General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJoe Biden in charge of gun legislation- sounds like a good start to me
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/obama/2012/12/19/obama-pressing-for-policy-changes-after-shooting/Q35F5WThROCWGiXhpM6OhM/story.htmlWASHINGTON (AP) Spurred by a horrific elementary school shooting, President Barack Obama vowed to send Congress new policy proposals for reducing gun violence by January.
This time, the words need to lead to action, Obama said Wednesday. He tasked Vice President Joe Biden with leading an administration-wide effort to create the new recommendations and pledged to push for their implementation without delay.
here's a petition to the white house with some good ideas:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/increase-discussion-regulation-and-taxation-assault-weapons-using-article-2section-3-constitution/JZKxN37J
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)msongs
(67,413 posts)That man's already negotiating the seniors and the poor into hell.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)somebody's ideas who is unnamed and is obviously not a constitutional scholar..
The linked article was interesting..
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)the person IS named, by 1st name and last initial, and it doesn't say 'scholar' as a requirement to file a petition anywhere
in fact, the whole idea of the thing is to give normal people a voice
try saying something constructive, how does that not follow the constitution?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)There are serious constitutional issues with charging fees to exercise enumerated civil rights/liberties.
3. create an internet forum for citizens to participate in a rational discussion of the epidemic of gun violence, and begin to reduce the influence of pro-gun lobbies.
A bit ambiguous..Sounds like some sort of government sponsored forum not open to gun rights activists, only gun control advocates..Yeah, that creates it's own constitutional issues..
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)no, there aren't
Antonin Scalia: 2008
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
A bit ambiguous..Sounds like some sort of government sponsored forum not open to gun rights activists, only gun control advocates..Yeah, that creates it's own constitutional issues.
no, it isn't and no it doesn't
its not ambiguous at all - it says the NRA has too much influence, not really debatable.
'for citizens' means EVERYBODY, government sponsored so the govt. is forced to participate.
ideally, more reasonable people from both sides would participate, and narrow minded fools would be too embarassed to yap their BS
it doesn't create any "constitutional issues", is the freakin' site the thing is posted on "unconstitutional"?
some of the pro-gun petitions on the white house's own site are kind of awful, really.
you are the one who seems to be confused about "constitutional issues", in the end
pipoman
(16,038 posts)how will, "reduce the influence of pro-gun lobbies" be accomplished? Much less, "rational discussion"...Just seems more likely that the op of the petition would like to keep the discussion focused on gun control/restrictions...
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)ideally, someone with authority, say Biden, would be able to propose things they are thinking about putting into law.
then rational people could express their views and share experiences and such-
if anybody could come up with a rational explanation of why we need more or bigger guns,
or why it isn't fair to register a a gun like a car, great. it would help their side.
open forum for citizens means exactly that- the NRA is a special interest group
pipoman
(16,038 posts)to the overall body of gun owners..50 to 1 or some such. There isn't concealed carry in 49 states against the wishes of the majority of voters, based only on the lobbying of the NRA.
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)the NRA has 4 million members and a $300 million budget.
that makes 100+ million gun owners who aren't in the NRA- some criminals, lots of responsible gun owners
the NRA is an extremist conservative minority of gun owners, which gets a LOT of money from gun MAKERS.
The rapid change in public opinion on guns in the wake of Newtown is a bit of a leveler in this equation but it still doesnt make up for the fact that the NRA has no equal or even really an opponent, politically speaking, arguing for gun control. (One potential difference maker: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who spent heavily to defeat gun rights advocates in the 2012 election.)
That reality means that finding a way to bring the NRA in on whatever reforms are being proposed may be the key to ensuring some legislative fix or attempted fix to curb gun violence can make it through Congress. If the NRA stands in opposition, the path to passage gets significantly more difficult.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/19/a-story-of-the-nras-influence-in-2-charts/
every state has different handgun laws, sure. that's part of the problem. some are sensible, some aren't.
this makes sense to me-
The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met, or that the permit applicant must have "good cause" (or similar) to carry a concealed weapon. In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself oftentimes does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement.
The following are "may-issue" states: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)or "right to carry" and no credible movement to repeal in any I am aware..
"In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself oftentimes does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement."
is going to be a hard sell. Not to mention "may issue" results in political cronies/donors and the wealthy getting permits to carry, and people who live in the most dangerous neighborhoods, minorities, and the poor out of luck.
As for the excerpt, "If the NRA stands in opposition, the path to passage gets significantly more difficult.". Contrary to popular belief, the NRA has supported the majority of regulations placed on guns since 1934.
As far as forums are concerned, active gun control advocacy forums are outnumbered by double digits by active gun rights advocacy forums. I am just guessing that any forum open to both sides of the issue will be frequented by gun rights advocates...probably again dominated by double digit numbers..
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)In 2004, Bushmaster and the gun dealer settled the lawsuit for $2.5 million in a case that gun control advocates hailed as a "major breakthrough."
The gun lobby agreed. The next year, following a fierce lobbying campaign by the NRA, Congress approved the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which offers a broad shield against lawsuits filed by victims of gun violence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/newtown-victims-lawsuits-nra-_n_2325721.html
so which is it? the forum will be controlled by controllers or overpopulated by gun nuts? i don't follow.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)They settled a lawsuit, it didn't go to court. Should I be able to sue Dodge if a drunk driver hits me with his Dodge? Should I be allowed to sue the rat poison company if my neighbor poisons my dog? If someone misuses a legal consumer item, there shouldn't be liability on the maker. If a consumer item is defective and causes damage, I can see suing them...
What about the Brady Bill...supported as passed by the NRA, the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1967 revisions, the 1984 revisions. All limitations on sale or manufacture of firearms. I'm not an NRA member. It is hard to dispute that there is no organization on the planet who has trained more people in firearms safety than the NRA. Yes, their political branches are right wing (why I don't belong), but they have done more to curb firearms accidents than all the gun control groups combined..
farminator3000
(2,117 posts)because you are such the scholar!
pipoman
(16,038 posts)farminator3000
(2,117 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It's going to take some strong diplomacy if he really wants to "do something."
green for victory
(591 posts)Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004s horrendous RAVE Act.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/aug/24/joe_bidens_awful_record_drug_pol
Joe Biden: Obama's Drug Warrior - Topix
http://www.topix.com/forum/who/joe-biden/T92RT9QUI71PN5H43
Joe Biden in Mexico: Drugs won't be legal - Associated Press
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73651.html
Joe Biden Will Ensure Obama Administration's Tough Drug War Stance: Former White House Official
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/joe-biden-drug-war_n_2279702.html
and on and on and on and on....
It's fascinating watching so called liberals demonize everything but pharma.
Michael Moore gets it!
5000 hits in 35 hours- better change the constitution soon! The truth is leaking out...
Good Luck!
PS: You didn't cheer for legal pot, did you? I thought not...lol