I don't think anyone but the staunchest pro-gun conspiracy theorist (see: Wayne Lapierre) will have a problem with any of President Obama's executive actions, or with his proposed nationwide background checks. What is going to anger people is the proposed return to the ban on "assault weapons" and to the ten-round magazine limit.
Personally, not having access to military-style semiautomatic longarms or guns with more than ten rounds (or even seven rounds, as NY has just signed into law) in the magazine doesn't bother me one bit. I have to admit, though, that neither the "assault weapons" ban nor the magazine limit did anything to slow gun crime or gun sales the last time, so it seems silly to bring them back and expect different results this time.
Agreed, the only thing I think that is an issue is States rights, what makes sense for NY might not be needed or wanted in say Texas, so I would, if I were "King", give incentives for States to adopt stricter gun laws, share information on criminals and mentally ill, restrict gun traffic between States, and such. I don't like the fact that this administration is overstepping it's authority. It's bad enough NY has the new Mussolini throwing his weight around. I can't wait till he runs for president so everyone can enjoy him.
Well that's the effect of knee jerk reactions toward incidents such as those of late that politicians use to push their agendas and platforms, using public emotion and sensitivities instead of common sense and research.
These obstacles aren't knee jerk. They're calculated to make agencies like the ATF impotent. Republicans have repeatedly made the ATF's job more difficult and then they have the balls to go on TV and complain about all the existing laws that aren't being enforced.
It's become very fashionable on the internet for gun advocates to compare liberal politicians to fascists, the implication being that liberals are trying to disarm us in order to keep us from resisting when they impose their will on us Hitler-style. I think this is ignorant at best and self-servingly dishonest at worst.
What's happening here is that politicians who feel powerless to address the underlying problems behind these massacres (mental health) and gun crime in general (poverty and drugs) are ramming gun laws through the system because it's the one thing they know how to do to try and address the problem. The alternative, as they see it, is to do nothing, and that is unacceptable.
You can call that misguided and wrong if you want--I sometimes do--but let's get out of the business of comparing our democratically elected leaders to fascist dictators. These people are in positions of power because a majority of the electorate agreed with them--and if that ceases to be true, the electorate have the opportunity to replace them. We can start calling them fascists when and only when they seek immunity from the democratic process.
This is one of the things that made me hate Wayne Lapierre and the leadership of the NRA. The ATF don't make gun laws, they just enforce them. Complaining about law enforcement agencies amounts to complaining about being subject to the law. Complain about the legislators, not the enforcers of the law.
I don't disagree with those points made by Matt and HH, guy's it's just frustrating to see our freedoms chipped away at when sometimes it appears to be an obvious political strategy. It's not like anyone is safer because of the law passed in NY, in fact I feel a little bit less secure, now the criminals know that they can out gun the normal citizen. There is no added protection from government agencies to offset the restrictions. They're not collecting the guns already out there, so my neighbor could have an assault rifle and I can't.
I think the "outgunned" thing is mostly hype. Is there any documented case ever of an armed citizen attempting to defend himself with a gun but failing because he ran out of ammo?
I have already said that I don't think the magazine limit will change much, but gun advocates' claims that being restricted to lower-capacity guns robs them of their freedom or inhibits their ability to defend themselves just doesn't add up.
I will say, though, that New York has gone about as far as anyone can go. I don't think seven is an arbitrary number; I think seven is as low as they can go without effectively banning semiautomatic weapons, something I suspect even New Yorkers wouldn't stand for.
I agree. I'm 100% opposed to Obama's assault weapons ban, but it's not an attempt to disarm the populace so that they can be sent to death camps. It's just another version of the airport security frisking my gentlemanly area and sending my wife through a backscatter-radiation machine so they can see her naked...all because we "had to do something" about terrorists after 9/11. It cost a ton of money, it inconvenienced everybody, and it didn't make anyone safer, but at least people didn't feel like we were standing around doing nothing.
I think the assault weapons ban is a shame because its going to make passing the things that will help, like universal background checks, much harder to get through congress.
Really you need these proposals broken up, but I don't think the house Republicans will want to do that. They want to be able to vote down the whole package because of stuff like the assault weapons ban without having to take the heat for voting down background check enhancements.
DEFINITELY agree with this. I remember wondering when I first heard the stories about the new NY law and the President's proposal, "Why aren't background checks and mandatory reporting by mental health professionals already in place? No one disagrees with them except wackjob conspiracy theorists." The answer is that gun control advocates insist on attaching them to sweeping measures that don't pass.