Thursday, January 17, 2013

Rate Obama's Gun Control Proposals

Before President Obama made his gun violence proposal today, VP Biden commented that he's "never seen the nation's conscience so shaken by what happened at Sandy Hook." And that's what we need to address. There is no way we can stop cRaZy people from being that way, so no one proposal is going to work.

Here are Obama's four legislative proposals:

1. Reduce high-capacity mags. No more than ten rounds. This will not stop the insaniac, but he'll at least have to stop to load instead of filling a Newton first-grader's body with 17 bullets. - I agree with this proposal completely. I would argue that the most ardent gun nut should agree with this. So should the NRA.

2. Close the gun show sale loophole to require criminal background checks for all sales. - Once again, this will slow down a murderer, giving him time to reflect and possibly cool down. I agree with this one completely.

3. Background check improvements. - As far as I am concerned, the states are going to have to take the lead here.

4. Assault rifle ban. - Although I can see no reason for anyone to own an assault rifle, I don't think the case has been made that this contributes to the gun violence. I do think the case has been made with respect to 50-caliber sniper rifles.

Where would you be willing to compromise?

109 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'll compromise on the loophole. The other stuff is simply ridiculous.

We're all entitled to the same weapons that protect the president's lovely family. That's fair, right?

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

In all seriousness, I have to admit that when I get the opportunity I watch that show on A&E called Duck Dynasty. I am not a fan of television. I watch a few sporting events here and there, but over Christmas, I started to watch that show.

That family lives and makes a lot of money off of hunting. Practically everything they eat are hunted off of their land in Louisiana.

Now this family and their friends seem to be respectable and educated people. The eldest seems to have an assault rifle and it seems that he has a need for it. He uses it for protection from wild animals and the likes. And he also uses it to kill animals to eat.

Now this may be the exception, but I don't know.

If there is a legitimate use would some of these things on this list still be capable of obtaining? As it is now, no one is supposed to have capacity magazines unless you have a federal permit or are a police officer. If Obama's proposals are granted, I would hope that police officers can still obtain assault rifles and high capacity magazines. That would be my only suggestion for this.

But I get a little uneasy when government tries to regulate what a person can or cannot have, especially for personal protection, in the name of safety. Instead of making the stuff illegal to have, try a way, any way, to make it more difficult to get: higher fees, longer waiting periods, more thorough background checks.

Since I live in the city, I have no use for a gun for fear of a stray bullet hitting my neighbors. But if I live in the hicks, I would have an arsenal like it is nobody's business. And I would be pretty upset if the government came in and mandated that I can't have this or that. But that is just me.

By the way, can anyone obtain a rocket/grenade launcher and a flame thrower? Seriously.

Anonymous said...

Agree keep the gun control laws in the cities like the killing fields in Easton. That will make Sal happy. Leave the rest of us alone.

What, Me Worry? said...

Can't agree with you on the high capacity mags viewpoint. Reloading a clip can be done in less than 2 seconds.

I'm all for closing the gun show loophole on background checks.

As far as the background checks, I think it should be federally mandated to included checks that include a search for mental problems, not just criminal.

As a gun owner, even I can't see the need for a 50 cal. sniper rifle.

What needs to be addressed isn't really the types of weapons ( or magazines ) owned, it's who is in possession of them.

Why not make tougher sentences for those found carrying without a license, or in possession of a handgun they don't own, or serial numbers obliterated? It would certainly rid the streets of gang bangers.


Anonymous said...

4. Assault rifle ban. - Although I can see no reason for anyone to own an assault rifle, I don't think the case has been made that this contributes to the gun violence. I do think the case has been made with respect to 50-caliber sniper rifles.
How so?
they are both deadly.
A 50 cal must take some skill and or practice to use too. do they have large magazines also? Are they expensive guns? rounds are expensive. the 1000 yard range is far away from here.
I expect the shots are very loud.
How many sportsman out there use an assault rifle for hunting? or a 50 cal? Got a moose in the yard?
How many civilian deaths a year here in the USA do either of these weapons cause?

Anonymous said...

@11:14 your understanding of the legality regarding high capacity mags is way out in left field.
How do we begin when so many are clueless about the current, complex, state and federal laws?
And let's throw in single shot ( sometimes capable of a few rounds more ) 50 cals., never an issue, certainly never the issue that box cutters have presented, because it makes BOH and others feel righteous ? Sure, why not?
BOH, you have a legal background. Details and definitions matter in the realm of lawmaking.
Gross distortions of nomenclature,legal language and current law matter.
People are clambering for solutions and they don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Ignorance or stupidly won't find real world solutions. Neither well feel-good but misguided nonsense.
Remember the "plastic gun" hysteria and the ridiculous legal remedies? No. Most likely not.

Franklin said...

How many crimes have been committed by a 50? Zero is my guess. Some people like to target practice. Need has nothing to do with the issue. Someday an official may say you don't need that kind of car house or doctor.

Anonymous said...

1) Assult Rifles are already banned.
2) All firearms ( not unlike all motor vehicles) are extremely dangerous.

I know, I know. Why quibble with words and definitions? It's only language, the basis for all legal remedy. Correct councilor?

Anonymous said...

But Bernie loves the 50 cal ban. It just FEELS so good.
Who reading this blog, even amoung gun owners, has ever even seen one, let alone fired one?
No matter. It just feels right to ban them. And feeling good and pretending to address problems is so important in politics.
Complex issues require so much more work to solve..... that's such a downer.
Ban the 50! Easton can feel better tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Bet there aren't half a dozen 50 cal. Barretts in a three county area.
But like the man said-----if it makes you feel good.
And righteous!. Don't underestimate the value of feeling good and righteous.

Anonymous said...

What a waste of time, effort and discussion on all levels. Nothing Omao dictated will do ANYTHING to stop what happened in CT, CO, VA, and so on. He failed to address the need to require firearms to be secured in ones home. He failed to address mental health issues. Whatever.

Anonymous said...

I'd be willing to limit magazine capacity to 20 in handguns and 30 in long rifle. No less.
I'd also be willing to pay a 8% federal surcharge on all new firearms and magazines. Those tax dollars dedicated for research into intentional violence,crime,and mental health.
( Why isn't ANYONE talking about that? Politics. That's why.)

Anonymous said...

I really appreciate that small group of anti-gun advocates that are honest about what they want. The repeal of the Second Amendment. At least those people are up front.

michael molovinsky said...

the unintended consequence of the discussion since the newtown shootings has been the rapid sale of most available guns. this new initiative will guarantee the sale of those remaining.

Anonymous said...

Bernie, please explain which of these initiatives would have prevented Newtown. I'm struggling to understand what progress was made yesterday.

Anonymous said...

BUT IT ALL FEELS SO GOOD MOLOVINSKY !

Bernie O'Hare said...

6:42, None of these initiatives would have prevented Newtown. I think I mentioned that in my post. I believe the President said something along those lines yesterday.

I will argue that the high capacity mags have to go. No that won't stop a ass murderer. But it will keep him from killing as many people bc he has to stop to reload. To me, this is simply a no-brainer as is closing the loophole.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"We're all entitled to the same weapons that protect the president's lovely family. That's fair, right?"

Actually, I thought that NRA video was one of the most disgusting personal attacks I've seen ever. And no, we're not all entitled to Secret Service protection.

Anonymous said...

I could live with back ground checks at gun shows, provided there is not national registration of the guns with the government.

Although government does not need more money to waste, i probably could live with the tax on guns/ammo provided it went to mental health services.

other than that, there is no need to limit magazines or the type of gun citizens can buy

Anonymous said...

Haven't we been over this again and again?

Please don't confuse Bernie with the facts.

Anonymous said...

@11:14
WTF are you talking about?

Bernie O'Hare said...

5:50, I am opposed to high capacity magazines. There simply is no reason why some asshole should be able to riddle a first grader's body with 17 bullets.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"How many crimes have been committed by a 50? Zero is my guess. Some people like to target practice. Need has nothing to do with the issue. Someday an official may say you don't need that kind of car house or doctor."

I like to drive tanks and SP howitzers but you won't see one in my driveway.

There is no rational basis for allowing civilians to own 50 caliber sniper rifles. I do not believe the President has proposed banning these, but i would.

Anonymous said...

The reason the gun banners (and I'm not including Bernie in this) want to ban the .50 cal rifle is because it brings caliber into the discussion.

After all, once the .50 cal rifle is banned (never mind that it's not a problem), who really needs a .45 caliber pistol? And so on, and so on.

The gun banners are working many steps ahead, and the law abiding are merely reacting. What was proposed yesterday has nothing to do with solving the problem, and is merely advancing an elitist agenda that's been out there for decades.

Anonymous said...

High capacity magazines have to go!

We agree this won't make any difference....,,,.,but they have to go.

I don't see any value in following the discussion on this blog any longer.

Anonymous said...

At 7:22

Hit the nail directly on the head.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I didn't say they won't make any difference. I said that they won't prevent another Newtown, but they certainly will make a difference. The effect of a ban on high capacity mags is obvious. It will prevent someone from shooting as many people. He has to stop to reload, giving others a chance to stop him. The shots he does take have to be better aimed.

This is simply a no-brainer. I suspect there will be bi-partisan support fr this in Congress as there should be. No it will not stop another massacre, but it will slow it down and reduce the carnage.

Also, I'm all for waiting periods to deter crimes of passion.

I'd agree that the case has no been made for an assault rifle ban.

Anonymous said...

11:14 -

Think about what you are proposing.

Perhaps the government should leave Freedom of Speech alone as well, but instead just charge expensive fees, waiting periods, and background checks before it can happen.

Then the government can move on to doing the same with religious choices and other rights.

Anonymous said...

Bernie is like the people who attempt to prevent wemon from gaining legal access to abortions by marching around with graphic photos of aborted fetuses.Exploit any image however sad.
If you don't agree with him you have no concern for the children killed in that unspeakable tragedy.
Would several two sec. reloads made a difference?Of course not.
Wave the bloody flag BOH. You are so righteous.

Bernie O'Hare said...

7:39, This has nothing to do with waving a blood flag. It is a reality. Should we ignore it because it is an unpleasant image? A ban on high capacity mags will slow the monsters down. That's just logic. And in a shooting situation, those seconds matter.

I did not say that you have no concern for those children. I am sure you do. I am not trying to vilify you or your viewpoint. I am asking you to be reasonable and logical.

Instead of falling in lockstep behind the NRA, think for yourself. You know this is a no-brainer.

Do you stand with the people or a gun lobby?

Anonymous said...

5:50 am,

So you criticize a person's understand of the law, but you don't cite the law. Leaves one to believe that you don't know the law either. If you did, you would have cited it.

Anonymous said...

Bernie -

The NRA ad was right on target (no pun intended) and pointed out the hypocrisy of the President on this issue. The President, Mayor Bloomberg, Hollywood celebrities and others love stand behind armed guards while making proposals to take away our right to self-protection.

I'm sorry, but the right to protect yourself is for EVERYONE. One doesn't have to be rich or famous to have a real need to protect themselves or their families. You more than anyone should realize that.

Anonymous said...

"Limited capacity mags..... wouldnt have made a difference ........but they certainly will make a difference."

Am I missing something here?

Bernie O'Hare said...

I disagree completely. I found the ad highly insulting and offensive. If course the president and his children are entitled to more protection than the rest of us. We don't face daily murder threats as he does. We don'
t have a Secret Service. I saw plenty of hypocrisy in that ad, but it as from the NRA.

Bernie O'Hare said...

7:54, As evidence by your use of ... , you are missing plenty.

Pocono Charlie said...


1. Magazines can be swapped quickly; this is mostly style over substance.

2. I keep reading that some 40% of all gun sales go through this loophole. Tell me: if the sales is undocumented, where did the media come up with 40%? More style, less substance.

3. Feds have infrastructure for national checks, so while I applaud any individual state's efforts, this remains a federal domain.

4. Define an assault weapon. Go on, I'll wait. The fact is a person can disassemble a semi-automatic hunting rifle (long barrel, wooden stock, etc.) and attach a black barrell, a black bi-pod, a black fold-out stock, and a pistol grip an suddenly it looks like a military grade weapon with the same firing mechanism as the hunting rifle. If a politician can't define an 'assault weapon' they shouldn't call for a ban on one.

Anonymous said...

@7:52
Who has the time to educate the grossly misinformed? Someone no doubt, but not I.
Do just a little homework and you tell us. In Pa are 30 round mags limited to police and military? For hunting? For the range?
How about in Calif?
Complex legal territory -- no place for siimpletons.

Bernie O'Hare said...

1. Magazines can be swapped quickly; this is mostly style over substance."

I would argue that in the seconds it takes to swap a magazine, a mass murderer can be stopped.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again......
Attack someone for a typo or a random mis-spelling produced on a minuscule smart phone keypad.
The kind of error you yourself make regularly.
And you rail against the personal attack....at least if it is perceived to be leveled at one of your pet contributors ( who also produce plenty of typos and grammatical errors).
All part of LV Rambling .

Bernie O'Hare said...

8:14, I point out that if you use ... in the midst of quoting me, you are obviously missing quite a bit. That's not a personal attack. That's a factual observation. You don't argue with someone by taking him out of context.

And yes, I do oppose anonymous personal attacks as the mark of a coward.

Resident of Allentown said...

I agree with the background checks and research and that is all.

I've read enough of the Federalist Papers to understand why the 2nd amendment was put in place and it was not just for protection from criminals. It was put in place for civilians to able to keep their government in check. One only has to look at history: Bosnia, Hitler, the former Comunist Block countries where supposed civilized governments turned on their own people. As a former communist block co-worker once said to me: "People always asked me how so many could be controlled by so few and the answer was "they had all the guns"". You may think it's paranoid not to trust our government and that there is no need for high capacity mags or .50 cals that can go thru a tank, but at least I know that if some insane movement decides to try and shove myself and loved ones into a camp I will be able to do more than shake a fist at them.

Bill Coker said...

I'm a vet but not a gun owner. However I have no problem with anyone owning any type they like as long as they are legally obtained. No matter what controls are in place they will have no effect on the illegal owner. Mexico has strict gun control but high tech weapons run rampart.

Let's concentrate on penalizing the illegal use and leave the legals alone. I still doubt if stricter penalties will affect the illegals but if caught, will keep them off the streets.

Pocono Charlie said...

1. Magazines can be swapped quickly; this is mostly style over substance."

I would argue that in the seconds it takes to swap a magazine, a mass murderer can be stopped.


Only if there are citizens who are allowed to carry, or sufficient armed guards, will such a tragedy be cut off. Waiting on the Police - and I support and admire those who serve - will not stop an idiot intent on slaughtering.

Anonymous said...

Pocono Charlie -

Regarding your item #4 about "assault weapons", I couldn't agree more.

In fact, as soon as I hear someone use the term "assault weapon", I know they are not knowledgeable (at best) or deliberately manipulative about the subject they're talking about.

Anonymous said...

Bernie, I read in the mC about how they love what Obama is banning yet they also ran an article about the Allentown woman who lied on her application and bought a gun at the Army-Navy store in whitehall. She gave it to her brother who shat two NYPD officers. He was killed by them (thankfully) and the police offers are ok (thankfully). The lady who purchased the gun...out on bail. Our current laws say that is a federal crime but yet all the laws in the world did nothinig to stop this. And now she is out on bail instead of being in federal prison like the law states. So if you feel happy about what King Obama is doing....I am happy for you. But the new laws are just paper and criminals will break laws no matter how many there are. BTW...I agree with you (and Obama) on closing the loopholes for purchases at gun shows and more backround checks for mental stability. Even if it takes months to go through the process.

Franklin said...

Mr.O'Hare if you have the means and ability to own a tank and you wanted one why cant you have one? If your riding a tank on your own property and not destroying my property who am I to say what you can or can not do.
There are private tank collections in the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAHkEsyUpPE

Anonymous said...

I have no problem at all with expanding background checks and even though every gun show I have ever been at required the exact same background check for selling a firearm as buying it at a store (aka there is no loophole)I am okay with that.

I would be pissed if "high capacity" magazines (aka standard capacity for AR-15's, 30 round is the standard capacity) were banned but I could deal. Banning "assault weapons" is nonsensical, they are statistically underrepresented in gun related crimes, so you are really only punishing law abiding citizens who did nothing wrong.

Pocono Charlie said...

The problem I have with the NRA ad is that it was wrong to pick on the children of any US President.

The children of a President do constitute a national security issue.

Now, had the NRA used, I don't, the children of MSNBC's David Gregory, who are enrolled at the same SIDWELL FRIENDS school that has long had armed guards (even before Mr. Obama became President), then their point would have been spot-on.

Anonymous said...

Bernie O'Hare said...

"I disagree completely. I found the ad highly insulting and offensive."

Bernie

What was insulting and offensive was watching our President use children as props for political advantage.

What, Me Worry? said...

Bernie,

I've previously posted that your thoughts, on reducing the size of a clip, won't make a difference (IMHO). I also stated that I don't see the need for a 50 Cal., but that doesn't mean I'd be in favor of preventing a responsible gun owner from buying one.

You seem to believe that a smaller clip (you said 10 instead of 17 rounds) would make a difference.

I'm curious... Have you ever fired a semi-automatic and are you familiar with the speed in which they can be reloaded? If the SOB at Newtown had a 10 round clip, it wouldn't have changed the total dead. What would have changed it is a few trained faculty taking him out.

The point that the majority of responsible gun owners are trying to make is that it isn't the weapon, it's the failure of the system to prevent the crazies from obtaining them.

There has been little mention of Australia (someone did post a video on another of your posts). We gun owners are well aware of what occurred when Australia banned gun ownership. Crime went up, because criminals with guns realized that citizens who obeyed the law couldn't protect themselves.

Allow the government to ban one type, then the next crazy who uses a scoped rifle will result in the government making a case that only shotgun ownership should be allowed, and so on, until we are disarmed.

Anonymous said...

Pocono Charlie -

I don't think the NRA ad begrudges this President, his predecessors, and their children the Secret Service protection that they receive.

The problem is that the President is trying to remove or diminish the right of private citizens to protect their children, supposedly as a response to a specific act of violence against a group of school children.

Yet no one on this blog is claiming that the measures proposed would have stopped the tragedy that supposedly prompted the proposals.

Anonymous said...

What Me Worry -

You're right on about the incrementalism that will come.

Once the capacity issue is bypassed by someone merely changing the magazine quickly or by simply switching to a second gun they are carrying, there will be widespread realization that limits on magazine capacity have no effect on the damage one can do.

Of course then, instead of repealing the limits on magazine capacity, there will be calls to limit the number of magazines one can own, and then the number of guns one can own.

Yesterday's proposals have nothing to do with solving a problem. They are simply the first step in a larger plan to gut people's Second Amendment rights.

Anonymous said...

Close the loop holes on the background issue. Let the rest alone! I read a comment recently (Sal Panto) where he stated that
"if taking semi auto weapons off the market saves one life, it is worth it." My stand is "if having a semi-auto weapon in my house enables me to defend my home and kill some rapist or murderer when he breaks into my house, it is worth it." Guns are cheaper than alarm systems that can easily be disconnected.

Anonymous said...

How many homicides are attributed to rifles each year?

How many with 50 calibur sniper rifles?

The answer is very very few.

In fact in 2012 there were roughly 4k handgun homicides and roughly 300 rifle homicides.

Many many people shoot for sport targets and use these semi-auto rifles for varmint and predator hunting.

They are emotional responses to a perceived problem.

We should ban cars, they account for far more deaths than guns do.

Anonymous said...

How many cars need to go over 65 mph? If limiting that would save just one life, the government should do it, right?

How many deaths are caused by drunk driving? Maybe we should ban alcohol? After all, if the standard is saving just one life (as the President said), why not?

Oh yeah, we already tried the alcohol ban and that didn't work either. Maybe the President slept through history class.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:02,

They didn't teach American history in inidoneisa when Obama was eating dogs.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"I'm curious... Have you ever fired a semi-automatic and are you familiar with the speed in which they can be reloaded?"

Yes. I am familiar with them.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"How many deaths are caused by drunk driving? Maybe we should ban alcohol? After all, if the standard is saving just one life (as the President said), why not?"

While we don't ban alcohol, we do place serious restrictions on its use, and for good reason. The same argument is being made about guns, and for good reason.

Anonymous said...

The president used kids as props. His progeny are absolutely fair game. He ought to explain why he won't let them near a public school. Save the security argument. Jimmy Carter sent Amy to public school. Obama's kids are not more valuable than mine. To me, they are less valuable than mine. He demands the best for his. I want the same options. He did nothing to prevent another mass shooting. He simply used kids and corpses to advance a political agenda. No wonder he can't draw flies to his coronation.

Anonymous said...

It takes an amateur 1.5 seconds to reload a 10 round clip. Let me know when we're going to have a serious discussion.

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

Serious Restrictions on Alcohol? Really?

How many minors can get alcohol whenever they want? It's banned for them, does that "ban" do any good?

Drunken Driving is Banned, but how many of them go through the county courthouse a month?

Lets be serious here.

These bans will not accomplish anything except making it more difficult for citizens interested in shooting sports.

Regards,

Colin Monahan

Anonymous said...

It was unseemly for the president to use children as props. It was in at least as much poor taste, perhaps more, for the NRA to use the presidents children as props.
Both sides would do well to retain some civility, if they want to be effective.

Most of the Presidents proposals are politically inspired nonsense. The thinnest veener of a solution.

Anonymous said...

Bernie, agreed that you never use a President's kids in anything, period.

That being said, the point made - rules for elites and separate rules for everyone else - is unfortunately true. Taking guns out of it, you only have to look/see that Congress exempts itself from most every law it passes, including Obamacare, for proof.

The point raised by the NRA is valid.

The Banker

Anonymous said...

Sorry Colin, restrictions on alcohol are quite effective, not perfect. But quite effective as born out by reams of good public health research.
It's always helpful to know what you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

Yo Sal, why not install goveners on all motor vehicles, all of them, topped out at 65 MPH. ( Aftet all, who "needs" to go 95MPH.)
I'll bet ya it would save at least one life.
No?
Please do reply Sal.

Anonymous said...

By using kids as props, Obama has framed the argument in terms of whether or not one is in favor of protecting kids. As Bernie explained, not a single one of his proposals would have prevented Newtown. Obama sets the rules of debate. He's invoked "the children." America's kids are just as precious as his.

Harry Reid is in complete control here. He's an NRA darling who won't let any gun control legislation, except closing the gun show loophole, get anywhere near a vote.

Anonymous said...

Ban bicycles--a major cause of childhood injury and death. Who "needs" a motorcycle ?
Youth football, absolutely hazardous. Well documented.
Swimming in the Deleware ? High time we outlaw that deadly practice!
What do you think Sal,this is just a start?

Anonymous said...

All you gun freaks need top accept that fact that, if faced with a life or death situation confronting a gun, 99% of you would just shit yourselves, whether you had a gun or not. You've all seen too many Clint Eastwood movies.

Anonymous said...

As someone mentioned, they did miss the boat on mandating that firearms be kept locked up while in the home (if not being "carried by someone in the home". The real crime in Newtown is that an irresponsible Mom left a cache of weapons available to her mentally disabled child.

Anonymous said...

AR15's jam all the time by the way...every magazine change is another opportunity for a jam... and as for you NRA gun-nuts, if you want to hire armed, trained security to protect yourself and your children, I don't think there's a person in the country that thinks you shouldn't be able to do that.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:09

Can you take a bicycle into an elementary school and slaughter 26 people with it?? Absolutely moronic

Anonymous said...

Can we discuss limits on the first amendment relative to a far different information system than could ever have been dreamed of in the 18th century? There should be limits on blogs and online information enterprises which can ruin reputations and cost lives. Let's look at all the amendments again. It's time to update the constitution for today's world.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:03 am,

Name calling? Are you serious?

You are really going to fight over the internet? What is the worse you can do? Caps lock me to death? I ready for your fury of CAPS LOCK!!! BRING IT!!!!!

And by the way, from another anon that wants to wish you something:

GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!

Anonymous said...

It's probably best to start with the issues that should be easiest to get a consensus on. I'm thinking those should be:

1 - Universal background checks before being able to purchase a gun, either through a licensed dealer or private sale. All they need to do is show they do not have a history of violence, are a convicted felon, or have been adjudicated mentally ill.

2 - Close the loopholes that permit 40% of all guns sold in the country to be done with said background checks.

3 - Tougher gun trafficking laws and universal enforcement. Many of the guns used in these atrocities are obtained by straw purchasers who can obtain a gun legally and just hand it off to someone who cannot legally purchase them. Law enforcement does not always enforce the law as written because it doesn't have teeth to it.

4 - Adjust HIPPA laws so that doctors can report concerns of mental illness in patients who may be predisposed to violence given said condition.

After that, the rest gets tricky. Though I support many of these things, I can see how they are controversial:

1 - Ammunition -- Limits on purchase; background checks for ammo; limiting magazine size. This would make it harder for people to commit "mass" murder. The shooter in Arizona was only stopped because his high-capacity magazine ran out of bullets.

2 - National gun purchase database for law enforcement. Police officers should know if they are entering a neighborhood where every household has a huge arsenal of weapons.

3 - Assault weapons ban. I don't quite understand the argument that the ban would only affect law-abiding citizens and that criminals will be able to get them for several reasons. First, we have pretty good laws that prevent people from obtaining nuclear material and fissile material to make nuclear bombs. There hasn't been an incident in the US of criminals getting a hold of this material and setting it off in a city. Why are these laws effectively enforced, and yet we automatically assume when it comes to "guns" the laws won't work. I don't know anyone who has access to machine guns and wouldn't know how to get one if I wanted. But we banned those decades ago and don't have any issue with schools being shot up by machine guns.

For me it really comes down to rights and necessities. I believe in an individual right to own a handgun for protection and a rifle for hunting. But I don't think (and neither does the Supreme Court, which already ruled as such in 2008) that everyone has a right to a Tec-9 or AK-47. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when these things didn't exist, so it's impossible to reason that the Founders intended access to these kinds of weapons.

I also have a problem with people who think they can argue that the 2nd Amendment gives them a right to any weapon they want, without restrictions, but have never actually read the amendment in the first place. It is the ONLY amendment that specifically mentions the word regulation, in the context that "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." First off, we don't have militias anymore because we have a standing military. Second, the amendment permits regulation -- it actually says regulation is necessary for the security of a free state. Regulations work, limitations work. And yet we can still uphold the individual rights to protect one's home and family, to hunt, for sport, and for collection.

I'd just like to end by saying the the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. There is no such thing as being "pro" or "anti" 2nd Amendment. The amendment exists and we live with that realization. I support individual rights, but I also support reasonable regulations to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Background checks do that and we should at least get that taken care of.

Peter J.Cochran said...

Bernie, A lot of good points on your blog. I know a lot of the comments are from some very smart folks. But as a former military shooter that saved little brass, get it? I will tell you that the COWARDS that shoot DEFENSELESS people or animals out of season( the animals) are NO CONTEST for a real pro shooter. I have met many on the ranges over 45 yrs. and all are real nice people with families and pay taxes,give blood and sent kids to college. These people are not dangerous to anyone exception would a thug. A bolt rifle trumps an auto loader any day in competent hands anyway!! Bad guys need to watch out for old fat guys with bolt guns, especially SINGLE SHOT VERSIONS.

Peter J. Cochran said...

Bernie, One more thing, the SCHOLL DISTRICT people are historically NON_COMBATANTS . They have no way to judge an effective rate of return on a security deal , watch what happens. Back in 1963 or 4 my father who was a High Power Rifle shooter of sorts later benchrest at WOPWOLIPIN, Pa.told me that Lee Harvey Oswald DID NOT MAKE THAT SHOT! Now we see all the converse dealings by people who are now EXPERTS.See the parallel?

eckville press said...

"All you gun freaks need top accept that fact that, if faced with a life or death situation confronting a gun, 99% of you would just shit yourselves, whether you had a gun or not. You've all seen too many Clint Eastwood movies."

Obviously you never visited the northern tier of Lehigh County.

Peter j.Cochran said...

Oh Crap mis-spelled School , tried to preview old lap top ,no glasses forgive me please.

Pat Tillman said...

@ 5:55

I'd bet most of us "gun freaks," as you call us are veterans. Many of us who didn't shit ourselves felt the urge to piss ourselves. We didn't and did what we had to do. While you were watching Clint, we were fighting to protect the right for you to call us gun freaks and for me to tell you to,

Go Fuck Yourself.



Anonymous said...

My apologies, 5:55. That should have been directed at 3:34.

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

You know your blog is popular when idiots post generic comments that contains a hyperlink to B.S. (6:25)

Bernie O'Hare said...

Heh, heh. I deleted the spam. Want to give everyone a chance to weigh in, but prefer not to see commercials.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Pat Tilman, You are no freak and your POV is welcome here. There are nut jobs on both sides. I am trying to find common ground.

Bernie O'Hare said...

5:22, Thanks for your thoughtful comment. Wow!

Bernie O'Hare said...

"Can we discuss limits on the first amendment relative to a far different information system than could ever have been dreamed of in the 18th century? There should be limits on blogs and online information enterprises which can ruin reputations and cost lives. Let's look at all the amendments again. It's time to update the constitution for today's world. "

Although you're being sarcastic, Internet speech should be examined. The statements made there stay there forever. They can be very damaging, even when completely true.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"and as for you NRA gun-nuts,"

Not necessary.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"he real crime in Newtown is that an irresponsible Mom left a cache of weapons available to her mentally disabled child."

Well, she paid the ultimate price.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"Ban bicycles--a major cause of childhood injury and death. Who "needs" a motorcycle ?
Youth football, absolutely hazardous. Well documented.
Swimming in the Deleware ? High time we outlaw that deadly practice!
What do you think Sal,this is just a start? "


This is false logic, like Ronnie Del Bacco's "pencil" argument. I like Ronnie and respect him for his convictions, but these are all faulty syllogisms.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"By using kids as props, Obama has framed the argument in terms of whether or not one is in favor of protecting kids."

Now this is such utter nonsense. Obama did not ask some madman to go to Newton and shoot 20 children. That's the person who made this about protecting our kids. I think you are struggling, and failing, to find some justification for an offensive NRA video.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"Yo Sal, why not install goveners on all motor vehicles, all of them, topped out at 65 MPH. ( Aftet all, who "needs" to go 95MPH.)
I'll bet ya it would save at least one life.
No?
Please do reply Sal."


This is not Sal Panto's blog. It is mine. And here's a newsflash. He has a little bit more to do every day than spend his time answering anonymous cowards like you. Sal is one of the rare elected officials who does account for himself on the blog, and assholes like you try to drive him away. Sign your name.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"The point raised by the NRA is valid."

I as offended by it, primarily bc it used his children and it is a matter where I expect the president and his family to be treated differently. His life, and that of his family, is far less secure than most of us by the nature of his profession. There is nothing remotely hypocritical about ensuring that the President and his family are protected at all times. It's a matter of national security, something the NRA of all outfits should understand.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Have all the discussion you wish. Take this to the bank, mark it down here, NOTHING of any substance will change on the FEDERAL level. PERIOD. Stop wasting your time even debating it. If you want real gun control, you need to accomplish that at the STATE level. Just look what New York did over night. That is real gun control. Mandatory registries, magazines capped at 7 rounds, mandatory turning in of so called assault weapons. If people really knew how to affect gun control change, the whole country would be in real trouble. Omao and his cohorts know this and are relying on the States to do the dirty work.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I am deleting comment addressed to Panto unless the author is willing to identify himself. This post is not about him and Panto is not the author.

Bernie O'Hare said...

10:16, I agree that states have to do the heavy lifting.

Anonymous said...

Protect Sal from his own silly comments. That's the American way. Our politicians are too busy to be held accountable for ridiculous statements.
Nice work Bernie. You are quite the iconoclast aren't you?

Bernie O'Hare said...

Sal Panto has posted no comments on this blog thread. Like a troll, you are trying to draw him out instead of discussing the actual issue. Like a troll, you are afraid to identify yourself. No wonder you hide behind a gun. No guts.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"Mr.O'Hare if you have the means and ability to own a tank and you wanted one why cant you have one?"

You can own a tank privately - one that does not fire. You may not operate it on public roads without a permit in advance. I have a friend who owns one.

Anonymous said...

Bernie, I will continue to call them NRA gun nuts because, as an NRA member, I can say that we are not all as crazy as these nuts!!

Hot Stuff said...

Doubtful that Anon 6:57 AM is an NRA member.

Why pay membership fees to a group who has a fundamental belief that a citizen shouldn't have to hire trained, armed guards in order to protect themselves?

He/She is as much an NRA member as the Pope is a southern Baptist.

Anonymous said...

I am sure the founding fathers never realized what would happen in the future with weapons and there capacity but jeasus enough is enough already.

Peter J.Cochran said...

No Sal on Blog ,True he has not said a word here. As far as .50 cal.rifles go they are made of things that prevent piss-aunts CAN NOT LUG THEM AROUND.Do not worry about that.Hammers are a danger , roller skates hard on skulls.chain saws make you deaf and the list goes on.High capacity magazines are made for POOR shooters not the skilled. Take that to the bank.As I kind-a conveyed earlier.The magazine (not clip) has nothing to do with the a crime and does not enhance probability of injury.

Anonymous said...

I rely on my magic undies to protect me.
That's all the protection I need.

Anonymous said...

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

Peter J. Cochran said...

Reply to 1.05 am---- correct it is about the citizens having the last stand, and protection from the government .. Hitler, Mussolini and Big Josp. Stalin agree on one thing ,disarm the population and control your population like sheep, no matter what the rules state. Remember that Big Joe killed more of his own people than the Nazis did. Feel free to argue nicely.Look at big picture.

Anonymous said...

Salbo is upset that people are not buyoing hjis anti-gun message.

Anonymous said...

Bernie (or any other more informed citizen), what is your understanding of these proposals? Might there be some regulation that if someone living in a residence is on "psych drugs" (presumably to include common medications such as Xanax or anti-depressants) any individual rsiding in the same home won't be permitted to have a gun.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Xanax is not exactly a harmless drug. I do think a person on Xanax would need to present proof that he or she is not a danger. I would not support a ban on immediate family members. But I would require them to lock all weapons and ammo away from others. Keeping an unsecured weapon near a mentally disturbed person is poor judgment, and we learned in Newtown. The NRA already recommends this, so I would hope this is not an issue.

Anonymous said...

Woah! I'm really loving the template/theme of this website. It's simple, yet effective.
A lot of times it's hard to get that "perfect balance" between usability and visual appearance. I must say you've done a very good job with this.
Additionally, the blog loads super quick for me on Chrome.

Outstanding Blog!

My blog post ... http://www.nhcnj.org/zbxe/?document_srl=25285&mid=wedservice&listStyle=&cpage=