Is the time right for Obama to push for gun control laws?

[PhillySane]

I would think so.

[DrDan]

1. ABSOLUTELY!!!

[PhillySane]

80. Since this thread started in GD

and was moved here (I actually think it is quite valid for everyone to discuss this topic right now, but I guess DU doesn't) I will simply end my participation by saying this;
your right to bear arms infringes on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A nine year old girl died in this shooting. What about her rights?

[DrDan]

101. huh?

I think Obama should push for stronger gun control.

[PhillySane]

102. Sorry

didn't mean to post this in response to your response. Just wanted it at the top. :-)

[pipoman]

118. The equivalent of cutting in line,

blurting out comments in a meeting situation, or raising one's hand in a class room when the answer is known and saying, 'O, o o o o o o'. Poor etiquette.


Stay classy there.

[SteveM]

133. So, you want to forum-shop? Why is that? Oh, sorry, you ended yourself. nt

[RegieRocker]

2. We have gun control laws.

What exactly do you mean?

[PhillySane]

3. What do you mean?

[RegieRocker]

7. :-)

[PhillySane]

11. ;-)

[slackmaster]

14. .

[PhillySane]

17. Yes, but does he really need 25 semi-automatic french horns

and all those bullets?

[slackmaster]

21. He should be able to get them only if he really, really wants them

:hi:

[PhillySane]

23. American Consumerism at its finest!

[PavePusher]

64. Why not?

What do you think are valid limits and what are your reasons? Got any evidence in support of your position?

[SteveM]

134. You think anyone in PE owns a gun?

[TheKentuckian]

4. Fuck no

[pintobean]

40. lol . I clicked on this to post 'fuck that'

[FarPoint]

5. No....it's the teabag rhetoric

That inspired the shooter and like peers.

[Gamow]

6. I don't think he's ever said he would try

Not saying he would never do it, but he's never indicated he would.

[angryfirelord]

8. No

I would support tougher background checks, but for actually taking guns away, no. That's not going to help solve the problem.

[PhillySane]

13. You're kidding right?

[Statistical]

47. You're kidding right?

What gun control law that doesn't infringe on the 2nd amendment would have prevented this slaying?

[SteveM]

135. What are your proposals, all kidding aside?

such proposals should be accompanied by data which would indicate a defined social problems would be solved, and constitutional arguments which would support your case. Please be aware of the long deadening history of prohibitionism (in all its forms) before making any proposals.

[Motown_Johnny]

42. who said anything about taking guns away?

Just mentioned stricter gun control. Tougher background checks are a big part of it. Limiting those high capacity clips are another. If the guy had clips that only held 15 rounds then there would be fewer injured, maybe fewer killed (maybe even that 9 year old girl).

It seems he was stopped when he needed to reload (per Sarah's instructions).

[RamboLiberal]

76. The first AWB did nothing to remove them from the market

Because they grandfathered in the old mags.

It only drove up the price of mags over 10 rounds.

Even if tougher laws were passed now you think you're going to get owners to turn them in?

Try it and you'll have bigger the entire Congress be a huge Repuke majority and possibly lose the presidency in 2012.

Right now it would never make it out of the House.

[angryfirelord]

87. Usually that's what gun control comes down to

I haven't looked at recent legislation in that area, but too often the common sense restrictions often turn into "take all the guns away" rants. The problem I see is that if you restrict guns too much (whether by design or quantity), then you give others an incentive to get illegal guns, which are obviously much harder to track.

[SteveM]

137. Gun-controllers will take ANYTHING they can get...

...as a stepping stone to severe control and even outright bans. That's how they operate.

[SteveM]

136. I'll take you up on the discussion:

(1) How would you toughen BG tests; and
(2) How would preventing "high capacity clips" (actually magazines) have prevented the number of casualties, keeping in mind that Cho at Virginia Tech killed far more with one gun and standard magazines (yes, he just carried more of 'em).

[oneshooter]

145. He is a Democrat, leftwing nut. n/t

[Bigmack]

9. Too late... there's about 200 million unregistered guns in the US. nt

[Omerrrta]

10. NO -nt

[slackmaster]

12. It's time to push for improved access to mental health care

Laws are not the issue. Plenty of laws were broken as it is.

[PhillySane]

15. Right, easier to get a gun than healthcare

[SteveM]

138. Easier to advocate control/prohibition than to fund healthcare.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Are you joking?

Obama will appoint a commission to study whether gun ownership should be mandatory. It will be led by the president of the NRA, And the CEO of a large gun manufacturer.

[PhillySane]

22. your're probably right

if history is correct

[PavePusher]

65. Do you get a discount buying straw in bulk like that?

And do you use union workers to stuff the empty suits?

[SteveM]

139. LOL. Hyperbole aside, you are probably right about that.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Recovered Repug]

19. Is there a specific example of a law

that would have prevented the attack?

[PhillySane]

28. How about

you need to take a test, like the military gives, to see if you're stable enough to own a weapon?

[Pancho Sanza]

33. Good God, you're proposing using a test for military aptitude as a basis for determining

"stability"??????????????

[PhillySane]

37. The shooter took that test

-and failed.

[Pancho Sanza]

41. Oh, well then...that explains how he was unable to get a gun.

:eyes:

[AtheistCrusader]

122. I heard he failed beacuse they tested his urine?

[Recovered Repug]

39. What test does the military give?

It's been over 25 years since I enlisted, but I don't recall any pyschological tests. I remember various poking and prodding, turn your head and cough, eye exams, etc. I don't remember anywhere in the process the question "Are you stable" coming up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. NO.The gun control laws we have are more than enough.

Enforcement of what we have would be a better approach. Some of the draconian ones actually needed to be repealed.

[slackmaster]

24. Please be specific

What kind of new law or laws do you think would be appropriate?

[RegieRocker]

25. Already asked that question

no answer. Dodged the question.

[slackmaster]

27. Then the OP is just venting

Which is understandable.

[PhillySane]

31. Okay how bout this...

no guns. If I had it my way, that's the law. But, I realize that that is never going to happen. We do not need to allow people to own as many guns as they want. Start there. One is enough. Then, the poor gun industry will have to make do with that. Even if you think that's too radical, how about waiting periods, taxes, testing, permits and background checks? Oh, shoot, the gun lobby won't go for that, they won't be able to sell em quick enough!

There's plenty ideas out there. Try em on for size.

[slackmaster]

34. I'd go with "no guns" only if it meant literally no guns for anyone.

But people who propose "no guns" never really mean that.

We do not need to allow people to own as many guns as they want. Start there. One is enough.

I collect guns. One is by definition not enough for me. A collection, in my opinion, requires at least three of something; and also by definition involves owning things that one does not "need".

I don't need to have you or anyone else telling me what I need and do not need.

Even if you think that's too radical, how about waiting periods, taxes, testing, permits and background checks?

We have most of that already. If we had mandatory gun safety training in public schools, we'd be a step closer.

[PhillySane]

43. How about a collection of bio-chemical weapons?

What would be the difference?

[slackmaster]

48. You have just committed a classic logical fallacy called Straw Man

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[PhillySane]

52. I'm not clicking, I'm not buying

What would be the difference?

[slackmaster]

53. We already have laws that distinguish clearly between military and civilian weapons

If you're scared to click on my link to the Nizkor site, please use your favorite search engine to look up the following expressions:

"straw man fallacy"

"national firearms act of 1934"

[PhillySane]

59. Okay

so your argument is that the gun the shooter used is nothing like something the military uses? A Glock? 17 round clip, emptied within seconds in a crowd of innocent, defenseless human beings?
What kind of logic are you using here?

[PavePusher]

68. No he clearly implied that a Glock is not a bio-weapon...

or even comparable to a weapon of mass destruction.

What kind of logic are you using here?

[one-eyed fat man]

78. Look under your sink,

unless you majored in Pre-Columbian basket weaving you ought to be able to assemble a fair chemical weapon with toilet bowl cleaner and bleach.

If you doubt it works, lock yourself in the bathroom, pour them into the commode and report back in the morning.

[PavePusher]

95. Dude...!

:spray:

I'm drinkin' coffee here!

I spend more time cleaning friggen keyboards...

[Pancho Sanza]

38. How about taxes, testing, permits and background checks for voting? Or for writing...?

Any other rights you'd like to reserve for only people you approve of?

[fascisthunter]

60. voting and guns are two VERRRRY different things

geez

[Pancho Sanza]

63. I agree...the 2nd Amendment came way before universal suffrage.

Again, I find it horrific that some barely post-adolescent punk is causing otherwise sane Americans to consider further erosion of our Constitutional rights for the sake of a bit more 'safety'.

[Statistical]

79. The ones who are "considering it" need no event.

Violent crime is at a 30 year low and they still want more gun control. Violent crime in DC has fallen since the gun ban was lifted and they still want more gun control. Violent crime is lower today then when the "scary black rifles" ban was in effect and they still want more gun control.

It is simply people who already want gun control using this tragedy to score political points. This event didn't change anyones mind. There is a small but vocal minority on DU who want an absolute ban on all guns even retroactively to include already lawfully purchase firearms.

[SteveM]

142. prohibition is addictive. nt

[fascisthunter]

81. people have enough gun rights so go sell that bullshit elsewhere

because it's garbage. Our other civil liberties do not entail having a deadly weapon...

"regulated militia"

go spin

[PavePusher]

96. Please cite to "right of the militia". Good luck. n/t

[beevul]

109. Our other civil liberties...

"Our other civil liberties do not entail having a deadly weapon..."

And yet hate speech is decried by some hereabouts as a deadly weapon...

Which is it?

Our civil rights have something in common - that they are generally restricted from the government interfering with them much.

"congress shall make no law"

"shall not be infringed"

The bill of rights itself says exactly that about what we call our civil rights, if you could be bothered to read and understand the following:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

The "militia" reading of the amendment is clearly incorrect, and not in line with the porpose or function of the bill of rights itself.

[PavePusher]

69. You are entirely correct... except for where you aren't.

Guns in the hands of the wrong person can kill a few people. Votes in the hands of the wrong person can kill millions.

Both are Civil Rights. Both can be abused. We have punishments for that abuse. We don't punish those that don't abuse them.

I do not loose my vote because some asshole across the country voted fraudulently.

[fascisthunter]

82. that's some grand bullshit there buddy to defend owning guns

I'm not surprised to see you twist reality that way... Let us know when somebody shoots a vote at somebody to kill them.

There needs to be gun regulation....

"well regulated militia"... you ain't no militia

[PavePusher]

83. Militia is not a limiting condition, as you well know...

unless you have some evidence to present to support your assertion?

As far as votes.... Maybe you didn't get the memo on the whole Florida kerfluffle? A few years back? Some election... major world leader... multiple wars...

:silly:

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

88. Going to repeal the 4th, 5th, and 8th?

I mean, those three amendments set free serial murders, rapists, and pedophiles on technicalities.

If we could force these folks to incriminate themselves, search them any time law enforcement wants, and apply a little pressure to them during questioning, we'd remove these evil people from the streets.

:sarcasm:

[fascisthunter]

89. those to me are much more important than the second ever will be

shocking....

Oh and I better be careful arguing with you because a mod sees fit to censor what I say, helping your arguments.

[X_Digger]

92. If you choose civil words, you'll be fine.

I would suggest you edit your comment though, as it could be seen as interfering with forum moderation.

Now, on to your post..

How important or not you judge a particular right has no bearing on the legal interpretation of such.

The courts have explicitly said in multiple cases that the potential harm from exercising a right is not suitable justification for infringement of that right.

The exclusionary rule ('fruit of the poisonous tree' in Law and Order speak) means that evidence that the police, in good faith, found that proves a person committed a crime- can and often is, excluded. The right protected by the fourth amdendment is a dangerous right, when exercised by criminals. That's not justification for infringing the right, no more so than criminal use of firearms is a justification for infringing the right protected by the second.

[PavePusher]

94. I like all the Amendments, except that silly 18th.

But we fixed that.


As far as "censoring", simply follow the forum rules (this is, after all, a privately owned place, right?) and Bob's yer mother's brother.

[pipoman]

121. Key silliness being the two words, "to me",

Really? Who gives a turdlet what you think? This conversation is about what the law of the land actually says. Don't like what it actually says? There is a mechanism to change what it says. Good luck with that.

[SteveM]

144. You are not blaming the moderator, are you?

[PavePusher]

93. I ask again, cite to evidence, please? Thanks...

"Your attitude towards those of us who live without guns is also telling."

Uh, what attitude? You don't want to own guns, fine, have at it. I. Don't. Care. How. You. Choose. To. Live. Your. Life.

Is that clear enough?

There's plenty of attitude here, but it's not coming from me.

[oneshooter]

107. I don't know were you got your history from......

Bu the Colonial Militia supplied their own weapons, at their cost, and assembled for practice once a month. Generally after church services. If you could not afford a weapon then one was supplied. Artillery was also privately owned. The community supplied powder, ball and flints for the once a month assembly, altho it was to replace that which was used in practice.
You are right about one point, it was no hobby. The Militias were used in the defense of the community from Indians, fires, road agents, and even Government Forces. Ever heard of Lexington and Concord?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gravity556]

129. re: "well regulated militia"... you ain't no militia

Ah, the ever popular "militia" argument. The problem is that pesky "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" operative clause of that sentence. Since every other ammendment is read as an individual's right, why do you suppose that the 2nd is a collective right?

Also, the 2nd ammendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting. There are quite a few gun owners who don't hunt-I am one of them. Just wanted to throw that out to preempt the "You don't need an uzi to hunt deer!" argument that usually follows a rebuttal of the collective right argument.

[SteveM]

143. You can't handle the "militia" argument, and you won't try. typical. nt

[Katya Mullethov]

90. Actually you do lose your vote

Especially if he voted counter to your interests . And if he can do it once , he will certainly do it several times thus majorly affringin' yo ass . Why bother at all ?

[SteveM]

141. But both are Constitutional rights, no?

[Statistical]

54. none of those would have changed this.

1) Limit on guns? He only used one gun
2) Waiting Period? He purchased the gun a long time ago long enough to pass waiting period
3) Taxes? Taxes would only disarm the poor.
4) Testing? He appeared to be a good shot like would have passed any competency exam
5) Permits? Permits accomplish nothing. If he can pass background check he can get a permit
6) Background Check? He did pass a background check. Sadly a lot of mental illness is undignosed.

Rather than waste money on useless gun control laws SPENDING MONEY ON PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH might have prevented this. He could have been diagnosed early, a therapist could have put him in a hospital because he was a danger to himself or others. That would have barred him from passing background check system.

[PavePusher]

71. I think you meant "...useLESS gun control laws..."... 8>) n/t

[Statistical]

74. Yes thanks for that. Updated. n/t

[SteveM]

146. GUN-CONTROLLERS: Please read NUMBER 54. nt

[PavePusher]

66. How about "Go try to Amend the Constitution"...

but you don't want the real answers it seems.

[bvar22]

97. The next time a skunk is out in broad daylight behaving strangely on my rural property,

I'll call you, and YOU can come over and deal with him with a sharp stick.

I'll be keeping my guns.

[SteveM]

140. Thanks for your frankness. "Gun-controllers" usually are prohibitionists. nt

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eShirl]

29. I hope he would be above a useless kneejerk response.

[DeschutesRiver]

30. +1. nt

[RB TexLa]

32. No

[tjwash]

35. Nice...way to empty out the gungeon in to GD

[PhillySane]

49. I'm sorry

I thought I actually had a good idea. Silly rabbit.

[affrayer]

36. I Have A Better Idea...

Let's push for "right winger" controls...

Guns don't kill people, right wingers do...

[Celeborn Skywalker]

44. No.

That would be monumentally stupid of him. Even in the wake of tragedy, gun control is a dead end in our country and will only serve to motivate paranoid people to come out in droves to vote against Democrats. We've already been through this before.

[Statistical]

45. What specific gun control law would have prevented this?

[Motown_Johnny]

46. Brady Bill 2?

It wouldn't hurt to go after things like the high capacity clips and assault rifles. Remember the assault rifle ban expired under Da Shrub.



Maybe even a longer wait period for handguns as well as better background checks.

[slackmaster]

51. Supporters of the expired "AW" ban had ten full years to make a case for renewing or extending it

They came up empty-handed in September 2004.

[Statistical]

56. None of which would have stopped this.

He didn't use an assault rifle. He shot 20 rounds. Standard mag holds 15 and mag change would allow him to shoot 30. Waiting period? There is no indication he purchased in recently. His myspace page had a photo of a firearm (likely the murder weapon) from 9 months ago.

Passing laws for the sake of passing laws is what cost Democrats control of both houses last time.

[PavePusher]

73. Please demonstrate how the AWB made any improvement in crime rates.

Hint: You can't.

[beevul]

110. It wouldn't hurt?

"It wouldn't hurt to go after things like the high capacity clips and assault rifles."

I disagree, I think it would hurt, quite alot.


The rifles your referring to have become the most popular rifles sold in America.

AKA mainstream.

And banning the "clips" (magazines) serves no purpose what so ever.

Doing iether of the two or both, would be monumentally stupid, and the political cost disastrous.

[SteveM]

147. "It wouldn't hurt" is insufficient for passing any law...

"Assault rifles" (full-auto) are already strictly controlled by the the Firearms Act of 1934. There never was an "assault rifle ban," since the law applied to semi-auto carbines (little different from semi-auto deer rifles of greater power which have been around since Spad bi-planes); in any case, the "ban" only applied to bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, fold-out stocks, etc., and not to the gun itself. During the 10-year "ban," the sale of these semi-auto carbines skyrocketed, and that class of weapon is now the most popular center-fire rifle in the U.S., perhaps some 18,000,000 Americans owning them (that exceed the total number of hunters by over 5,000,000).

You may wish to Google up the Center for Disease Control to read the executive summary of "gun-intervention strategies" regarding their (in)-effectiveness in solving purported social problems. What improvements would you like to see with regards bg tests?

[still_one]

50. Are you kidding, it wouldn't stand a chance, and if you saw some of the posts some DUers, you

wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the NRA position, and their position

Unfortunately, people in this country love their guns, and see no problem with not requiring background checks or licensing of weapons

[Statistical]

57. There are background checks for weapons, and licenses serve no purpose. n/t

[still_one]

61. Why do I need to register my car? Licenses do help track down weapons used in crimes, and

background checks are not required at gun shows and some states

[slackmaster]

70. Any sale of a new firearm requires a background check regardless of where it occurs

background checks are not required at gun shows and some state

That statement is totally, 100% false.

[still_one]

103. The firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 indicates individuals "not engaged in the business" of

dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

[AtheistCrusader]

123. He said new firearms

And he is correct.

[PavePusher]

75. Car registration is about taxes and fees.

Has nothing to do with crime.

Licences do nothing to "help track down weapons".

[still_one]

104. Not entirely. You have to be certified in order to drive a car legally /nt

[PavePusher]

108. Only on roads and right-of-ways paid for by public tax money.

Private property? Go wild...

[SteveM]

149. Those cars are called "grove trucks" or "ranch rockets."nt

[GreenStormCloud]

99. You don't need to register your car if you keep it on private land.

Only if you drive it on public roads do you need driver's license, registration and inspections. In most states it the same with guns. If I keep my gun on private property I don't need to register it. If I take it out in public I need to have a license.

[still_one]

105. I thought it depended on the state. Some states don't require registration or license of guns or

rifles

[X_Digger]

106. Actually, MOST states don't require registration of guns (to purchase / possess). n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

131. Yes, it depends upon the state.

I was giving the general case for most states. Some states do allow guns to be carried in public without a permit, and some states do require a person to have a license to have a gun.

[beevul]

111. You don't need to register your car, UNLESS it will be used in public.

You don't need to register your car, UNLESS it will be used in public.


"Licenses do help track down weapons used in crimes"

People leave thier gun license number laying around at the scene after a shooting, do they?

[pipoman]

124. Funny how no license was needed to know exactly where this gun

came from in a matter of a couple of hours. Canada's gun registry cost billions and achieved not one single thing. And as has already been pointed out background checks are absolutely required at gun shows. You have been lied to by those you seem to agree with.

[X_Digger]

126. I was thinking the same thing..

The Tiahrt Amendment doesn't seem to have stopped law enforcement from tracking it down in 3 hours.

[pipoman]

127. Yep

the Tiahrt Amendment only keeps busy bodies out of the vigilante business just as we have been saying all along.

[SteveM]

150. Canada's gun laws: self-righteous moral statements can be expensive. nt

[SteveM]

148. Only if you drive on the public roads...

Otherwise, you can own an un-registered, un-inspected (where applicable), un-insured auto. Please note that owning and driving a car is NOT a right; many states go to great pains to inform potential drivers/car-purchasers that driving is a "privilege." Hence, the Constitutional protections for gun-owners are much stronger.

If you have any data comparing the number of crimes committed with un-registered gun, and those committed with registered guns, please provide them.

BG checks are not required of ANYONE who is purchasing from a non-dealer; only Federal Firearms Dealers are required to run the NICS test. IOW, a private individual selling a gun could not run a BG test on anyone even if he/she wanted to. "Gun shows" are nothing more than a meeting place for (usually) private sellers who sell to individuals, much as you would sell a shotgun to someone over the kitchen table. The place and format is not the thing, and is therefore not a loophole.

[steve2470]

55. No.

Gun control for Dems = big win for Repukes, guaranteed. The existing laws need to be enforced and this issue needs to die, again.

[Renew Deal]

58. What kind of gun control laws prevent motivated people from getting guns?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

62. As much as I don't like guns

I'm not sure what else he might push for at the federal level not to mention that it would be futile with a hyper-partisan NRA-bought majority Republican House and Democratic-controlled-but-fractured Senate. It might be a good idea for Arizona (and other applicable states) to re-examine "concealed carry" laws but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that either.

[PavePusher]

77. What Concealed Carry law would have stopped this?

Hint: None.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

114. Well, I will say this

You're asking exactly the right question.

[GreenStormCloud]

100. Lots of Democratic Senators have NRA A ratings. N/T

[Proud Liberal Dem]

115. True enough

I don't think that there is anybody, Democratic and/or Republican, willing to fight for more gun control at the moment but, like President Obama, I'm not sure that there is much else we should put into law. I do wish to see perhaps a retreat of the current expansion of "concealed carry" laws and the explosion of "permitting guns anywhere and everywhere" laws being enacted in states across the country (though I doubt that it will happen, of course).

[pipoman]

125. And none of that would change anything at all.

The statistics simply don't support any assertion that concealed carry has done anything, except perhaps reduced crime since there has been constant reduction in violent crime during the same time we have gone from 3 states with concealed carry to 46.

[gravity556]

130. RE:As much as I don't like guns

Arizona no longer requires a permit for concealed carry. One of the folks who took down and restrained this guy was a CCWer. He heard the gunshots while he was in the Walgreens and called 911 as he ran to the sound of the gun. He said that he saw that the shooter's gun was out of ammo or jammed because he saw that the slide was locked back, so he decided against pulling his own weapon and introducing another gun to the scene (kinda blows that whole "CCW people are bloodthirsty assholes who are just looking for an excuse to kill someone" argument outta the water), even though at that point, he would have probably been cleared if he had shot the shooter. Had there been someone carrying that was AT the rally, they might have well saved some lives.

[SteveM]

151. For generations, Vermont hasn't addressed concealed-carry...

You can put a pistol in your pocket and go down town, there. And the political climate there is, shall we say, a tad more liberal than in Arizona?

[-..__...]

67. Push for more gun control laws?

LOL!!!

I'm hoping that if and/or when the time comes... he pushes for a SCOTUS nominee that's a dyed in the wool "gun nut".

[spin]

72. If he pushes for draconian gun laws ....

the sale of firearms will increase and once again we will have a shortage of firearms and ammunition at gun stores.

Hell, I'm thinking about running out and buying a couple of "assault rifles" as an investment.

[Katya Mullethov]

91. Might be too late to ride that bubble .

The gun show reports will be out tonight . Could be advantageous to be the one writing them .

[jazzhound]

98. Sadly, you are unaware that what you are actually asking is

"Is the time right to commit political suicide?"

[beevul]

112. Well said.

And spot on.

[GSLevel9]

113. that would make the 2010 political disaster look like a draw.... not wise. nt

[Jenoch]

116. If President Obama pushes for more gun control laws,

it only lead to more republican victories in the congress.

[lawodevolution]

117. if Obama tries to pass gun control

2012 elections will result in a republican president, house and senate. The NRA will have millions of new members, the militias will also have millions of new members

the laws he passes will only be reversed as have many other useless gun control laws in the last few years.

[pipoman]

119. Even if Obama was dumb enough to try

and he isn't, there are far too many pro-2nd Amendment Dems in both houses to succeed.

[spin]

120. I predict the sale of firearms and ammo will skyrocket this week ...

people will once again fear Obama will push for draconian gun laws.

[SteveM]

152. ...but quite a few will be left-of-center, IMO.

[jazzhound]

128. And recall that the number of first-time gun purchasers

has dramatically spiked over the last few years who will vote according to their interests.

I believe that spin has hit the center of the bullseye with his prediction re. ammunition/firearm sales. I'm very familiar with the stock at the WalMart closest to my pad ---- lots of 9mm and .40 cal, .45 disappears immediately. I'll report back if I notice any change in supply.

[SteveM]

132. If he wants to be a one-termer, and flush the Democrats further down the tube. nt

[jeepnstein]

153. No.

[Flyboy_451]

154. what a GREAT idea!!

The democrats have just recently had their asses handed to them in the mid-terms. There is increasing pressure from the general public to back away from the more leftist tendencies that have been aggressively pushed for the last two years. Let's act impulsively on what is one of the most devisive and emotionaly charged topics that we can think of, in hopes that that the republicans can make a clean sweep in the 2012 election. BRILLIANT IDEA, I SAY!!

So far, Obama has been savy enough to stay away from this issue, because it has the potential to be an absolute nightmare for the left. Best to let this dog sleep in peace. Push for stricter controls now, and I would almost count on a republican rush that would effective oust democrat input for many years to come. I think this is one of the biggest mistakes the Dems made in the last two years. They pushed way too hard and fast on issues that have proven to be very devisive. As a general rule, I would say that the American people are more moderate than they are left or right. Push too hard, and the price is likely to be very high!

Jw