Opinion of Obama's gun speech today

[Free Bird]

The gun nuts are fucking sickos, as they prove in this very thread. Their masculinity is so damn fragile, they'd rather have children slaughtered in mass shootings than have to find a new, less dangerous phallic symbol to empower themselves with. Sickos.

I have to agree. I believe in a citizen's right to gun ownership, but sensible regulation needs to follow. I believe most gun owners are responsible people. It's the nutjobs who have the "pry it from my cold dead hands" mentality that really scares me. It does reek of fear and insecurity.


You need a license to drive a car, cur hair, or open a business in this country. I don't think requiring a license or a background check is really an infringement.

Just as an aside the bold regulations are stupid but that's besides the point. The point is, permits and background checks are already very much commonplace. They haven't done anything to stop urban crime have they?

[defe07]

I think there's something we need to do about gun violence. Now, I'd have the police bust the gangs and gun cartels. The USA has background checks for guns and that makes sense. We need to encourage gun education to teach them about guns, something like the Civilian Marksmanship Program. But I think we can do this without picking on the average American that does know how to use guns. Tackle the criminal element of it, that's the first step!

[SteveRogers]

Yes, yes. It is a pressing issue. Damn the fact that almost all of the shootings take place in crossroads for the drug war with lots of gun control to begin with. Take out the suicides and self defenses and we're as safe as Canada! If anything, make it EASIER to get a gun. Criminals will buy their guns on the black market, so it won't matter.

I'm not really sure what you think that graph proves. It certainly doesn't support your argument that more guns somehow decreases shooting deaths. So what's the point? That because violent crimes have ticked downwards slightly since 2009 we should never ever talk about gun control ever again? Despite the clever graphwork, that's still a lot of deaths. And why exactly shouldn't we consider suicides and accidental deaths as well?

It's the fact that it's declining and are mainly concentrated in areas with high gun control. And to answer another post, there's no such thing as the gunshow loophole. There ARE background checks at them.

If there were no gunshow loophole, then you wouldn't be so strongly opposed to closing it now would you?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The NRA doesn't receive one penny of public funding, leave them alone.

Whyever should that be a reason to leave them alone?

And please do explain how the Second Amendment protects the gunshow loophole.

Yes FreedomHawk has used that weird rhetoric before. Makes me lol though - "leave North Korea alone! They have never received public funding!"

I honestly don't know what position you are in to talk about this subject at all considering the UK's crime rate is astronomically higher than the US. And I still fail to understand what's wrong with a group that wants to protect their rights and teach responsibility. North Korea is a horrible strawman.

It was more the "receive public funds" bit that amused me, as if that somehow absolves them from criticism.

Also probably a bad idea to compare the instances of "crime" or even "violent crime", as there is not a universal constant for police forces worldwide or something. stats are annoying

[Joe Republic]

Alas, crying in public will have exactly the opposite effect of winning this war of public opinion against the gun nuts average citizens that value their Constitutional rights.  The only people moved by Obama's crocodile tears are the type of people that agree with him about this maddening overblown situation anyway.

I still wet the bed most nights.

Do not edit my posts to reflect your disgusting ideology ever again.

What's making me?

Perhaps that you don't actually know how to do it, evidently.

[anvi]

Regarding gun violence in the U.S., here is my three-quarters of a cent.

It's good that violent crimes are decreasing in the U.S., but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to take steps to improve the situation, particularly since our homicide rates are still comparatively high and gun injury rates also appear to be up.

While suicides are not murders, I don't think we should discount them.  If committing suicide with a gun is easier than other means of killing oneself, then that's a relevant factor in the discussion.  The people who commit or try to commit suicide matter too. 

It's very difficult to make sound causal arguments one way or the other about whether stricter or more permissive gun regulations directly result in an increase or decrease of gun violence in any given area.  Gun violence has declined in a lot of areas where there are right-to-carry laws, but this often happens  long after the legislation takes effect, and this indicates that many other variables are at play.  Plus, the more areas where such laws exist are counted, what the data actually indicates about violent crime rates becomes less clear--though a comparison of similar areas, such as large urban areas, might yield a more consistent picture  By the same token, it's pretty difficult to establish in any causally meaningful way that a higher prevalence of gun ownership in a certain area is the sole or main causal factor in a rise in violent crime.  Since the data doesn't give a very clear picture either way, it's pretty hard to know what's the better overall policy.

But it still seems to me at least intuitively plausible that expanding the prevalence of background checks is is a good idea.  Allowing people with established histories of violent crime or established cases of psychological disorder to own weapons seems to me to be asking for trouble, because the initial risk factors in those cases are already higher.  If background checks can help detect such risk factors, then I think they make sense.  And I don't see why a few extra days of waiting to purchase guns constitutes anything like a constitutional infringement on anyone's rights.  Nonetheless, we shouldn't pretend that expanded background checks are going to be a dramatic panacea either, because lots of perpetrators of violent crimes have no such established histories, and children of gun owners or young people who have friends with guns, who have no such histories, can get their hands on their parents' or friends' weapons fairly easily too.  That doesn't mean expanded background checks are not worth doing, it just means the reductions in gun crime that result from enforcing them may not be very dramatic.  But as above, every life matters.  It's important to care about one's own rights, but it's also important to care about one's fellow citizens. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't have a problem with making clear that gun shows and other dealers have to conduct background checks.  Probably won't make much difference, but it's possible it could save some lives without a huge downside and in that case it'd be worth it (though I do think even those who have committed crimes have some right to self-defense, particularly if it was nonviolent).     What I do have a problem with is the way these background checks have been expanded to those who have not committed any crimes or shown any propensity for violence due to their receiving certain services - this has been the case for a while with mental health services at the VA, and now it is being expanded to those who Social Security has determined are not able to manage their finances on their own.  The stigmatization and establishment of an incentive not to seek help is very troubling.  I don't know why this hasn't gotten more play.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I don't have a problem with making clear that gun shows and other dealers have to conduct background checks.  Probably won't make much difference, but it's possible it could save some lives without a huge downside and in that case it'd be worth it (though I do think even those who have committed crimes have some right to self-defense, particularly if it was nonviolent).     What I do have a problem with is the way these background checks have been expanded to those who have not committed any crimes or shown any propensity for violence due to their receiving certain services - this has been the case for a while with mental health services at the VA, and now it is being expanded to those who Social Security has determined are not able to manage their finances on their own.  The stigmatization and establishment of an incentive not to seek help is very troubling.  I don't know why this hasn't gotten more play.

This is actually quite a good point, and encapsulates a lot of the trouble I have with the "the problem is really about mental health" crowd. What exactly would people do about mental health that wouldn't further stigmatize mental illness and disincentivize seeking help?

[Mr. Reactionary]

If there were no gunshow loophole, then you wouldn't be so strongly opposed to closing it now would you?

The concern is that Congress may only regulate interstate commerce; that's why they can require gun dealers in interstate commerce to get an FFL which requires background checks. When a father gives his rifle to a daughter, or a grandson inherits a rifle from his grandfather, or a man loans his rifle to his boyfriend for a hunting trip, that is not interstate commerce. Closing the "gunshow loophole" is the idea that non-gun dealers must also get a federal license to sell or transfer guns, even if they only have one. This is not just a bill of rights issue, its a separation of powers issue. And federal law, passed by Congress specifically states that the occasional buying, selling, trading, or transferring of guns by hobbyists is NOT commerce subject to federal regulation. To quote Justice O'Connor from the abysmal Gonzales v. Raich case, you're trying to empower the federal government to regulate local "quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers."

What I do have a problem with is the way these background checks have been expanded to those who have not committed any crimes or shown any propensity for violence due to their receiving certain services - this has been the case for a while with mental health services at the VA, and now it is being expanded to those who Social Security has determined are not able to manage their finances on their own.  The stigmatization and establishment of an incentive not to seek help is very troubling.  I don't know why this hasn't gotten more play.

Excellent point. Just because an elderly or physically disabled person is somewhat confused about managing their finances does not make them a danger to society or themselves. Conditioning the surrender of a constitutional right on the receipt of government benefits which many on the left would say these people "earned" or are "entitled to" is despicable and pointless. Even Obama's own Council on Disability Policy has expressed concern for this proposal: http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/2016/ncd-reacts-president%E2%80%99s-gun-control-proposals

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If there were no gunshow loophole, then you wouldn't be so strongly opposed to closing it now would you?

The concern is that Congress may only regulate interstate commerce; that's why they can require gun dealers in interstate commerce to get an FFL which requires background checks. When a father gives his rifle to a daughter, or a grandson inherits a rifle from his grandfather, or a man loans his rifle to his boyfriend for a hunting trip, that is not interstate commerce. Closing the "gunshow loophole" is the idea that non-gun dealers must also get a federal license to sell or transfer guns, even if they only have one.

Unless SCOTUS has reversed Wickard v. Filburn when I wasn't looking, those examples of yours all constitute interstate commerce.  You'd be on far firmer ground sticking to the separation of powers issue you raised than on whether transfers of property constitute interstate commerce.  That said, closing the gun show loophole isn't about restricting transfers of single guns but those of multiples by people who are acting as dealers without registering as such because they don't use a fixed location of business.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If there were no gunshow loophole, then you wouldn't be so strongly opposed to closing it now would you?

The concern is that Congress may only regulate interstate commerce; that's why they can require gun dealers in interstate commerce to get an FFL which requires background checks. When a father gives his rifle to a daughter, or a grandson inherits a rifle from his grandfather, or a man loans his rifle to his boyfriend for a hunting trip, that is not interstate commerce. Closing the "gunshow loophole" is the idea that non-gun dealers must also get a federal license to sell or transfer guns, even if they only have one.

Unless SCOTUS has reversed Wickard v. Filburn when I wasn't looking, those examples of yours all constitute interstate commerce.  You'd be on far firmer ground sticking to the separation of powers issue you raised than on whether transfers of property constitute interstate commerce.  That said, closing the gun show loophole isn't about restricting transfers of single guns but those of multiples by people who are acting as dealers without registering as such because they don't use a fixed location of business.

Nominally. I keep thinking about how its been implemented at the State level though. Washington State closed the loophole last year, but in so doing, expressly considered any individual transfer as triggering the background check requirement. That likely includes if two friends are target shooting a shared rifle on one's property, years after the gun was purchased. I know the Wickard-Raich threshold is low, but NFIB v. Sebelius recognized some limits to when actions in the aggregate = commerce. Wickard and Raich both involved the production of a new commodity (previously unexisting wheat/marijuana). Loaning an already existing tool to a friend does not create a new product. It would be like requiring a car owner to perform a background check on any future passengers, regardless of where the car is being driven and for what purpose. It's not so much a commercial regulation as it is a regulation on property. Again, some of these laws expand well beyond commercial transactions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/02/how-everytowns-background-check-law-impedes-firearms-safety-training-and-self-defense/

[Free Bird]

Yes, yes. It is a pressing issue. Damn the fact that almost all of the shootings take place in crossroads for the drug war with lots of gun control to begin with. Take out the suicides and self defenses and we're as safe as Canada! If anything, make it EASIER to get a gun. Criminals will buy their guns on the black market, so it won't matter.

I'm not really sure what you think that graph proves. It certainly doesn't support your argument that more guns somehow decreases shooting deaths. So what's the point? That because violent crimes have ticked downwards slightly since 2009 we should never ever talk about gun control ever again? Despite the clever graphwork, that's still a lot of deaths. And why exactly shouldn't we consider suicides and accidental deaths as well?

It's the fact that it's declining and are mainly concentrated in areas with high gun control. And to answer another post, there's no such thing as the gunshow loophole. There ARE background checks at them.

If there were no gunshow loophole, then you wouldn't be so strongly opposed to closing it now would you?

If it did exist, I would be fine with closing it. Only logical.

[SteveRogers]

Yes, yes. It is a pressing issue. Damn the fact that almost all of the shootings take place in crossroads for the drug war with lots of gun control to begin with. Take out the suicides and self defenses and we're as safe as Canada! If anything, make it EASIER to get a gun. Criminals will buy their guns on the black market, so it won't matter.

I'm not really sure what you think that graph proves. It certainly doesn't support your argument that more guns somehow decreases shooting deaths. So what's the point? That because violent crimes have ticked downwards slightly since 2009 we should never ever talk about gun control ever again? Despite the clever graphwork, that's still a lot of deaths. And why exactly shouldn't we consider suicides and accidental deaths as well?

It's the fact that it's declining and are mainly concentrated in areas with high gun control. And to answer another post, there's no such thing as the gunshow loophole. There ARE background checks at them.

If there were no gunshow loophole, then you wouldn't be so strongly opposed to closing it now would you?

If it did exist, I would be fine with closing it. Only logical.

Um, so which part of Obama's executive action are you actually opposed to then?

[tschandler]

Yes, yes. It is a pressing issue. Damn the fact that almost all of the shootings take place in crossroads for the drug war with lots of gun control to begin with. Take out the suicides and self defenses and we're as safe as Canada! If anything, make it EASIER to get a gun. Criminals will buy their guns on the black market, so it won't matter.

I'm not really sure what you think that graph proves. It certainly doesn't support your argument that more guns somehow decreases shooting deaths. So what's the point? That because violent crimes have ticked downwards slightly since 2009 we should never ever talk about gun control ever again? Despite the clever graphwork, that's still a lot of deaths. And why exactly shouldn't we consider suicides and accidental deaths as well?

It's the fact that it's declining and are mainly concentrated in areas with high gun control. And to answer another post, there's no such thing as the gunshow loophole. There ARE background checks at them.

If there were no gunshow loophole, then you wouldn't be so strongly opposed to closing it now would you?

What you mean is you want to make felons out of those who sell person to person.  At least own what you mean.   The "loophole" isn't some kind of trap that was placed in a law.  It was the compromised position that came from the Brady Bill.  If you sell guns regularly as a business you have to have a FFL License.  If you build guns for sale you have to have a FFL License.  If you buy a gun from a dealer over the internet you have it shipped to a local FFL license holder who runs a background check.   If you knowingly sell to someone who would fail a background check that is crime.  But should selling to a friend require a background check?  To the point you would make it a felony to enforce it?  That is what you mean by the universal background check. 


Like I said I would take the "universal" background check with 4 conditions.  The inheritance/immediate family exception.  Open the Instant Background Check system to everyone so we could perform them for private transfers.  Take suppressors off the National Firearms Act.  Enforce the Fair Faith and Credit clause when it comes to 50 state Concealed Carry reciprocity.  

[Slander and/or Libel]

Yes, obviously selling to a friend should require a background check, and it should require liability on the part of the seller if the friend would have failed the background check and goes on to do something terrible with the gun. Why should "But he was my buddy!" be a way to get out of basic responsibility about who can get their hands on guns? That seems like a loophole you could drive a truck through.

[°Leprechaun]

CNN and Obama did an excellent job last night. Where was the NRA?

[tschandler]

Yes, obviously selling to a friend should require a background check, and it should require liability on the part of the seller if the friend would have failed the background check and goes on to do something terrible with the gun. Why should "But he was my buddy!" be a way to get out of basic responsibility about who can get their hands on guns? That seems like a loophole you could drive a truck through.

Straw purchasing is already a felony.  Like I said it private sales aren't a loophole.  They are the agreed status quo of the Brady Bill.   But like I said open the ATF Instant Background Check system to all people and it would be fine.   But when gun control advocates refuse to educate themselves on guns it poisons the well.  As does citing Australia which Obama is fond of doing.

[Rooney]

My opinion of the president's speech was it was well delivered and powerfully done. The man is clearly the best communicator we have seen since Reagan. However, much like Reagan, I did not agree with the policies that were coming out of his wonderfully spoken words.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You'll here part of it again during the SOTU

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

"Let no crisis go to waste," was a comment by Tony Rezko in 2008 regarding how Obama would handle a crisis.  They've kept to it by trying to score political points off of every tragedy.  What about those dying of hunger?  It outweighs those dying of gun shots.  We must ban forks now so people don't use them to get fat.  Better ban cars to so people can't drink and drive.  Where does the line end and how stupid does Obama think the non-far-left is in this country.  His tactics may have worked in the slums of Chicago but not when we're all listening. 

[Virginiá]

"Let no crisis go to waste," was a comment by Tony Rezko in 2008 regarding how Obama would handle a crisis. 

This is a political thing in general, not an Obama thing. Both parties do it. Bush did it, but really everyone was complicit in ramming the PATRIOT Act through so fast, you would have thought it was a bill to resurrect Jesus Christ himself. The very best examples come from presidential candidates. Every time something happens, somehow the incumbent will share blame in it no matter what. It's strategy.

Sometimes, things are just political, not partisan.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

"Let no crisis go to waste," was a comment by Tony Rezko in 2008 regarding how Obama would handle a crisis. 

This is a political thing in general, not an Obama thing. Both parties do it. Bush did it, but really everyone was complicit in ramming the PATRIOT Act through so fast, you would have thought it was a bill to resurrect Jesus Christ himself. The very best examples come from presidential candidates. Every time something happens, somehow the incumbent will share blame in it no matter what. It's strategy.

Sometimes, things are just political, not partisan.

He needs to focus on things that actually matter like terrorism and voter fraud.  Poverty is still killing more people than bullets.

[Adam Griffin]

"Let no crisis go to waste," was a comment by Tony Rezko in 2008 regarding how Obama would handle a crisis.  

This is a political thing in general, not an Obama thing. Both parties do it. Bush did it, but really everyone was complicit in ramming the PATRIOT Act through so fast, you would have thought it was a bill to resurrect Jesus Christ himself. The very best examples come from presidential candidates. Every time something happens, somehow the incumbent will share blame in it no matter what. It's strategy.

Sometimes, things are just political, not partisan.

He needs to focus on things that actually matter like terrorism and voter fraud.  Poverty is still killing more people than bullets.

Yes, terrorism and in-person voter fraud are such rampant problems in America. One happens 0.0000031% of the time, and the other adds up to less than 0.5% of the deaths fueled by gun violence. Also, solving poverty means not advocating for policies that have been proven to empirically fuel its growth, which means saying goodbye to the notion of supply-side economics (among other things).

[ProgressiveCanadian]

"Let no crisis go to waste," was a comment by Tony Rezko in 2008 regarding how Obama would handle a crisis. 

This is a political thing in general, not an Obama thing. Both parties do it. Bush did it, but really everyone was complicit in ramming the PATRIOT Act through so fast, you would have thought it was a bill to resurrect Jesus Christ himself. The very best examples come from presidential candidates. Every time something happens, somehow the incumbent will share blame in it no matter what. It's strategy.

Sometimes, things are just political, not partisan.

He needs to focus on things that actually matter like terrorism and voter fraud.  Poverty is still killing more people than bullets.

You don't read statistics do you?

[dead0man]

Yes, terrorism and in-person voter fraud are such rampant problems in America. One happens 0.0000031% of the time, and the other adds up to less than 0.5% of the deaths fueled by gun violence.

So you're saying things that happen only to a tiny fraction of a percentage point aren't all that important, and we probably shouldn't try to pass laws that would harm a much higher percentage of Americans to fix those tiny fractions of a percentage point.