Washington Post: Obama’s Gun Controls Not Enough, Confiscation Needed

It all comes down to holding people accountable. Only at boot camp should the authority punish the whole for the failure of one. 99+% of people are good and will not commit crimes with or without guns. If someone abuses pain medicine, should we ban pain medicine even though it might be necessary for an illness? Similarly, if one person abuses their 2A rights, should we confiscate or ban guns even though guns are necessary for our defense at to protect ourselves from tyranny?

The liberals have created a monster in society. It is a monster that promotes laziness and bad behavior. It is a monster that places responsibility and wrongdoing not on the person, but on objects, on upbringings, on economic levels, etc. I lost my mind a year or so ago when I read an article about how Obuma was upset over conditions of prisons in the U.S. Seriously, you're worried about the living conditions of convicted criminals? If I had my way, I would make prisons worse than something from a Stephen King novel. I would make prisons so unbearable so that the conditions of prisons haunted criminals to the extent that they never wanted to commit a crime again.

I would eliminate welfare. I work 10+ hours days five days a week and pay my bills and have no debts. I have a comfortable life and am grateful for that. However, it wasn't handed to me. I worked and I continue to work hard to earn money and provide for my family and me. If I had my way, I would use welfare money as rewards for people who have worked for so long (you've been working for a year straight, here's a $100). When I see these fat bums on welfare buying brand name unessential commodities or booze or abusing their food stamps, it makes me cringe. I make a decent income, but I live within my means. I buy generic items and use coupons and I do not take out loans, rack up credit, or buy things that I do not have money on-hand for.

The liberals instead reward people who fail to find employment. Their mindset is "awe poor them, they don't have jobs." I can't blame them for staying on welfare when they can not work and have the same lifestyle that they'd have if they did work. Eliminate their welfare security blanket and perhaps they'd find gainful employment. It should be "hey lazy bums, go get a job and stop leeching off of the hard working members of society."

Sorry that was a tangent, but I think I made my point. Hold people accountable. Good, hardworking people should be treated like free men and women while lazy bums and criminals should be punished so they change their ways.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the folks worrying over people committing suicide with a gun similar to the folks advocating for assisted suicide?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the folks worrying over people committing suicide with a gun similar to the folks advocating for assisted suicide?

Click to expand...

I don't think that the anti-"gun"-suicide part of the anti-gunners' platform is anything more than a tagalong issue so that they can use suicide numbers to vastly inflate their "gun violence" numbers.

As I said before, for (any?) folks who see themselves as for maximum freedom ("liberal" in the classic sense) forcing someone else to live when they want to die does not sit comfortably. So any call to take guns away because it might keep people from suicide, or restrict their methods for doing so, is going to ring weak and hollow.

Truth be told, that line of argument would play better among religious conservatives of many stripes than "liberals." But for reasons of the "strange bedfellows" effect of the consolidation of political power between the parties in the last 100 years, religious conservatives tend to not be comfortable with gun control, even if it might reduce suicides.

P5 Guy said:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the folks worrying over people committing suicide with a gun similar to the folks advocating for assisted suicide?

Click to expand...

Thank you for saving me having to post that.

What you are seeing in the Washington Post and starting to see in other places, is an acknowledgement that 'sensible gun laws', smart guns, cosmetic AWBs, mag limits, mental health bans, UBC and the like won't reduce the misuse of guns. Thus, politicians who dance around with such are disingenuous. Come right out and say that all guns in public hands are bad and the vast majority should be rounded up. No grandfathering or any other shenanigans. Take them all (except maybe for some Zumbo specials).

This is a polarization in the gun debate where the antis are being pushed into an absolutely no private guns position. Obviously, if through some magic, no guns exist - there wouldn't be gun violence.

It's a litmus test like other black and white issues of social relevance (some of which we don't discuss). All or none - no middle ground.

Some NY Times columnists (Blow and Kristof) see that 0,1 is impossible and that there should be a middle ground. However, we wouldn't like their middle ground.

OK.

The anti-gunners supported a five day waiting period on handgun sales because (they believed) it would prevent a person temporarily depressed from rushing out, buying a gun and killing themself.

The implied admission is that the impulse to commite suicide motivated the acquisition of a gun.

Remember that next time they try to blame suicide rates on availability of guns.

Japan has never had a civilian tradition of gun ownership and their gun laws are very restrictive. Their suicide rate is higher than the intentional death rate of the US (homicide + suicide). And some of the common Japanese non-gun suicides involve poisons or gases dangerous to family, neighbors, EMT or ER personnel.

The suicide advocates post charts of suicide methods rated by % of successful completion, many of which are more lethal than various firearms/target organ combinations. No guns might mean no gun suicides, but it won't mean no suicides and won't reduce total suicides. If like Japanese, American suicides chose means that are more dangerous to family, neighbors, EMT or ER personnel, the death rate could even be higher.

I wonder how the Washington Post would feel if we were publicly pushing for a law to make it a felony to advocate violating the Constitution -- and then prosecuted them for crap like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoFKskvSq4

"Life Hack: Five easy steps to a gun-free America"

Seriously, they don't have enough police & federal agents to go down that path. And once they do go down that path, I imagine they will have even less...

They claim they can't possibly do anything about 14 million illegal immigrants. Then they think they can come after 350 million guns? Riiiight.

txblackout said:

There is a lot that can be done to curb gun violence, yet it has nothing to do with regulating guns.

1) much longer mandatory prison sentences from violent crimes committed with guns (burglary, robbery, rape etc)
2) legalization of drugs and investment in drug treatment and anti drug marketing
3) allow people on welfare to get married (reduce single parent homes) without losing benefits
4) allow people on welfare to start working without having a cliff on benefits. Slowly decrease benefits at a fraction of dollars earned. For example if you make $1 at a job, you lose 10 cents of welfare benefits.
5) pay impoverished families money when their kids do well in school.

Click to expand...

So we have an impass. Liberals hate idea #1 and conservatives hate idea #2. That just gives us the patchwork how crime and punishment are handled now.

Midwest said:

Washington Post: Obama’s Gun Controls Not Enough, Confiscation Needed

...

Click to expand...

This link was sent out as part of the Virginia Citizens Defense League newsletter as to the rhetoric that is be written by newspapers and consumed by the general public. All are bad, some worse than others. #3 and #7 were especially disturbing. #3 is requiring a background check for the SELLER and he makes sure you know that he is talking about the seller. Additionally, #7 directly contradicts the Supreme Courts 2008 interpretation of the Second Amendment.

What business does a physics professor have writing about gun control? As usual, here is a link to the original article.

http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/comm...cle_ee678c85-259d-5211-8ec9-385b5f695c55.html

By L. David Roper

Roper is professor emeritus of physics at Virginia Tech. He lives in Blacksburg.

...

Suggested federal gun laws:

1. All future gun purchases can only occur after an extensive background check for the buyer. The purchased gun will be registered in the name of the purchaser with the gun’s serial number recorded.

2. There is a federally mandated waiting period after a background check has been made before a purchase can be completed, unless a court order specifies otherwise.

3. A gun can legally be transferred to another person only after the transferee has undergone the same background check of a gun purchaser.

4. Certain rifles will be designated as hunting guns when registered and special conditions are placed on the use of hunting guns.

5. No gun will be sold that can handle clips of more than five bullets.

6. Expanding bullets can be sold only to buyers with special federal permits.

7. Since the Second Amendment states that gun ownership is for the purpose of a well-regulated Militia and the well-regulated Militia of the U.S. is the National Guard, all gun owners are subject to be called upon by the National Guard for service during national emergencies.

8. Permits to carry a gun on a person or in a vehicle will be granted only if federally stated rational reasons for doing so are met.

9. All guns in houses with children in them are required to be locked in cabinets or have automatic locks (smart guns).

...

The author states: "Commentaries abound about gun control using emotional and legal approaches. One approach to the topic I have not read is a rational approach. This is an attempt at such an approach."

and then exhibits the most horrendous FAILURE of using logic, rational thought, or even a modicum of intelligence concerning the subject matter at hand. Another sad example of the decline of our university system. At least the school had the good sense to put him out to pasture (professor emeritus) where his exposure to students will be less.