovers.

Tank said...

There are some things you could do that would dramatically decrease violent crime.

It is not polite to talk about them.

Hagar said...

Taking guns away from legitimate owners in order to reduce "gun violence" is akin to the drunk searching for his lost car keys under the streetlight because the light is better there.

Paul said...

So skippy gets this 'Assault Rifle' ban schick while 7 Americans are kidnaped in Algeria, debt goes BEYOND 16 Trillion, Obamacare bankrupts business, unemployment goes up, still no budget even if the law says to have one, U.S. goes to war in Mali (yes we are in another war now), etc.

Oh, and he wants doctors to spy on patients to see if they have guns. And do what? Report that to his drone killers?

Why not just INSTITUTIONALIZE INSANE PEOPLE WHO DO THESE MASS KILLINGS instead of spying on us!

The last time they had a ban on 'Assault Rifles' it reduced ZERO amount of crime. So why would this be any better? Why spy on everyone?

The problems causing these murders has to do with broken homes, absent fathers, violent video games (notice he didn't give even ONE proposal that threatend Hollywood), drugs and gangs. Solve those problems and you pretty much solve the mass murder problems.

It's not the guns. We had tons of guns in the '70s but no school mass murders.

Obama is just full of it. It's purely an attempt to disarm the populace.

Jay said...

The President who opposed a version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is going to give us: "If there's even one life that can be saved then we have an obligation to try."

Too funny.

Again, the idea that Obama and his ilk care one bit about dead school children is silly & ridiculous.

Lance said...

Administration officials said Wednesday that the proposals do not represent specific legislation.

That's typical with this President. 2009 stimulus, health care, budgets, fiscal cliff proposals, etc., were all just proposals. This White House never submits real legislation. Why?

Scott M said...

Taking guns away from legitimate owners in order to reduce "gun violence" is akin to the drunk searching for his lost car keys under the streetlight because the light is better there.

Bear in mind when using words like "legitimate" that you're debating with the same clowns that can't call someone in our country illegally by the proper term.

Colonel Angus said...

Our President is taking policy advice from 8 year olds now.

Now?

phx said...

Um, and then what?

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with "sportsmen" hunting, collecting, or hobbies.

So you have no point.

As usual.


Jay, just once mind you, I'm going to address your deeply undecuated, clownass self before confining you once again permanently to the oblivion of your confused thoughts.

Read the fucking thread. I was addressing why some gunowners would not care if they could access their home guns immediately.

Now you might as well mind your own fucking business lunkhead, I'll never address you again in comments, at least not this year. Just thinking about you makes me want to bathe.

Alex said...

Jay, just once mind you, I'm going to address your deeply undecuated, clownass self before confining you once again permanently to the oblivion of your confused thoughts.

These kind of childish insults is why nobody takes you seriously phx. You really should fix this character flaw before you totally ruin your life.

phx said...

Be nicer to me though and maybe I'll address another comment to you next year.

phx said...

Hugs Alex.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Phx you smug little prick,

For your information, I do not own any firearms, although have fired them in my youth at charity "turkey shoots" and am comfortable around them. I would consider owning one, particularly since I have no children, and particularly since the writing is on the wall about where Obama is headed with this.

Guns are a tool, and so are you, although only one of the two is useful to society.

I have no worries about "UN New World Order invaders" but plenty to worry from the Trayvon Martin's of my area. When the seconds count, the police are minutes (or more) away and none of your strawmen arguments about black helicopter paranoia change that.

Eat a dick, you limp wristed little waste of space. Debate on that.

Tim said...

"You really should fix this character flaw before you totally ruin your life."

Yeah, there should be a government program for that...

In the end, that's what voting Democrat means: socialize personal failures.

Jay said...


Read the fucking thread. I was addressing why some gunowners would not care if they could access their home guns immediately.


Um, you don't own a gun.

So your "addressing" is silly and irrelevant.

But thanks for your valuable insights.

Idiot.

phx said...

@President-Mom-Jeans

Go talk with Jay.

Colonel Angus said...

Say if we limit large cap magazines, and the courts uphold the limitations - that doesn't mean you don't have the right to protect yourself. It means you don't have a right to protect yourself with large capacity mags.

This argument is comical at best. Do you have any idea the devastation that can be caused with a 12 gauge shotgun in a confined space such as a classroom or office? This is nothing more than an attempt to confiscate all private firearms.

And surrounding your self with children when your main campaign theme was to uphold a women's right to murder her unborn child is nothing short of disgusting. The man is pathetic.

Jay said...

phx said..
Now you might as well mind your own fucking business lunkhead, I'll never address you again in comments, at least not this y.ear. Just thinking about you makes me want to bathe.


Instead of posting silly comments on a Web site that reveal a complete & total lack of understanding and intellectual curiosity about the topic at hand, you could like, shut the fuck up.

Or get informed.

But you won't.

Ignorance is a virtue for you.

Quaestor said...

The time is fast approaching when the armed citizenry must put their arms to the use the Founders had in mind when the Second Amendment was adopted.

n.n said...

Since he is not addressing causes (i.e. homicidal predisposition, intrinsic and induced), and not negotiating within the boundaries of reality (e.g. criminals, illegal aliens, cartels, authoritarian excess), this means he possesses ulterior motives. Besides, if his concern was authentic, he would first address the number one cause of child mortality in this nation. He would demand to know the mental condition of people who support and request its normalization through rationalization.

The issue is dissociation of risk, by choice and circumstance. It is the cause of corruption and crimes against society and humanity. It is dreams of instant (or immediate) gratification which motivates its progress. It is this behavior which Obama supports, directs, and defends. The same behavior which was the underlying cause of our financial crises.

How many of the murders by gun are suicides?

How many of the murders by gun are committed by agents of the government?

How many of the murders by gun are committed by criminals before the fact?

How many of the murders by gun were armed by our federal government?

How many law-defying people (e.g. illegal aliens) enter this nation annually?

How many murders are committed with scalpels and vacuums?

How many children are abused or otherwise neglected when the mother and father elect to dissociate from reality? When their roles are marginalized and subsidized through redistributive change in order to acquire democratic leverage?

Bryan C said...

"Everything has a cost benefit ratio."

Indeed. And if the benefit approaches zero, any cost is too much. Particularly when the cost requires curtailing fundamental human rights.

The problem is that the political class and their friends are shielded from the laws, from bad publicity resulting from the laws, and even from evidence that their laws aren't actually providing any benefit. There's no cost to them, so what do they care?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

What a stunning comeback by Phx, I'm floored by your wit.

My civil rights are not subject to the whims of that jug-eared unmitigated disaster of a president. Whether for sport, for home protection, or yes, even for those who fear tyranical government (United Nations or otherwise).

You want to change the current regulations? Do it through congress, which is the body actually designed for the "debate" that dictator Zero just completely avoided.

Twat.

CWJ said...

Once again, Obama manages to tap an event freighted with emotion to distract the country from the actual, but difficult, problems that need to be addressed.

Release the squirrels!

Hagar said...

In order to actually reduce "gun violence," it would be in the civic interest to make gun registration easy and to reassure the citizens that such registration would be kept confidential and not serve as a preamble to further restrictions on their gun ownership or other inconveniences.

But that is dreaming of a more perfect world, especially as regards this administration.

Shanna said...

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what exactly would be the health reason a doctor would ask about a gun in the home

When someone is acutely suicidal, many provider recommend removing any guns from the home at that time.

There are safes that you can grab and it scans your fingerprints or something. My cousin bought one after thanksgiving.

When the seconds count, the police are minutes (or more) away

Or not coming at all because the dispatcher never called them as we recently had happen here, although with someone in a sinking car, not a home invader.

PETER V. BELLA said...

Blah blah blah. We do not have a gun problem. We have an out of control government spending problem. The president, congress, and senate will do or say anything to avoid the spending crisis. Sandy Hook was tailor made for our outrageous politicians. They will shed phony tears and milk it for all its worth.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

If you want proof that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, look to Sandy Hook.

Shanna said...

to reassure the citizens that such registration would be kept confidential and not serve as a preamble to further restrictions on their gun ownership or other inconveniences

No one would believe it, though. Because every time people do that, they end up using the registration to further restrict gun owners or outright confiscate them.

Paul said...

n.n,

How many assault rifles has the government sold the cartels? ALOT!

How many jets has the government sold the Muslim Brotherhood? AT LEAST A DOZEN!

How many Americans has Obama authorized to be killed by drones in foreign lands? God knows!

Kirby Olson said...

Cellphones cause more deaths. He should take those away too so people will cut out the texting while exceeding the speed limit. And he should also take away food, or make sure everybody eats just the right amount, by placing cameras in every home, and monitoring calorie intake. There's way too much freedom going on, and he needs to make sure people do things like eat less, text less, and stop smoking. Smoking is a huge killer.

Paul said...

"No one would believe it, though. Because every time people do that, they end up using the registration to further restrict gun owners or outright confiscate them. "

Right on Shanna! Hitler said to register the guns in Germany in 1934 to 'prevent crime'. Yep, later they took them all up exept for Nazi party members.

So don't think it can't happen here to folks! It sure can.

ron nord said...

"If only one life can be saved" Obama

Nothing about the babies whose brains are sucked out while alive in partial birth abortions.

Nothing about the 200,000 time a gun is used year [estimated] that stop a crime including murder and of course nothing about his children having 9 secret service agents for protection and not counting his thousands.

Revenant said...

Some gunowners don't own guns to defend themselves against intruders or the UN NWO invaders. Some are sportsmen. You know, the ones the NRA doesn't care about.

That's a childish attitude.

Honestly, people who think democracies are somehow immune to becoming totalitarian dictatorships must have slept through the 20th century. It has nothing to do with "NWO UN invaders".

Honestly, whenever a Republican is President you lefties whine yourselves inside-out about how we're in imminent danger of becoming a fascist state. Yet when a Democrat is President the notion that we could *ever* become such a state is, apparently, something that only crazies think could ever happen.

If it helps you think through the process, try imagining that a Republican will eventually be elected President again. :)

Bob said...

phx - Say if we limit the number of abortions allowable for a woman to two, and the courts uphold the limitations - that doesn't mean you don't have the right to abortion yourself. It means you don't have a right to protect
yourself for a large number.

Now how would that strike you? We good? And you're good with banning late term abortions, abortions for under-age "women" without parental consent. Those are just common-sense limitations.

Big Mike said...

Some gunowners don't own guns to defend themselves against intruders or the UN NWO invaders. Some are sportsmen.

You know, the ones the NRA doesn't care about
.

@phx, who are you talking to that fills your head with this sort of rubbish utterly divorced from reality?

Taking your foolishness in reverse order, the NRA certainly does care about and support sportsmen. But it also represents target shooters, competitive shooters, and, especially, people who want guns for personal protection. Can you not conceive of people who are concerned about home invasions? They do happen, in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Can you not conceive that a sportsman may want to have a different firearm for personal defense than the one he or she uses for hunting or competition? A bolt action hunting rifle may bring down a bull elk at 400 meters, but hardly anyone would make it their first choice for home defense, and for a number of reasons.

Scott M said...

Now how would that strike you? We good? And you're good with banning late term abortions, abortions for under-age "women" without parental consent. Those are just common-sense limitations.

Exactly. Can't a woman's uterus be considered a high-capacity magazine aimed at Mother Earth?

Colonel Angus said...

Honestly, whenever a Republican is President you lefties whine yourselves inside-out about how we're in imminent danger of becoming a fascist state. Yet when a Democrat is President the notion that we could *ever* become such a state is, apparently, something that only crazies think could ever happen.

Taking it a step further, lefties insist an armed American citizenry is no match for our law enforcement or military yet they insist that same military cannot beat the Iraqi militias or the Taliban.


Bob said...

Folks, besides the stimulus that Obama has provided to the gun industry, expect to see increased sales of grease, dessicant, and 4" and 5" PVC pipes and caps. Especially in NY, upstate that is. On the otherhand, NY will boost the supply of both arms and magazines to the rest of the country. Cash only sales.

Colonel Angus said...

Exactly. Can't a woman's uterus be considered a high-capacity magazine aimed at Mother Earth?

Brilliant.

chickelit said...

phx said...
Some gunowners don't own guns to defend themselves against intruders or the UN NWO invaders. Some are sportsmen.

You know, the ones the NRA doesn't care about.


They certainly do care about hunters and sportsmen. Their rights to hunt aren't being directly threatened at this time. Specific language is being inserted into pending laws to placate the Bob Wrights and Joe Bidens who own guns for hunting and target practice, etc. This debate is about the real reason the 2nd Amendment exists.

BTW, I responded to you back in that other gun thread.

Big Mike said...

Item #2 on Obama's list raises some serious questions in my mind. As a designer of healthcare systems I've had both the HIPAA regulations and their rationale drilled into my head for years. If you think about, second only to your detailed financial data you would like to see your personal healthcare data protected from widespread dissemination and used only under the strictest of controls. Obama's notion that he can unilaterally waive aspects of HIPAA, if sustained, opens one heck of a floodgate for abuse of personal data.

Seeing Red said...

Vaginas spew out carbon creators.

-----

Those who think we don't "need" large capacity magazines, what if you owned a ranch and was surrounded by 6 wolves?


Not everyone lives your lifestyle.

BTW - that did happen to a rancher. I think it's at Belmont Club in the responses.

Seeing Red said...

Katrina on the Hudson is also a lesson in what happens if you can't protect yourself.


Well, it would have been if a republican were president.

edutcher said...

Be nice to phx. He drew the short straw at Troll Central and had to come over here and try to defend this nonsense with a lot of tired Lefty canards.

machine said...

"The time is fast approaching when the armed citizenry must put their arms to the use the Founders had in mind when the Second Amendment was adopted."

...tada! Courage and responsibility on display!

Scott M said...

...tada! Courage and responsibility on display!

Said with all the bourgeois limp backhanding of someone sitting in a stable, affluent area with the power always on and the three days of locally available food constantly replenished.

Phil said...

If you want to know what a "well-regulated militia" might look like today, think Korean shopowners during the 1992 LA riots.

Bruce Hayden said...

In a noncommittal statement after Obama’s speech, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) thanked the president’s task force “for its thoughtful recommendations” and pledged that the Senate would “consider legislation that addresses gun violence and other aspects of violence in our society early this year.” Reid has predicted that Obama’s most ambitious proposal — an outright ban on assault weapons — has almost no chance of passing the Republican-led House.

I thought that this was humorous. Reid may be as venal and corrupt a politician as they come, but stupid he isn't. My guess is that he is hoping and praying that he can point to the House as the reason that gun grabbing legislation won't pass, but I also suspect that he will try to make sure that it never comes up for a vote on the Senate floor. Too many Red State Dem politicians up for reelection next election, and even those, like him, not up for reelection until 2016, are squirming here. He, and a lot of these Senators, depend on high NRA ratings to get reelected, and they aren't going to risk that so that Obama can pander to his own base - esp. since he can't run again.

Colonel Angus said...

Machine, I would say by your comment, you would been a Tory back in 1776, yes?

Because that was certainly the attitude of the 1/3 of the colonists that preferred the rule of the Crown.

Sigivald said...

"Something must be done.

This is something.

This must be done."

The logic of Being Seen To Be Doing Something never changes.

chickelit said...

Colonel Angus said...
Machine, I would say by your comment, you would been a Tory back in 1776, yes?

Bingo! Machine's identity is so thinly veiled I'm tempted to call him European.

Bruce Hayden said...

It's about what the parent commenter meant by "I do not have the right to defend myself from predators or psychos." Apparently that writer believes that his "right to defend himself" doesn't exist if there is gun control.

Say if we limit large cap magazines, and the courts uphold the limitations - that doesn't mean you don't have the right to protect yourself. It means you don't have a right to protect yourself with large capacity mags.


Are you going to extend that argument to banning AR type semiautomatic rifles and carbines as "assault weapons"?

The reality there is that a lot of people are better protected in their homes with relatively short barreled long guns, either AR type rifles and carbines or shot guns. And, both have their advantages and disadvantages, but larger magazines would be useful with the former. Are other types of semiautomatic rifles as good? Probably not, for a number of somewhat technical reasons.

Now, if we are talking self-defense out of the house, handguns most likely win out, due to their size and ease of concealment. But, that assumes that you can carry concealed, which is problematic in those places in this country where you would be most needful of such a defense.

But, what must be remembered is that self-defense is a fundamental right. The right to be safe from the sight of black scary looking rifles, average capacity magazines, or semiautomatic handguns is not a fundamental right. No right is absolute, of course, but mere dislike is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that attempts to curtail a fundamental right is unconstitutional (and, yes, immoral).

Shanna said...

Obama's notion that he can unilaterally waive aspects of HIPAA, if sustained, opens one heck of a floodgate for abuse of personal data.

That does sound potentially problematic.

n.n said...

Scott M:

It is exactly that, a weapon of mass destruction. This was the thinking behind the eugenics movement of the early 20th century and behind the population control movement of the late 20th century. The people behind those movements believed that the number of human beings should be limited and of the right "kind".

Why inflict unnecessary damage to the Earth, and incidentally create unnecessary competition to them, if it could be avoided. First through involuntary participation, then when exposed and protested, through voluntary participation. The latter, as it turns out, was the ideal method for prosecuting generational genocide. The people behind those movements determined that the risk and opportunity cost to them was lower when women willfully chose to terminate their progeny.

edutcher said...

Colonel Angus said...

Machine, I would say by your comment, you would been a Tory back in 1776, yes?

Because that was certainly the attitude of the 1/3 of the colonists that preferred the rule of the Crown.


Actually, it was about a sixth - Continentals outnumbered Loyalists about 2 to 1.

Also looks like phx had to take a break, so now we're stuck with the mindless automaton.

n.n said...

Phil:

Yes. They were citizen "soldiers" (i.e. not a standing army). They were necessary to preserve the security of a free State by preventing or limiting involuntary exploitation by people running amuck.

It's interesting to note that the "race" riots were about everything and only incidentally about race. Americans learned a lot about "disparate impact" during that event. The Korean immigrants already understood the deception.

Tom said...

You know, I'm not a big fan of the president, but his executive orders are things that are all ready being done or can be done within the law. And he supported putting armed guards (resource officers) in school. I do believe that mental health professionals need to be able to provide information for background checks (and I also think that due process should allow a hearing to restore gun rights improperly taken -- no "no fly lists"!).

I don't think Congress even needs to act. If we can ID mentally unstable people remove the likelihood they can't get a gun, I'm for that (though it could be abused). I'm also for fire arms in the hands of trained staff/teachers/cops in schools because I believe the reason schools are attacked is because of the "gun-free" status. (At the beginning of pulp fiction, the reason you rob a resturant and not a liquior store is explained). If we can do these things, then let's not infringe on the right of the people to self-defense.

damikesc said...

Nothing about the babies whose brains are sucked out while alive in partial birth abortions.

Heey....didn't some guy from Chicago who is now President actually vote against a bill requiring doctors to save kids who weren't killed in an abortion?

I bet voting for that would've saved at least one life...

Paul said...

"Say if we limit large cap magazines, and the courts uphold the limitations - that doesn't mean you don't have the right to protect yourself. It means you don't have a right to protect yourself with large capacity mags."

Yea and in 5 years it will be 5 shots and not 10. Then a few years 2 shots, then.. like the U.K. you can defend yourself as long as you don't use weapon...

Now that is a FACT. And so you can see why magazine limits are not good.

EMD said...

Let's ban those assault weapons and high-capacity mags.

Then, when the next unbalanced psychopath with a death wish unleashes a torrent of bullets on a gun-free zone from his handguns, or other gun, what will be banned next?

Scott M said...

I bet voting for that would've saved at least one life...

He could have at least tried to vote. Most of the time that was too much for him.

EMD said...

I bet the Sinaloa cartel doesn't give two shits about high-cap magazine ban.

phx said...

Yea and in 5 years it will be 5 shots and not 10. Then a few years 2 shots, then.. like the U.K. you can defend yourself as long as you don't use weapon...

Now that is a FACT. And so you can see why magazine limits are not good.


I can accept your slippery slope premise but no, that is not a FACT - even if you put it in five-foot capital letters.

chrisnavin.com said...

With Joe Biden, I feel as though I could be Borked at any time.

I feel like I'm buying a used car, and Obama's the floor manager Joe's gotta go talk to.

I feel like I'm on an Amtrak, with $8.00 cheeseburgers.

I feel like I'm at an old-timey union rally up there in Scranton, and ol Joe's pounding the table with his fists again.

But with Obama, it's totally not like that:

I feel cool, because he's cool.

I feel like I'm part of a team, where I pay the taxes, and he redirects the taxes.

I feel like I can finally expiate my racial sins, and link up arms in a community outreach programs and candlelight vigils from the safety of my suburban home.

I feel like the future is just around the corner.

So reasonable. So moderate. Such a family man!

phx said...

@Bruce Hayden I haven't decided myself what kind of gun control makes the most sense. I favor having the debate now, however.

I already stated my personal belief is that citizens have the right to handguns and rifles. I probably won't advocate much one way or another beyond that. Whatever you guys - meaning the libtards, too - decide I can probably abide by.

phx said...

Be nice to phx. He drew the short straw at Troll Central and had to come over here and try to defend this nonsense with a lot of tired Lefty canards.

Good to hear from you educther. How's the blond?

n.n said...

damikesc:

Obama is experiencing an artificial high at our expense. Don't harsh his mellow. Don't harsh the mellow of men and women who dream of instant (or immediate) gratification.

bagoh20 said...

I have a few words to say about this subject:

Benghazi,
Fast and Furious (whatever that is)
Syria
Iran
Egypt
Afghanistan
16 Trillion
Worst economic recovery since The Depression
Lowest labor participation rate since flush toilets

Are any of these things newsworthy?

Bob said...

For NY's law setting the magazine limit at 7 means every magazine for a 1911 is now illegal. Even the 1994 mag limit wasn't that strict.

Two, why AR-15s - because every military soldier, sailor, and marine since 1965 has trained on that weapon frame. So, just like every generation before them, they now want to shoot what Uncle Sam trained them on. The bonus of course is the AR-15 is designed to be modified (different calibers, different grips, different barrels, lights & accesories). So someone like me can shoot the exact same weapon & sights with a 223 for defense, a 22LR for target practice, and swap the barrel and scope and shoot long distance (600+ yards). In other words its cheaper and more effective.

But, alas, my gun looks scary to some on the left so its evil. Remember how the left always says Republicans focus too much on social issues - well back at you!

roesch/voltaire said...

In light of the usual NRA stance that any restrictions will not bring about gun safety and therefore nothing can be done short of arming everyone, at least this trop summons up the notion that something can be done, much like the laws on the books to curtail drunk drivers. True it does not stop the all the drunks, but he has cut down on the number of deaths, and enabled the jailing of some repeat offenders.

bagoh20 said...

The M.O. of our President is to screw up and then poke you in the eye so you will argue about the eye poking until you forget about his screw up.

Repeat until term ends.

Bob said...

Gun stocks are doing well. If sales are going to zero why would that be?

Scott M said...

RV - just out of curiosity, are there data that show the difference between frequency before and after anti-drunk driving laws were passed?

I think it's apples and oranges, mostly because driving isn't a right, but that's beside my question's point.

virgil xenophon said...

Over at Asst Village Idiot the good doctor, with 30 years of ER Psych experience makes some good points:

"...some gun owners are Yahoos. So what? Give me measurables. It does strike me as weird that people would want more advanced weaponry. I immediately grasp the argument that 'they really don't need that.' But you can also hear people say 'They really don't need those SUVs.' "They really don't need those..." jetskis, more miles of hiking trails, expensive cars, hundreds of choices of shampoos, video games, free condoms--you get the picture. You have to be able to show, not just hypothesize that there is some ill effect that requires intervention. As far as I know that isn't there. Gun laws don't seem to move the dial much one way or another."

The Asst Vill Idiot notes further:

"There is a federal law that prohibits anyone that has been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution from acquiring a firearm. Two problems. There is no enforcement mechanism set up because no one wants to give gun sellers or local police access to confidential medical information for good reasons of privacy. It gets sticky and there is no national registry of the involuntarily committed. Next the word "acquiring" looms large. What about guns already owned. What about borrowing your brother's rifle to hunt or target shoot? Wht do you do when Sam says he has access to a gun and wants to shoot someone but the next day says he was lying and has never owned one and has no friends who have them" Where do you search? How were you planning on wording that warrant when it's not illegal to own that gun?"

Points to ponder..

bagoh20 said...

R.V.,

If this was about drunk driving, the President would be requiring liquor be sold in smaller bottles, and every wine glass be registered. And that would have the same effect on that problem.

Or we could register pens, keyboards and soap boxes because sometimes people yell fire in a crowded theater. "... save one life."

Methadras said...

1 live regardless of everyone else's rights. Bravo President Black Marxist. You've done well.

Big Mike said...

But, what must be remembered is that self-defense is a fundamental right.

@Bruce, I think the Founding Fathers would point to the 2nd sentence of the Declaration of Independence and say that they've already proclaimed it to be an unalienable right.

Seeing Red said...

Safer cars also cut down on deaths. It all can't be contributed to lowering the legal limit.

Some colleges want the drinking age lowered to combat binge drinking.

Seeing Red said...

You can't defend yourself in the UK. You need to call the police.

X said...

Charles Whitman
Ted Kacsynski
Amy Bishop
Seung-Hui Cho
James Holmes

Big Mike said...

I already stated my personal belief is that citizens have the right to handguns and rifles. I probably won't advocate much one way or another beyond that. Whatever you guys - meaning the libtards, too - decide I can probably abide by.

What!?! Not shotguns??? You don't like to eat duck or pheasant or goose?

Bottom line is that the use case for AR and AK-type weapons is home defense, and there are special use cases where people may need large clips. In the thread above virgil xenophon references the attempts of a few years ago to ban SUVs. Most people don't need them, particularly in an urban or suburban setting. But there are people who live out in the boonies who may need to traverse unpaved roads in heavy snow for great distances just to get home. Should not they have an SUV, particularly since they may have to carry a great deal of heavy stuff per trip.

Those same people may find themselves faced with a wolf pack or grizzly bear that think their livestock -- or kids! -- ought to be on the menu. Only an idiot would deny them the weapon and ammo capacity of their choice. (Both species reintroduced into the "lower 48" by Democrat-voting environmentalists, I might add.)

In the Southwestern states ranchers and farmers and even homeowners may find themselves confronted by drug smugglers armed with fully automatic weapons by this administration. Shouldn't they be allowed to defend themselves with their choice of weapon and ammo capacity?

Seeing Red said...

And the people who live out in the boonies may be 30 minutes to an hour away from any cop.

Who will protect them?

Bruce Hayden said...

For NY's law setting the magazine limit at 7 means every magazine for a 1911 is now illegal. Even the 1994 mag limit wasn't that strict.

A couple of other points here. First, there are likely hundreds of millions of what would now be "high capacity" magazines in the hands of Americans, esp. with the standard for "high capacity" being defined to what those in the gun community would consider "low capacity".

Secondly, AR type magazines have been fabricated by 3D printing. But, more realistically, magazines are not rocket science. They can be easily extended in workshops around the country - all you need to do is pop off the end, add an extension, replace the spring, and replace the end.

Two, why AR-15s - because every military soldier, sailor, and marine since 1965 has trained on that weapon frame. So, just like every generation before them, they now want to shoot what Uncle Sam trained them on. The bonus of course is the AR-15 is designed to be modified (different calibers, different grips, different barrels, lights & accesories). So someone like me can shoot the exact same weapon & sights with a 223 for defense, a 22LR for target practice, and swap the barrel and scope and shoot long distance (600+ yards). In other words its cheaper and more effective.

In addition to the modularity, these guns are built using modern materials and modern methods. Why black plastic and/or composites? Because wood is inferior. Long guns didn't change all that much in appearance the century or two before the introduction of the AR type weapons in the late 1950s. You had a wood stock and metal barrel and inner workings - which were somewhat hidden. One size fit all, or you would have to cut the stock for smaller people. Breach loading was introduced in the military in the 1850s, repeating rifles not long after that, semiautomatic rifles adopted in 1936 by the U.S. military, and fully automatic rifles by that military in the 1950s (Germans had done so earlier). Still looked essentially the same.

But, modern materials and modern concepts have made the exact type of weapons that so many people are trying to ban right now to be lighter, sturdier, more maintainable, having less recoil, while being modular and infinitely modifiable. You no longer need to cut down the stock for a smaller shooter - just swap out butts. Maybe even use an adjustable one for multiple shooters. And, as noted, you can swap out upper receivers, barrels, etc. for changing calibers. In other words, those trying to ban scary looking guns like AR-15s are essentially trying to prevent people from owning 21st century weapons, and limiting them to 1930s era technology (i.e. the semiautomatic M-1 Garand, adopted by the U.S. military in 1936).

Big Mike said...

And the people who live out in the boonies may be 30 minutes to an hour away from any cop.

Heck, it turned out that the kids at Sandy Hook were 20 minutes away from a cop even thought the substation was only 2.3 miles away. (That's assuming the NYT timeline is correct.)

Bruce Hayden said...

Who will protect them?

Collateral damage, and well worth it, since they probably voted for Romney, and aren't children. Or, if children are involved, aren't the right type of children.

Hagar said...

7 rounds is the standard magazine capacity for a M1911 .45 ACP.
There are now magazines available that will hold 8 without protruding below the grips.
However, a M1911 .38 ACP has a standard magazine capacity of 9 rounds, and there now are 10 round magazines available that do not protrude below the grips.
I would assume that other .38 cal. or 9 mm. have about the same in straight-stacking magazines.
Standard "high-capacity" pistol magazines holding 15-18 rounds are wider to allow the rounds to overlap slightly vertically, and thus also require the pistol grip to be wider, which may not be comfortable for small hands.

I am not quite sure where I am going with this, except that the new New York law limiting "legal" semi-auto magazines - rifle, shotgun, or handgun - to 7 rounds baffles me. It sounds like they want to promote the sales of .45 ACP handguns.

chrisnavin.com said...

Bagoh:

Obama's in his 2nd term now, and his platform vindicated in his mind.

Expect him to keep putting the rest of us on the arc of history bending toward justice.

Jay said...

roesch/voltaire said... at least this trop summons up the notion that something can be done, much like the laws on the books to curtail drunk drivers

Um, all 50 states have laws curtailing gun ownership.

The federal government has banned machine guns for the average citizens and has 10,000+ pages of federal regulations related to firearms.

So, what the fuck is your point, again?

Jay said...

X said...

Charles Whitman
Ted Kacsynski
Amy Bishop
Seung-Hui Cho
James Holmes


Bill Ayers & the Weather Underground

Big Mike said...

Point of information, Mr. Hayden, the first breech loading rifles used in the US would have to be the Ferguson rifles used by the British in the Revolutionary War.

The Americans using muzzle-loading Kentucky long rifles killed Ferguson and slaughtered his loyalist troops at Kings Mountain.

Otherwise you've pretty well summed up the state of affairs. The main changes to basic gun technology since the turn of the century would be the replacement of wooden stocks with polymer and/or carbon fiber, resulting in a gun that looks wicked but is lightweight and adaptable. Also the replacement of metal frames with polymer for certain types of handguns. Everything else, including the invention of magazine-fed semi-automatic handguns, if not in long guns, dates back to the 19th century. This is not new technology.

Eustace Chilke said...

If only "even one life" was the standard when considering whether to cut regulation. If only that side of the argument could make it into the discussion at all.

People are not this dumb though. They know window dressing when they see it whatever side they're on. The lines are clear enough no matter the tortured rhetoric. I'm not sure why anyone bothers making dumb arguments. Maybe they feel better about themselves if they at least offer something.

Hagar said...

A 1873 Winchester holds 15 44-40 WCF or .45 Colt in its tubular magazine, and there now are a number of rifles and revolvers that hold up to 10 rounds, available in the smaller calibers.

What's with the fixation on semi-auto's?

Phil said...

I like your point, Eustace. I wonder how many lives could be saved by eliminating the corn ethanol subsidies? Probably millions worldwide, including lots of kiddies. Do it for the children, Barry.

William Chadwick said...

And of course what the State-shtuppers always want you to forget is that the Cult of the State has taken more innocent lives than all the Adam Lanzas combined. But we should put all our trust in Der Staat! Big Brother would never harm you!

X said...

X said...
Charles Whitman
Ted Kacsynski
Amy Bishop
Seung-Hui Cho
James Holmes

Jay said...
Bill Ayers & the Weather Underground


and of course Karleton Armstrong and his crew.

murderous academics.

Bob said...

Barry every year children die choking on coins. Ban all coins. For the children

Paul said...

"If only one life can be saved.."

Well quite a few people each year DIE at train crossings that do not have a flashing light and barrier. So why not spend xxx $$$ to fix that if 'only one life can be saved'?

Oh yea, it's not a pet Obama project. Trillion spent on 'stimulus' but not ONE PENNY TO FIX THE RAIL ROAD CROSSINGS.


'One life' my arise.

grackle said...

There's a good summary of Obama's executive orders at this site:

http://tinyurl.com/aafl9g2

Matthew Sablan said...

Would it be bad form to note that one of the executive orders Obama signed encourages schools to let in armed men (that is, resource officers) to protect the school, sort of like the NRA suggested?

Scott M said...

Would it be bad form to note that one of the executive orders Obama signed encourages schools to let in armed men (that is, resource officers) to protect the school, sort of like the NRA suggested?

It would be if you want to be invited to all the right cocktail parties, yes.

Revenant said...

nothing can be done short of arming everyone, at least this trop summons up the notion that something can be done, much like the laws on the books to curtail drunk drivers. True it does not stop the all the drunks, but he has cut down on the number of deaths, and enabled the jailing of some repeat offenders.

The correct parallel would be "restricting ownership of cars", not "restricting drunk driving". Car ownership is to gun ownership as drunk driving is to shooting up a school.

The Newton shooter stole a gun -- which, weirdly enough, is already illegal -- and used it to kill a bunch of people, which turns out to also be illegal. The notion that the shooting could have been prevented with more laws is pretty silly.

Revenant said...

What's with the fixation on semi-auto's?

A lot of people don't know what the heck they are. "Semi-automatic handgun with high-capacity magazine" sounds scary.

"Pistol just like the ones ordinary cops carry on their hip" would be easier for people to understand, but doesn't sound nearly scary enough.

ThomasD said...

President 'Above My Pay Grade' claims he doesn't know when life begins.

Logically it must occur some time between the melding of sperm & egg, and live birth.

So why take any chances, if there is even one life to be saved we should end all abortion and sale of abortifacients.

Robin said...

We'd save a heck of a lot more children by making everyone fill in their swimming pools.

JAL said...

Late to this, maybe someone answered.

Is an Executive Action the same thing as an Executive Order?

Hagar said...

To use the Sandy Hook tragedy for this kind of political huckstering is a very low thing to do.

barribarri said...

"If there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, we’ve got an obligation to try."

You mean like permanently imprisoning 15+ million people with mental illnesses to marginally increase the odds that one or two mass-murdering maniacs are stopped?

That sort of thing?

Synova said...

"We know there will always be guns around, and Samurai swords and butcher knives, and any gun control will never eliminate even the guns from crazy hands."

Overheard in the hardware store tonight:

Him: Oh wow! A machete. This is a great machete. Can I get a machete?

Her: You don't need a machete.

Him: Yes I do. How can you say I don't need a machete? Look at this machete. And it's only five dollars. How can I not need a five dollar machete?

Her: *sighs* It's a HARBOR FREIGHT machete.

Him: Oh, okay.

Synova said...

So... what actual things are supposedly now in force? If Obama proposed legislation then it's nothing at all until it passes both houses and gets back to him to be signed.

Also... for what it's worth... I can get some pistols (of the semi-automatic large capacity variety) in either a 9mm or 40 or 45 or whatever... the larger cartridge means lower magazine capacity, generally. If any of this bout of stupid passes I expect people to chose larger, more powerful, calibers of weapons with greater frequency.

Of what I've looked at, the itty bitty "concealed carry" pistols have lowest capacity because they're made to be narrow even at a higher caliber. Regular old normal "service" type 9mm pistols with a grip I can get my tiny little hand around easy-peasy, hold 15 cartridges and qualify as "high capacity". (This counts the totally ordinary middle sized not-scary-at-all Walther PPQ 9mm I've sort of got my heart set on.)

Bruce Hayden said...

Point of information, Mr. Hayden, the first breech loading rifles used in the US would have to be the Ferguson rifles used by the British in the Revolutionary War.

Thanks for the clarification. My understanding was that breech loading was one of the reasons that the Civil War was so deadly. Much higher rates of fire, esp. from somewhat prepared positions, etc. But, as you can tell, I am no expert here.

But, you do seem to reemphasize my point, that attempting to eliminate black scary looking semiautomatic rifles from civilian use is essentially trying to move us back to 50+ year old technology.

Robin said...

Synova, it was during the 1994 - 2004 Federal AWB with its magazine limit of 10 rounds (which only meant that one could not buy magazines of 10+ manufactured after its effective date) that the market in small concealable handguns took off.

Granted it was also during the wave of states adopting "shall issue" concealed handgun permit issuance, but in good part, the "ban" meant that there was an incentive to design smaller pistols that were built around a shorter 10 rd magazine.

That's a perfect example of unintended consequences, and the counter-productive nature of the stupid gun control groups, because I can't think that gun control advocates think more smaller, concealable pistols was "good".

Danno said...

...Col. Angus said..."And surrounding your self with children when your main campaign theme was to uphold a women's right to murder her unborn child is nothing short of disgusting. The man is pathetic."

This has to honestly be a quote that should be viralized over the web. Excellent!!

Bruce Hayden said...

I am thinking more and more that the President is just trying to get this issue behind him, so that he can cruise through his second term, and really doesn't care to do much more than to go through the motions.

With Senate comedian AlFranken sitting on the fence now about the AWB, and the Senate Majority leader seemingly indicating that it won't pass, the President has issued some 23 declarations, executive orders, or something that seem mostly to tell people to do their jobs, and that the ObamaCare legislation doesn't really mean what it says when it comes to doctors asking about guns in the house. Maybe you need executive orders to make government employees do their job in the Obama era, but mostly, I think that a better manager wouldn't need to impose his will on his employees in this way.

Here are my predictions:
- "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" aren't going to be banned. Won't make it to the floor of the House, which will be fine with Harry Reid, who will do anything in his power to keep the legislation off his own floor, and being able to blame the Republicans in the House is just fine with him. It is stupid legislation written by gun-ignorant people (who could find out how stupid just by using Google).
- Maybe the "gun show loophole" will be closed a little bit, but not by much. What we are really talking about is private gun transfers, and mostly not at gun shows. Current proposals would require family heirlooms be run through a background check when someone dies. No one has shown any real damage from private transactions of a gun here or there, and if you sell too many guns, you need a license and background checks already (which is why most gun show sales already have background checks). And, yes, the big problem here seems to be BATF, DoJ, etc. not doing their job enforcing the laws already on the books.
- Probably some closer tie between mental illness and deprivation of gun rights.
- More armed guards in schools, but not clear if there will be any federal money to pay for them.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 207   Newer› Newest»