The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[trish]

April 5:

Missouri man shot in the shoulder while game playing with a gun.

Gun discharges in Florida while two supposedly grown men were “playing” with it. One of them is now recovering from the resulting shoulder wound. They thought is wasn’t loaded.

Kansas Man shoots himself in the leg attempting to take apart his gun in a Perry Lake State Park. He had been drinking.

Michigan woman accidentally shot in the leg by boyfriend who was “demonstrating something” with his gun. Probably diverting attention from the size of his penis.

http://accidentalgunshots.tumblr.com/

[fivekatz]

Gutless obstruction Leader Mitch McConnell announce he will join those not allowing an simply up or down vote:

WASHINGTON -- While President Barack Obama was delivering an emotional plea on Monday about gun control legislation, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that he will be among those filibustering the gun package that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is trying to bring up.

"Sen. McConnell opposes the Reid bill," McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said in a statement. "While nobody knows yet what Sen. Reid’s plan is for the gun bill, if he chooses to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the Reid bill, Sen. McConnell will oppose cloture on proceeding to that bill."

McConnell is the fifteenth Republican to join the filibuster effort being led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The GOP leader could have opted to stay out of it, letting the votes happen on the gun package and putting the pressure on House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to decide the bill's fate, if it even made it out of the Senate. Instead, McConnell is making a calculated decision to be part of the filibuster effort that could derail the entire push for gun control legislation.

News of McConnell's plan came at the exact moment that Obama was giving a speech in Hartford, Conn. -- to a crowd that included families of victims from the Newtown shootings -- about the need for Congress to hold votes on the gun proposals, regardless of whether lawmakers planned to vote for them. Obama, whose voice cracked at moments during the speech, used some of his toughest language yet in pressing lawmakers to act.

"What's more important? Our children or an 'A' grade from the gun lobby?" the president asked of Congress.

Reid is trying to bring up the gun bill this week, though it is hanging by a few political threads. There have been some small developments in favor of the package, however, including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) emerging as a prospective cosponsor for the background checks piece of the bill. The details of that proposal are still being finalized.

The fact that Reid the let the chance to require actual talking filibuster to return as normal procedure rather a simple call to cloture vote may be the most failed moment of leadership in the history of Senate Majority leadership by any US politician.

F'ing shocking that Reid let this happen after the 11-12 session and its historic abuse of procedural cloture.

[trish]

At the beginning of the new session Reid had the opportunity to put the old rules on filibuster back into place. I was shocked when he didn't. WTF was he thinking? Oh, let me guess, "When we're in the minority we might want to obstruct legislation too." Fucking morons every single one of them.

[fivekatz]

At the beginning of the new session Reid had the opportunity to put the old rules on filibuster back into place. I was shocked when he didn't. WTF was he thinking? Oh, let me guess, "When we're in the minority we might want to obstruct legislation too." Fucking morons every single one of them.

I do think that was a huge part of the calculation, in addition to the possible concern that the Dems would lose the war of words regarding the procedure changes because so many Americans do not get what is happening with procedure in the Senate and the obstruction it has created.

Both reasons IMO demonstrate what a weak leader Harry Reid is and why the world would have been better of if Nancy Pelosi had been the Senate Dem leader instead of the House. Nancy has twice the brains and three times the balls IMHO. And that is why neo-con media demonizes her and just makes funny of wimpy ole Harry.

[zulusierra]

Gun ban AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

If you want it banned so bad then do it the correct way like they did with alcohol... AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Anti-2A is anti civil rights. How's it feel to stand with racists like Klan on civil rights??? lel

[trish]

Regulation of guns does not require an amendment to the Constitution. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was never thought to be unconstitutional, it merely expired. Therefore owning semi-automatics is neither a constitutional right nor a civil right.

[zulusierra]

Regulation of guns does not require an amendment to the Constitution. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was never thought to be unconstitutional, it merely expired. Therefore owning semi-automatics is neither a constitutional right nor a civil right.

You know what I find interesting?

The fact that the "RTKBA" is centered around firearms. The constitution never mentions firearms. Arms encompass myriad forms and designs. If you think gun law is crazy american knife laws are even more arcane.

BTW, they almost got their (de-facto) ban 1934 but it only ended up covering Machinegun, silencer, short-barrel rifle/shotgun, and "all other weapon". At the last minute "Joe Six-pack" had his right saved. They instituted a $200 "stamp tax" that ensured only the very rich could afford a weapon.(I believe in todays dollar it would be roughly $5,000 for the stamp on EVERY weapon). Due to inflation it is now somewhat affordable. People like me who collect restricted weapons are sometimes referred to as "stamp collectors".

[zulusierra]

Regulation of guns does not require an amendment to the Constitution. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was never thought to be unconstitutional, it merely expired. Therefore owning semi-automatics is neither a constitutional right nor a civil right.

I see your point. I do enjoy getting other peoples well-thought out opinions.

Your logic, however, is flawed. lrn2philosphy

[trish]

Federal Law bans the interstate commerce of switchblades, and box-cutters aren’t allowed on commercial passenger planes. An Illinoian carrying a blade larger than three inches is regarded as armed. Some states have banned the carry of “butterfly” knives.

Every parent knows that knives are hazardous even when not handled with ill-intent. When handled maliciously they are dangerous. That’s why there are laws regulating them and banning some varieties of them. The Supreme Court does not regard these laws as an infringement on the Second Amendment nor a obstruction of a Civil Right.

The same week as Sandy Hook a man armed with a knife attack a primary school in China injuring twenty two children. The difference between this incident and Sandy Hook: The knifeman hadn’t managed to kill single child.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/...a-knife-attack

If we can legally ban and regulate the varieties of knives, we can do the same with firearms, grenade launchers and any other sort of “arm.”

[zulusierra]

Federal Law bans the interstate commerce of switchblades...“arm.”

The issue is now that the 2nd has been "incorporated" to the states. If it had went the other way they could have left it up to the states so that in Ga I could have select-fire automatics and in New York maybe just a Muzzle-Loading musket. As long as you don't cross state lines into a restricted state you'd be fine. I think Wyoming was talking something along those lines.

I have to admit that I'm not as well versed in law as I'd like to be so I'm not sure how I feel about the whole incorporation thing.

On a side-note, Military, Law-enforcement and no joke one-armed (or one functional arm) citizens are permitted to ship auto-knives across state lines.