The President Today on New Gun Control Measures

Let the crazy begin.






142 replies
  1. 1
    Hill Dweller says:

    Apparently, NBC invited Sen. Inhofe to give analysis of the President’s proposals.

  2. 2
    Shalimar says:

    Is it too much to hope that crazy people realize doing something crazy with their guns will only increase the chances of getting these proposals passed?

  3. 3
    Rosalita says:

    I was just thinking the same thing, what will the crazies do now? I was thinking that the whackos who think Newtown was a conspiracy were the worst, but I’m sure someone will out-do them soon.

  4. 4
  5. 5
    donnah says:

    This conversation has to happen. It has to start somewhere and it has to start now. Let the wailing and moaning from the gun nuts commence full force, but it’s time. Good for President Obama and VP Biden for tackling this issue. We have to back them up if we truly want change.

  6. 6

    zomg teh TYRANNY. We need the gunz to protect from tyranny. Tyranny is when the govn’t tries to take our gunz.

  7. 7
    General Stuck says:

    Democrats trying to do gun control always makes me nervous. Even if it is needed and justified. And after Newtown, that should be the case for any sane human being.

  8. 8

    Well, clearly the only thing left for Freedom™ Loving Americans® to do is begin indiscriminately shooting Demoncrat politicians and then blow up the Capitol. The fascistic liberals have really left us no other choice.

  9. 9
    Ohmmade says:

    Wapo commenters have already begun.

  10. 10
    Garm says:

    I keep waiting for the internet to blow up. Facebook is starting to show some signs of the crazy from the “Impeach!” crowd but nothing awesome so far. :(

  11. 11
  12. 12
    Drive By Wisdom says:

    You liberals sure do know how to shoot yourselves in the foot.

    2014 is going to be a great year.

  13. 13
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    On a technical note, I’d like to know how he can, by Executive Order, order the CDC to start research on the causes and prevention of gun violence. My understanding was that the Repups in Congress in 96 put a legislative stop to that.

  14. 14
    Hunter Gathers says:

    The Shriveled Genitalia Brigade is out in full force on my Facebook page. It would be funny if they weren’t so pathetic.

  15. 15
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    @General Stuck:

    Democrats trying to do gun control always makes me nervous. Even if it is needed and justified. And after Newtown, that should be the case for any sane human being.

    Not every issue requires a “only a Nixon can go to China” moment. Okay, for all we know, gunz still is one such issue but wtf, at least we can say that, for once, a Democratic president stood up for something that might be political suicide for Democrats to stand up for.

    Ugh, I’m sounding like a firebagger. Must. Go. Shower.

  16. 16

    I don’t have time to watch the video and don’t see a transcript. I think there’s nearly zero chance of any anti-gun legislation making it through because it’s wrapped up in tribalism now. I do think that Obama is turning ‘gun control’ like ‘raising taxes on the rich’ into a popular cause that will become inevitable as the demographic timer keeps ticking. Right now, only absolute desperation and frothing, insane hate is keeping the conservative tribe in even a ‘slowly losing’ position.

  17. 17

    What would an Objectivist say? From teh WApo comments:

    Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.

    —Ayn Rand

    put down your guns. choose mind and morality, not force and violence

  18. 18
    Raven says:

    @Drive By Wisdom: you are such a piece of weasel shit

  19. 19
    General Stuck says:

    @Drive By Wisdom:

    You liberals sure do know how to shoot yourselves in the foot. 2014 is going to be a great year.

    On the other hand, a nice ad asking why do gun crazy republicans favor the slaughter of kindergarteners IS Kind a catchy, dont’cha think?

  20. 20
    Fair Economist says:

    One thing I find encouraging is that Obama is – for the first time I can think of – leading from the *front*, putting out proposals which are really good ideas even though they are somewhat controversial and (in many cases) unlikely to pass. He’s actually using the bully pulpit.

  21. 21
    RaflW says:

    Kevin Drum is an endlessly negative wanker.

    That is all.

  22. 22
    Brachiator says:

    We need to arm baby sitters. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    @Rosalita:

    I was just thinking the same thing, what will the crazies do now? I was thinking that the whackos who think Newtown was a conspiracy were the worst, but I’m sure someone will out-do them soon.

    I was hearing on the radio this morning about a guy who tracks conspiracy web sites. These people are whipping themselves up into new and more manic frenzies.

    Nothing can placate these loons. The results of the presidential elections has only accelerated their fear and anger.

    Things may unfortunately get nasty in ways we cannot even imagine.

  23. 23
    Alex S. says:

    This is very cyncical, but the gun control issue was handed Obama on a silver plate. Now we’ll see if it was healthy to eat it. It would be another historic feat, but there’s a lot of risk associated with it…

  24. 24
    TooManyJens says:

    A lot of good proposals here, but I don’t understand why we’re not talking more about safe storage requirements. It doesn’t matter if a criminal can no longer buy a gun without a background check if they can just steal it from someone who didn’t lock up their guns properly. Not to mention the accidental deaths that could be prevented with proper storage.

  25. 25
    JPL says:

    @Frankensteinbeck: Here is a transcript.. link

  26. 26

    @Brachiator: We need to babysit the armers.

  27. 27
  28. 28
    Fair Economist says:

    @comrade scott’s agenda of rage:

    On a technical note, I’d like to know how he can, by Executive Order, order the CDC to start research on the causes and prevention of gun violence. My understanding was that the Repups in Congress in 96 put a legislative stop to that.

    There’s probably something in legislation since them instructing the CDC to take actions to improve American well-being, which Obama can say overrides the 96 legislation to ignore a major threat to American well-being. If the gun nuts sue to block this, it’ll be great theater and a great opportunity to show just how nuts they are.

  29. 29
    Hal says:

    A friend of mine who is a very normal, intelligent, non-crazy person posted a quote on facebook on gun control he attributed to Hitler. I pointed out that the quote was fake, and nothing, no response. Another friend posted a petition by some GOP Congresswoman against the NY state law passed.

    I’m of the opinion that some people are just going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality that sensible gun control is not black helicopters, and people being dragged from their houses. If you’re attributing bogus quotes to Hitler, you’re just not someone willing to listen.

  30. 30
    hitchhiker says:

    Know what’s ironic? The second amendment was specifically written to get the southern states to sign on to the constitution; it protected their practice of running “well-regulated militias,” otherwise known as slave patrols, which was their primary means of putting down any possible insurrection.

    That’s why it says

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

    The security of the free state (not country) was about the security of the slaveholders, which would absolutely have been infringed if they had not been guaranteed the right to have their militias.

    I learned that from Thom Hartmann. Until this morning I never understood the strange language of that amendment.

    And today we have a black president being called a dictator for daring to suggest that the amendment doesn’t require us all to watch helplessly as innocent people get shot by the dozens.

    I find that ironic.

  31. 31
    Sly says:

    That NYT player is all kinds of shit.

    Here’s the full presser covered by PBS, including Biden’s remarks at the beginning.

  32. 32
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Drive By Wisdom: No we don’t, we don’t own enough guns, and those that we do own are generally locked up.

  33. 33
    nemesis says:

    The legslation wont pass, thanks to the baggers, but it does give Dems the opportunity to say they tried. Half-heartedly tried.

    I dont mind so much the legislation not passing, although Im sick to death of guns and gun murder fetishists. What I mind is the NRA gaining members and the gun lobby appearing to be invincible.

    Mark my word, the announcement will directly result in many states passing laws making guns more available and punishments less stringent. Bank on it. Its a comin.

  34. 34
    AxelFoley says:

    @ranchandsyrup:

    zomg teh TYRANNY. We need the gunz to protect from tyranny. Tyranny is when the govn’t tries to take our gunz.

    Im in ur gubmint, takin all ur gunz.

  35. 35
    aimai says:

    @Brachiator:

    I do imagine it, but I imagine that it is going to look substantially different from the way the gun nuts think its going to look. I think its going to look, in the end, like the 2012 election itself–with the gun owners (the 27 percenters) in the Romney position: very, very, very surprised to find that Obama wins this issue handily. Right now the NRA and its supporters are cocky with years of terrorizing the entire country with their single issue voters. They still have those people but they are becoming the equivalent of the excitable mobs that Romney saw at his airport stops–its a lot of people but not the bigger share of the totality of the people.

    I also think that the very ground they have chosen to stand on, and the form their propaganda takes is so ugly, so vicious and so very, very, in house that they have just no idea how alienating it is to the people who used to be sort of on the fence. The more they attack the children standing with the President and the President’s own daughters, the more they trumpet “it never happened about Newtowne, the more the spit on the corpses of the recently dead the more ordinary people are going to start wondering how we can muzzle and lock up the whole lot of them.

  36. 36

    @AxelFoley: All your gunz are belong to us

  37. 37
    RaflW says:

    @Fair Economist:

    I agree. And the reason I’m hating on Drum today is that he and so many others seem to be missing the key: Republicans drove the political agenda for 30 years by proposing whatever shit they wanted, over and over, and moved the dialog to their turf.

    The timid, go-slow, only advance what’s passable approach of classic liberalism of the same era was part and parcel of the country moving so damn far right.

    If this new, second term Obama is about moving the dialog and agenda to what we want, I say go-Go-GO! Not “Obama Introduces Hopeless Set of Gun Proposals” as his worry-wank in chief rushed to publication at TNR but minutes after the announcement.

    I suspect Kevin Drum has an article about every Obama policy possibility already in the can as to why it’s not possible, or feasible, or likely to pass, or to work, or to be liked and petted and combed with a special sparkle rainbow mane-comb.

    I’m so fucking sick and tired of so-called realist liberals who get off on pissing in the cornflakes.

  38. 38
    roc says:

    @Garm:

    nothing awesome so far. :(

    They’ve no talking points to parrot yet. Let Fox and talk radio throw some things against the wall this afternoon and see what sticks through to tomorrow morning.

  39. 39
    Betty Cracker says:

    @hitchhiker: I didn’t know that either, HH, and have always wondered about that clause. Will check out your link. Thanks!

    @TooManyJens: Agreed. Maybe if we could get the gun safe manufacturers to contribute to the goddamned NRA…

  40. 40
    Felinious Wench says:

    @Drive By Wisdom:

    2014 is going to be a great year.

    Wasn’t that supposed to be 2012 for you guys? How’s that working out so far?

  41. 41
    Anna in PDX says:

    I am from Curry County Oregon. Very very rural southern Oregon coast. I lived there from age 4 to age 15.

    Last week a seargeant in their tiny police force committed suicide with his gun (it was on Slate’s list of gun victims and my partner who reads Slate told me about it).

    Today, what does the sheriff of the county do but issue a letter stating that he refuses to abide by any new Federal gun laws.

    I don’t know what to do about this urban/rural divide, it is increasingly scary how unhinged a lot of gun-owning rural people are about this issue. Background checks are not anti-constitutional. Helping the mentally ill is a good thing. What the heck are they smoking.

  42. 42
    path to perdition says:

    @Brachiator:

    In my corner of suburbia, the “tin-foil hat brigade” is attempted to enter the local public schools because they are sure Sandy Hook was a conspiracy. The local police had to be called to deal with them.

  43. 43
    👽 Martin says:

    I’m expecting a handful of acts of violence related to this. There’s a group of folks that have gotten wound so tightly over this issue – out of all proportion to reality – that a few of them are certainly going to go off.

  44. 44
    bemused says:

    Question. I’ve read that you have to check your guns at the door of some gun shows. Is this true of all gun shows?

    @Hal:

    Same resistance from people quoting the non-existent George Washington liberty speech.

  45. 45
    Corner Stone says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    No we don’t, we don’t own enough guns, and those that we do own are generally locked up.

    Speak for yourself. I’m using a LWRC in each hand to type this response.

  46. 46
    MattF says:

    Maybe I’m just hopelessly naive, but I don’t see much of a downside to Obama proposing reasonable gun legislation. It’s a good idea, it’s the right thing to do, it makes the wingers and the gun nuts look crazy, it appeals to Obama’s base, it drives yet another wedge between the old-guard Midwestern Republicans and the Southerners. And if it loses, and we then have a few more massacres of 6-year olds…?

  47. 47
    RaflW says:

    @Alex S.:

    It would be another historic feat, but there’s a lot of risk associated with it…

    In other words, leadership. This is what being led looks and feels like. It looks and feels like taking risks.

    I’m ready.

  48. 48
    Corner Stone says:

    @bemused:

    Question. I’ve read that you have to check your guns at the door of some gun shows. Is this true of all gun shows?

    I don’t know what you mean by “check” but in TX there’s a law enforcement officer who makes you confirm the firearm is empty/unloaded and he then uses a zip tie through the breech/loading area that has to stay there until you exit.
    Essentially the bolt/firing mechanism can’t close so the weapon can’t be fired until the zip tie is removed.

  49. 49
    Corner Stone says:

    @Rosalita:

    I was just thinking the same thing, what will the crazies do now? I was thinking that the whackos who think Newtown was a conspiracy were the worst, but I’m sure someone will out-do them soon.

    I’m generally tolerant of conspiracy theorists, because I understand and respect healthy skepticism, but my heart sank when I realized these people were serious.

  50. 50
    Punchy says:

    Obama Calls for Broad Action on Guns

    So he’s nominating a female to run ATF? Suck on that, Diversity-Whiners.

  51. 51
    Gravenstone says:

    @ranchandsyrup: Yeah, I was having this “conversation” with some posters who chimed in on my friend’s anti-gun control FB rant yesterday. By this morning, it had devolved into “Emperor O” and “no American troops will attack American citizens if ordered to by this Muslim President”. I’m torn between dreading and salivating at the prospect of where the chatter has gone while I’ve been at work.

  52. 52
    handsmile says:

    Watching the presentation, I have never been prouder of the two men for whom I voted, worked for, and donated to in 2008 and 2012 to lead this country. Obama’s speech was magnificent, drawing upon the registers of emotion, pragmatism, and advocacy. One of his very best, in an already supremely impressive catalogue.

    During his remarks, President Obama asked each one of us to call his/her Congressional representatives to ask two or three questions: “Do you support universal background checks on gun purchases? and Do you support Congressional legislation on restrictions on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines? And if the answer is ‘No’, ask Why not?” [quotation may not be exact]

    If you believe in new gun safety regulations, then it’s on you (and me, and us) as President Obama and Vice President Biden made explicitly clear in their remarks. “This won’t happen if the American people don’t fight for it.”

    Let me encourage you to make those calls now rather than reading comment threads at the Washington Post or listening to the pundits on Village television.

    (I called the offices of Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Senators Gillibrand and Schumer before writing this comment.)

    ETA: And for once, maybe, there’s something a hell of a lot better to do than feeding trolls.

  53. 53
    Corner Stone says:

    @MattF:

    And if it loses, and we then have a few more massacres of 6-year olds

    We’ve had 900+ people die due to gun violence in the month since Sandy Hook, according to the president. Let’s leave it there and not contemplate more first graders dead.

  54. 54
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    I’m expecting a handful of acts of violence related to this.

    There’s just an incredible amount of irony associated with this prediction.

  55. 55
    Tone in DC says:

    @RaflW:

    If this new, second term Obama is about moving the dialog and agenda to what we want, I say go-Go-GO! Not “Obama Introduces Hopeless Set of Gun Proposals” as his worry-wank in chief rushed to publication at TNR but minutes after the announcement.

    I suspect Kevin Drum has an article about every Obama policy possibility already in the can as to why it’s not possible, or feasible, or likely to pass, or to work, or to be liked and petted and combed with a special sparkle rainbow mane-comb.

    I’m so fucking sick and tired of so-called realist liberals who get off on pissing in the cornflakes.

    I like it.

  56. 56
    Sawgrass Stan says:

    @Imani Gandy (ABL): Meese? No, I think he said, “I’m Peach!” Must be a nickname.

  57. 57
    bemused says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Yes, that and other restrictions. I just wanted to know if that is done at every gun show. Interesting that gun nuts don’t object to that sensible safety policy.

  58. 58
    Corner Stone says:

    @Punchy: I thought he meant more magazine covers with bikini models holding mini-guns with belt linked ammo draped over their ass.

  59. 59
    evinfuilt says:

    @Corner Stone: MY GOD!!! You mean a Gun Show is basically the most hazardous place for a gun owner to be. They can’t even use their own gun to defend themselves from fellow gun nuts. Who cares about getting more guns into schools, we need to remove the zip ties of tyranny from gun shows asap.

  60. 60
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Speak for yourself. I’m using a LWRC in each hand to type this response.

    Lady GaGa trumps you with one sticking out of each breast…

  61. 61
    Corner Stone says:

    @bemused:

    Interesting that gun nuts don’t object to that sensible safety policy.

    Huh. You’ve never been to a gun show I guess? They hate that shit. If you want to experience a whole new level of paranoia and just crazy ass crazy, go to a couple gun shows and stand by a booth and listen to a couple conversations.

  62. 62

    @Drive By Wisdom: Well, we sure as hell don’t shoot children.

  63. 63
    Linda Featheringill says:

    Hooray for Obama/Biden!

    HOWEVER . . . .

    If the recent comments by several gun lovers are to be believed, we will probably see several different kinds of violence pop up in the next few weeks. The Secret Service should go into overdrive. ATF should probably cancel all vacations for the time being. Folks who make up the National Guard might want to stay where they can be reached.

    On the other hand, maybe it won’t be all bad. Perhaps Ted Nugent will keep his promise.

  64. 64
    aimai says:

    @RaflW:

    They remind me of a Salada teabag fortune I got once “If you don’t try, you can’t fail.” It felt like it was a self help slogan that had been run through a backwards translator. All this “Oh, it’ll never work” is total bullshit. It might not work right now, it might not work overnight but for fuck’s sake we are not excused from trying.

  65. 65
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @hitchhiker:

    Until this morning I never understood the strange language of that amendment.

    I’m not sure Thom Hartmann is correct in this interpretation.

    IIRC, “Well regulated” in the late 18th Cen. meant what we today would call “properly and adequately armed and equipped”. The language of the 2nd Amendment was based on earlier language dating back to the Articles of Confederation which spelled this out in more detail, specifying that the militia not only be well regulated but be supplied with tents and equipage. The equivalent today would be specifying that you or I or anybody else who is so inclined should be able to keep an M1 tank or an F-16 in our backyard, just in case, because the Federal government has no intention of stockpiliing that stuff, and we might need it in a hurry.

    The 2nd Amendment is a fossil appendage dating back to a period before we decided to maintain a large and well equipped standing (i.e. permanent) professional military force. Ideally it should be repealed, since the need it was addressing (making sure we have enough arms and equipment laying around to be able to assemble an Army on short notice should we be attacked) has been completely superceded by other arrangements.

  66. 66
    Dave says:

    Things may unfortunately get nasty in ways we cannot even imagine.

    Then I guess we will have another Gettysburg and another Reconstruction, this one a good bit harsher than the last.

    In monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death.

    John Adams

  67. 67
    RaflW says:

    Yeah.

    Even St. Ronnie is now being thrown under the bus in favor of unlimited gun-fetishism: “Prominent gun advocate [Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America] suggests Reagan only supported gun safety because he was senile.” (via Think Progress)

  68. 68
    Linda Featheringill says:

    @aimai:

    #63

    “We are not excused from trying.”

    Fairly profound, that.

  69. 69
    Citizen_X says:

    WE NEED OUR GUNS TO DEFEND OUR GUNS!

  70. 70
    Tone in DC says:

    @Linda Featheringill:

    LULz.

    I can’t see Ted locked up. There are no college fresh(wo)men there for him to accost.

  71. 71
    JCT says:

    @handsmile: Yup — our job is now to start making some noise about how we want this to happen. Remember, the NRA likes to think they can win by shrieking loudly. Not this time.

    We owe Obama this much for taking this bold step.

    @RaflW: Hmmm, was he senile back in the 1960’s when he rammed through all of that gun control legislation in CA?

  72. 72
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    Interesting Absurdly hypocritical, ridiculous, farcical, two-faced, and chickenshit-ish that gun nuts don’t object to that sensible safety policy.

    Accurafied.

  73. 73
    bemused says:

    @Corner Stone:

    No, I have not and don’t plan to ever go to one. I live in a rural area and have a pretty good idea of the types of most people I would see there.

  74. 74
    trollhattan says:

    @MattF:
    Sane people–all of them–want an actual response to Sandy Hook and not just the now-standard period of national handwringing after another mass slaughter. We expect action; this is action. Will it lead to actual legislation? Remains to be seen but it’s time to shine the flashlight on the cockroaches who dare to oppose it.

  75. 75
    Corner Stone says:

    @evinfuilt: Hell no. Every person in that place has about 4 cutting tools on them. They’re cocked and locked before you could finish the sentence, “The Kenyans are coming!”
    Plus, all the vendors are carrying live so they’d lay down cover fire by coolly selecting their Muslim and/or liberal targets for takedown.

  76. 76

    @TooManyJens: I agree but maybe because the President could only make recommendations on that particular topic. But to have any effect the requirement would have to be a law. Was a bill or at least a list of suggestions sent to Congress by the WH? And if so, did it contain any language about gun storage? I’m a little out of the loop lately.

  77. 77
    ksmiami says:

    @aimai: The NRA is becoming the poster child(ren) for the reason to have gun control and mental illness funding… Reminds me of the Civil Rights movement – better to shine a light on evil than to hide from it

  78. 78

    @nemesis: True, but these Executive Orders are an excellent beginning.

  79. 79
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @RaflW:

    I’m so fucking sick and tired of so-called realist liberals who get off on pissing in the cornflakes.

    And yet, they’re not realist liberals. A real realist liberal realizes that you have to take chances to make change, and not all of them are going to pass, and those that pass may not do everything you want, but it’s important that they push things in the right direction.

    Like the ACA.

  80. 80
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    since the need it was addressing (making sure we have enough arms and equipment laying around to be able to assemble an Army on short notice should we be attacked) has been completely superceded by other arrangements.

    Is this what you are referring to?

    http://www.opednews.com/articl.....1-252.html

  81. 81
    Tonal Crow says:

    Why is this post not entitled “Fire all of your guns at once and explode into space”?

  82. 82
    Ted & Hellen says:

    Who gives a fuck if psycho House repukes won’t pass any of these proposals?

    Put them out there, push them hard, over and over again, beat the fuckers to death in the press and advertising with the fact of their insanity for all eyes to see.

    Why is this hard to understand?

  83. 83
    Corner Stone says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin): Technically, the SexBot from Austin Powers kinda has to take first prize in this matter.

  84. 84
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    Like the ACA. Yes. This is it. Mission Creep…..

  85. 85
    Mnemosyne says:

    @TooManyJens:

    IIRC, the Supreme Court found that requiring gun locks and other safe storage is unconstitutional because it could mean that you wouldn’t be able to read the numbers of the lock in the dark.

    I wish I was kidding.

  86. 86
    trollhattan says:

    But lo, on the commie left coast, vigilant patriots(tm) remain vigilant in protecting their fellow patriots(tm) despite continual DFH persecution. Let freedom’s sunshine water some damn liberty trees, or somesuch.

    A California lawmaker will propose legislation to ban counties from releasing the addresses and telephone numbers of residents who carry concealed weapons.
    Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, R-Costa Mesa, plans to formally introduce the measure this week, perhaps today, spokesman Saulo Londono said.
    The bill would require counties to continue releasing the names of concealed weapons permit holders, but addresses and telephone numbers would be available only to law enforcement agencies, Londono said.
    “There is no reason for us to provide criminals with a list of who does (and) does not choose to protect their household by carrying a firearm,” Mansoor said in a prepared statement.
    The GOP lawmaker considers his bill a public safety measure because it would keep out of criminals’ hands a list of addresses where they might go to steal a gun, Londono said.
    State law already bars the public release of names and addresses of peace officers, elected officeholders, judges and various other public officials who carry concealed weapons.
    “Let’s provide the same peace of mind to California families,” Mansoor said.

    http://blogs.sacbee.com/capito.....rylink=cpy

  87. 87
    Joey Maloney says:

    @aimai: It might not work right now, it might not work overnight but for fuck’s sake we are not excused from trying.

    “It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it” -Talmud, Avot 2:21

  88. 88
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Drive By Wisdom:
    Is this an old troll or a new one?

  89. 89
    Hoodie says:

    Whether it succeeds in reducing gun violence immediately, timing may be about perfect for this, as it saddles the Repubs with more visible nutbaggery and assholery in the middle of a debt ceiling and budget fight. Every YouTube of some jumpy skinhead emoting about his ready bag and stroking his AR-15 is poisonous, but you can’t really expect the crazy aunts to stay in the attic when the Muslim usurper is treading on their precious freedom to be irresponsible jackoffs, can you? Gun control also seems to play well with a lot the villager media types, maybe because it has the Mike Bloomberg Seal of Approval. Maybe it will tip the balance a bit with respect to their kneejerk tendency to treat Republican insanity as “reasonable.”

  90. 90
    Corner Stone says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    A real realist liberal realizes

    This is fucking deep man.

  91. 91
    Corner Stone says:

    @Amir Khalid: What makes you think the commenter is a troll?

  92. 92
    RaflW says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    Yes. Hence the “so-called.”

    And also my later comment on the unusual feeling of being led by risk-taking rather than typical politicking which is the knack of proposing very popular bills just moments before the general public has to move to flat-out demanding the thing.

  93. 93
    Tonal Crow says:

    @Amir Khalid: It’s an old troll, I believe the same one who was telling us how Romney was a shoo-in.

  94. 94
  95. 95
    TooManyJens says:

    @Mnemosyne: Sweet mother of fuck.

  96. 96
    Mnemosyne says:

    @RaflW:

    I think Obama and his people did a very in-depth study of the Clinton administration before they took office in 2008 and figured out where some of Clinton’s mistakes were made. I suspect this is another situation where they looked at what Clinton did after his re-election and decided that Clinton’s strategy of working with the Republicans ended up not working out, so they came up with a new one.

  97. 97
    aimai says:

    @Linda Featheringill:

    Its Hillel with a dash of “fuck.”

    It is not up to us to complete the task/but neither may we desist from it.

  98. 98
    f space that says:

    @Hoodie: Yes, exactly.

  99. 99
    Gravenstone says:

    @Amir Khalid: Old, and tired.

  100. 100
    aimai says:

    @Joey Maloney:
    Thank you!

  101. 101

    @Gravenstone: My FB trolling devolved into, “Citizens being able to have any kind of arm is a deterrent to gov’t tyranny”. Fucking hell.

  102. 102
    Forum Transmitted Disease says:

    If you want to experience a whole new level of paranoia and just crazy ass crazy, go to a couple gun shows and stand by a booth and listen to a couple conversations.

    @Corner Stone: I haven’t been in a while. Last time I bought two thousand rounds of ammo and left right after checking out the booth with the “Clinton Hunting Permit” and “Liberal Hunting Permit” stickers, feeling really fucking good about my purchases. Not without at least a token fight, you fuckers.

    If the right wing can really get into power in this country, those gun show folks purveying that crap will be the leaders of the “civil patrols” working neighborhoods with lists from the Registrar of Voters office to make sure that only “desirable” people live in the choice homes.

  103. 103
    Raven says:

    @Amir Khalid: Another bullshit name, same punk.

  104. 104
    gogol's wife says:

    @RaflW:

    Me too. I’m behind him all the way. I thought it was a great speech.

  105. 105
    FlipYrWhig says:

    I think there’s a good political argument _not_ to do this because it’ll most likely prove futile, antagonizing, polarizing, you name it. But at the same time I’m heartened that they’re trying, because there are some things more important than carefully hoarding your political capital and nursing your reputation as a go-along-to-get-along kind of guy. Bully pulpits are GO!

  106. 106
    gogol's wife says:

    @handsmile:

    I’ve called my senators (of course, we’re among the “usual suspects,” but so what).

    I kept thinking during the speech that he knows full well what a risk it is. You can see it in his face.

  107. 107
    Forum Transmitted Disease says:

    Is this an old troll or a new one?

    @Amir Khalid: Old troll.

  108. 108
    Mnemosyne says:

    @trollhattan:

    Meh, I’m not sure I have a huge problem with that, because most counties in California have a lot of restrictions on who can get a concealed weapon.

    I would like to have a uniform state law about it rather than leaving it up to the sheriffs of each county, but once we have that, I don’t have any problem not releasing the addresses of people who have concealed weapons permits. IIRC, Vincent Bugliosi had a concealed weapons permit while he was prosecuting Charles Manson.

    ETA: The first time a woman who was hiding from a violent ex-husband was killed would pretty much be the end of releasing those addresses.

  109. 109
  110. 110
    gogol's wife says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    Sounds like unlimited corporate cash to me.

  111. 111
    FormerSwingVoter says:

    I love how people say “GRAAAH THEY’RE TAKIN’ MAH FREEDOMS” based on the executive orders. How can one possibly justify looking at “we’re funding research on gun violence” as a bridge too far?

  112. 112
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Drive By Wisdom: I believe in an undisclosed executive order, Obama banned the practice of foot-shooting.

  113. 113
    Origuy says:

    @RaflW: Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act in 1967. He was senile then?

  114. 114
    RaflW says:

    @Hoodie:

    It saddles the Repubs with more visible nutbaggery and assholery in the middle of a debt ceiling and budget fight

    Yes. Part of how the right moved so much crap over the years has been the output of crap. Flood the progressives with things to fight off, spreading the ranks thin.

    Flooding the right with things they have to parry, all while their party discipline is in shambles, it’s potentially quite fun. And maybe, just maybe, productive.

  115. 115
    Raven says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Last thing we want to have is polarization.

  116. 116
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Hoodie: I think this is very much part of it — to prompt the reaction, “Everything the Republicans do these days just goes to show they’re a bunch of crazy people.”

  117. 117
    bemused says:

    @ranchandsyrup:

    I hope all those delusional tyranny fighters have all their affairs in order.

  118. 118
    RaflW says:

    @FormerSwingVoter:

    Well, given that spiral fluorescent lightbulbs are Stalinism incarnate, one has to see that their analysis of liberty is, erm, flimsy.

  119. 119
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Raven: I would guess that 4 out of 5 political consultants would say that it was an idea that should be avoided because of how much more downside it has than upside. But I’m glad Team Obama is not fucking around worrying about that.

  120. 120
    Tonal Crow says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    @TooManyJens:

    IIRC, the Supreme Court found that requiring gun locks and other safe storage is unconstitutional because it could mean that you wouldn’t be able to read the numbers of the lock in the dark.

    That’s not really correct. The Court struck down the trigger-lock requirement because it interpreted it as not permitting a homeowner to unlock the gun even for self-defense in her own home. See Heller at p.58. http://www.supremecourt.gov/op.....07-290.pdf . It remains an open question whether a statute that requires trigger locks to be present and engaged except when using the gun for self-defense in the home, is constitutional.

    I say, throw as many regulations against the wall as possible, again and again, until we reach some approximation of sanity.

    In particular, let’s see mandatory liability insurance ($1 million minimum), bans on carrying outside the home (except for hunting in season with appropriate weapons), and bans on carrying at all when intoxicated.

  121. 121
    JCT says:

    And of course Marco Rubio instantly comes out with the usual nonsense argument that these measures won’t do anything and SECOND AMENDMENT shouty crap.

    They are just going to try to wear us down with the same bankrupt old arguments.

    We can’t let them.

    Can’t wait for National Gun Appreciation Day on the 19th — these idiots will let their freak fly and help make the point that they are all lunatics quite efficiently.

  122. 122
    handsmile says:

    @gogol’s wife:

    That’s what leadership looks like.

    Yes, Obama and Biden know full well what they are up against, politically (how I wish there was a whisper typeface) and even perhaps physically. That’s why I am so proud of them, quite overwhelmed in fact, right now.

    (and thanks, though I knew you would be making those calls. hope others might summon the effort.)

  123. 123
    lyford says:

    I want to know what actual data New York used to decide that 7 was the magic number for magazine capacity.

    I’m all for reducing gun violence, but prefer that legislation be based more on science than emotion.

  124. 124
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @lyford: Cowboy six-shooter is in, above that is out?

  125. 125
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Tonal Crow:

    I’m paraphrasing here, but as best as I can from memory [Thanks to Uncle for finding the exact quote], when Justice Scalia Roberts was asking Dellinger about trigger locks, and Dellinger claimed they could be removed quickly, since it was an easy three digit combination. Scalia Roberts quipped back:

    “So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses…”

    Everyone in the room chuckled. I’m thinking Justice Scalia Roberts is not a fan of trigger locks.

    http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/.....arguments/

    So it does appear that Scalia’s concern was that you couldn’t get the trigger lock open in an emergency, not that it would be illegal to use the gun in an emergency because you had opened the trigger lock.

    (Fixed my strikeouts to conform with the original being quoted)

  126. 126
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @handsmile:

    That’s what leadership looks like.

    Don’t forget courage of your convictions...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....86116.html

  127. 127
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Drive By Wisdom: Wait, you think these proposals will poll poorly with most people?

    Wisdom…you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…

  128. 128
    kerFuFFler says:

    @bemused: ” I just wanted to know if that is done at every gun show. Interesting that gun nuts don’t object to that sensible safety policy. ”

    They like regulations that protect THEIR asses. And I think the organizers understand what a deadly free-for-all would ensue if someone started shooting and people tried to shoot the shooter but could not figure out who it was. It would completely refute their insistence that widespread carrying of guns in public keeps people safe. Come to think of it, so does their current policy of disabling the guns at the gun shows….

  129. 129
    Brachiator says:

    @aimai:

    I also think that the very ground they have chosen to stand on, and the form their propaganda takes is so ugly, so vicious and so very, very, in house that they have just no idea how alienating it is to the people who used to be sort of on the fence.

    This is very true. Problem is, the worst of these people don’t care. You can see the hateful rhetoric increasing on other wingnut web sites.

    And as other posters here note, the wackiest wingnuts don’t respond when challenged on Facebook pages and elsewhere, and flee to sites where their anger and disappointment can be better “appreciated.”

    Even isolated and alone, some of the very worst of these people may cause considerable damage before they can be dealt with.

  130. 130
    bemused says:

    @kerFuFFler:

    It not only refutes their argument, it shreds it to pieces.

  131. 131
    DFH no.6 says:

    @aimai:
    aimai, you have been one of my very favorite commenters on the lefty blogosphere for many years now.

    I hope with all my heart that your take on this is correct, and not only does Obama win this issue handily, but the gun-nuts are marginalized, and at least a serious move toward effective gun control becomes a reality in America.

    What my head tells my hopeful heart, though, is: ah, it would be pretty to think so, wouldn’t it?

    By which I mean, Obama won’t really “lose” anything – for the Obama Administration, anyway – but also won’t “win” anything truly important or lasting, either.

    And neither will the gun-nuts be marginalized in our broader society. In fact, over the past generation or so just the opposite has occurred, and I don’t expect either the Newtown tragedy (or Obama’s response to it) to change that significantly.

    Goddamn I’d love to be wrong about all that, but unfortunately the NRA/gun-nuts not only won the gun-control debate a long time ago, they have heavily bolstered that win over the intervening years with such very important things as the recent first-time-ever SCOTUS ruling that the 2nd Amendment confers a constitutional right on individuals to “bear arms” (and even Obama said right out he agrees with that stance on the 2nd Amendment).

    And with over 300 million guns of all kinds (including millions of military-style weapons) in private hands in America, I don’t see how you put that genie back in the bottle.

    That’s the crux right there – the gun-nuts for the most part have the law on their side, and we really are not going to pry their guns from their cold, dead hands (anymore than the fascists are ever going to deport all 12 million or so undocumented aliens).

    So yeah, more stringent background checks and limits on magazines, perhaps, but gun violence remains at a stupidly high level in our fair land for a long, long time.

    I suppose this makes me Kevin Drum or something.

  132. 132
    Corner Stone says:

    @kerFuFFler: Um, it’s a little of that and it’s a little of protecting the inventory of the dealers there, but it’s also because if you’re bringing a gun in to a show then you are considering selling it. That means passing it back and forth to people interested. And it only takes one schmoo not unloading his 1911 to cause a nasty incident.
    So it’s a mix, IMO.

    I know people that carry their concealed weapon into shows but if you get caught with a loaded weapon you get your ass handed to you by LEO so it’s pretty stupid. But…

  133. 133
    lyford says:

    @FlipYrWhig:
    As I read it, no magazines that can hold more then 7 rounds. No grandfathering. Owners have one year to sell magazines larger than 10 rounds out of state. Existing 8 to 10-round magazines can be kept if modified to accept no more than 7.

    Some states already have 10-round restrictions,and manufacturers have responded. I really wonder what drove NY to 7.

    For reference, the original Colt 1911 .45 auto had a 7-round standard magazine. The Glock 17’s standard magazine holds 17, but 10-round magazines are available.

  134. 134
    lyford says:

    @kerFuFFler:
    Many gun shops, ranges, etc. permit loaded guns as long as they are kept holstered. Guns that are being handled anywhere but at the firing line are required to be empty. It’s a realistic safety precaution.

  135. 135
    Brachiator says:

    @path to perdition:

    In my corner of suburbia, the “tin-foil hat brigade” is attempted to enter the local public schools because they are sure Sandy Hook was a conspiracy. The local police had to be called to deal with them.

    What in the world were they trying to accomplish?

  136. 136
    handsmile says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin):

    For the most part, I have a fair amount of respect for your commentary (often terse and provocative) on this blog. But today and on this issue generally, I’m not abiding cynicism. OK?

  137. 137
    Tonal Crow says:

    @Mnemosyne: The opinion is the law. Orals are exactly orals, not law. Maybe they give insight into justices’ attitudes, or maybe not. But that is all.

  138. 138
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @handsmile:

    Thanks, but you can’t have Falstaff, and have him, thin.

  139. 139
    Pococurante says:

    This gun owner likes what he hears.

  140. 140
    Peregrinus says:

    @lyford:

    I’m not sure, myself. The law was drafted and passed pretty quickly by consensus of the Governor, the Senate coalition, and the Assembly Democrats, so there seems to be very little background on what it does.

    As far as Obama’s proposals, I can’t wait for the absolutely behemothic bitching that is going to ensue the moment my Michigander friend comes back from work and gets on his computer.

  141. 141
    Peregrinus says:

    @Peregrinus:

    Can’t edit (FYWP). I meant “background on how it was drafted,” not “background on what it does.” For a language teacher my English ability is very quickly slipping.

  142. 142
    pattonbt says:

    @Drive By Wisdom: Bookmark it Libs!

    Christ, you have a worse track record on prognostication than I do. That must bode for an awesome 2013 / 14 for the D side of the ledger.

    Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Comments are closed.