Friday, November 21, 2008

Gun Control Laws Under the New Regime

The Brady Blog published an article the other day that really caught my attention.

Even before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the Second Amendment in late June, we predicted that most law-abiding citizens would realize that the Court wouldn't let their guns be "taken away," regardless of who was victorious on Election Day. At the same time, we thought that voters now would be more likely cast their ballots for candidates willing to do something to reduce the 100,000 deaths and injuries from guns which occur every year in America, and make it harder for dangerous people to get guns.

The article goes on to describe the terrific trouncing the NRA supported candidates took. The winners of those races are described as "moderate candidates who favor common sense gun laws."

My question is, exactly what would those gun laws be and how would they "make it harder for dangerous people to get guns?" Also, I couldn't help but notice that 100,000 figure. Reading the comments on this blog, you might think the number would be much lower. The way some people talk you'd think the number would be negligible.

And what about that slippery slope? Do increases in gun laws, even "common sense" ones, mean that eventually guns will be "taken away" from people? The Brady Blog says the voters thought not. What do you think?


  1. David Hardy has a question he'd like to ask of the Brady Campaign, and i would love to hear the Bradies answer it:

    "If Heller is such a great thing for you, policy-wise, does this mean you are going to support incorporation and application to the States? Wouldn't that be even better for you?"

    seriously, that's the next logical step in this process; get the verdict in the Heller decision incorporated against the states by way of the 14th amendment. that would mean, at a very minimum, that outright handgun bans would be unconstitutional everywhere, and that personal self defense would be viewed as one valid reason to own firearms.

    would the Brady campaign be happy to make that the law of the land in every state of the union? by implication from some of the things they're currently saying and hinting at, they should be.

    concerning the "100,000 deaths and injuries", i smell a rat. i want to see the source of that number. it's vaguely possible, if by "injuries" you include anything more serious than a case of Garand Thumb, but how would anybody get any halfway reliable statistics on the matter? source, source!

  2. What would the laws do? Easy make less lawful gun owners because the hobby would become too expensive or difficult to do legally. Bankrupt gun makers by forcing unproven technology into civlian guns (police and military of course would be exempt because THEY don't want guns that won't work) Registrations that won't solve any crimes (Mike there's a gun story to look for! Find me a story of a person jailed for illigally suplying a gun to a criminal who was caught through a gun registration. There are several states that do it, and they have LOTS of gun crime...but it doesn't seem to do shit)

    Eliminate private sales which will change no law...just add more taxes on gun sales. Forcing waiting periods for no apperent reason. Allowing media agencies access to ATF data so they can publish addresses where guns are making easy shoping lists for theives looking to steal guns, Ect ect.

    Meanwhile the criminals....who can't posess guns ANYWAY and aquire them through illigal channels or theft won't be subject to ANY of these laws as their acts were...and still are criminal, and haven't been legal for GENERATIONS!!!

    There's a big reason why you talk about not liking guns, but won't propose any laws or ideas how to solve your "problem" of "too many guns".

    Its NOT Possible, and any attempts will only make the problems WORSE.

  3. Mike,

    I will accept just about any gun control laws on one provision.

    That provision is those same laws are applied equally to each and every right spelled out in the bill of rights.

    I think that is fair. Want to register our guns, register each and every blog post, each newspaper article.

    Want to ban concealed carry, ban public speaking.

    Want to have serial numbers on each bullet, issue people serial numbers for each conversation they have.

    Prohibition of alcohol, the War on Some Drugs, etc have never worked.

    If you want to see the example the Brady Campaign wants to follow, check out England. Now England has ALWAYS, been historical less violent the the US, but since the last series of gun control laws, it's rate of violence out paces the US.

    Guns have been confiscated, without compensation, additional laws every year past and there is still "gun violence". Now they are trying to focus on "knife violence" with the same rhetoric. In the mean time, Yobs are roaming the streets committing crimes at will & if people fight back the VICTIMS, not the Yobs, are arrested.

    Is that the path you want America to follow?

    I don't


    Neat some Positive Media here. Of course its a national event, but it only got local coverage.

    Seeing a pattern, Mike?

  5. Nomen, I wondered about the 100,000 figure too. But whatever the true number is, their position is that "common sense laws" would lessen it. I'm still trying to learn what those laws would be and how they'd help.


    Read their site. here's a few I can infer:

    Bans on guns with cosmetic features that make them "Assault weapons", Bans on guns with a bore diameter of 0.50", Ban of private sales of firearms (masquerading as a "Gun Show Loophole" which has nothing to do with Gun Shows, and addresses no loophole in the law)
    Forcing all gun owners to store firearms in ways they feel is apropreate.
    Placing microstamp technology that is unproven, and easily defeated in all firearms.
    Bankrupt ammunition manufacturers by forcing unproven and industrially impossible "Serialized ammunition" (This would also ban my and many gun owners hobby of handloading ammunition)
    Overstepping due process by denying gun rights to "Terror Suspects"...note that this terror watch list is a VERY blunt instument and is well known for stopping Senator Ted Kennedy, and load of the TSA's Own Air Marshals!

    Allowing more people access to ATF firearms data (They claim Police don't have access, but that is a lie) but what really they want is Reporters and Hackers to get addresses of gun owners for intimidation, discrimination, and theft, also this will easily allow secret and unlawful gun registration programs by local governments.

    To ban conceal carry in National parks (note that violent crime is quite high in many national parks...there were several near my house that was a known location for Junkies to shoot up, and rapes in the park shelters were not uncommon but also you have the increased possibility of animal attack)
    Limit the number of firearms a lawful person may buy per month.

    They support handgun bans and contribute to help defend them (This includes the DC ban that they now "support"...they are also working to prevent the court ruling from actually being observed, and current DC law is still unlawful under the Heller ruling)
    Enacting "Safety regulations" that make guns difficult or impossible to use and/or too expensive for the poor to buy. Also many of these biometric systems will make safety, education, and recreational firearms use all but impossible.

    I'm sure there's more to find in there, but I feel like I need a shower.

    In the end they don't support any laws that actually effect CRIMINALS MISUSING guns (note they don't propose any stricter guidelines for punishment) They have no interest in education or safety programs.

    They simply want to ban guns, and make guns they can't ban too difficult or expensive to acquire legally...meanwhile illegal channels are left wide open.


    Make sure to follow the link and watch the video.

    Guy had a long history of violent crime and mental illness. Went to a gun-free zone to do some violence...weapon used, a rock!

  8. Great story about the rock-wielding Anthony Baily.

  9. Two more stories for you Mike. I'll dump 'em here as to not sully the latest discussion that I suspect will get pleanty of talk as is: