State of the Union Gun Control Address

[The Annoyed Man]

I didn't get to hear the entire speech because of a phone call that came in, but I did notice that what I heard was long on unity and short on specifics. However, I will give him this: He categorically stated that if Congress sends him any bill with earmarks included, he WILL veto the bill. Now, let's see if he has the gonadal fortitude to make that one stick.

My attitude toward earmarks is that I do understand that some earmarked items might well be legitimate expenditures, even if most probably aren't. But if it is a legitimate expenditure, then it should have a free-standing bill of its own so that our representatives can vote it up or down. This business of forcing voters/taxpayers to pay for something unrelated that they might not want, so that they can get the primary bill passed for something they do want has got to stop. If I ran my business that way, I'd be in jail. Business as usual in Congress is what got us to this point. If they don't reform their spending habits, and their habit of burying unrelated and unpopular expenditures into otherwise popular bills because they know that they would not otherwise get that expenditure passed, then we are doomed to becoming a banana republic.

I trust Obama about as far as I can throw him - and I have a bad back - but if he actually does what he said he would do regarding earmarks, then I would give him points for that.

I have no doubt that the magazine capacity thing as well as other RKBA limitations are going to come before Congress. I do doubt if any of them will get out of Congress and onto the President's desk. The only one that has that chance is a magazine capacity restriction. I also have no doubt that if they do pass such a thing, then 2012 will not only see more seats coming to the Republican party, but there will be a large reshuffling within the party itself as incumbents are booted out and replaced with more sensible people. Love or hate the Tea Party, there is no denying its influence as a force in American politics at this time in our history, and the Tea Party activists in Congress are our best hope for preservation of the RKBA.

Representative Gabrielle Giffords has a D+ rating from the NRA, but I don't know why she earned that rating, or what her overall record on gun rights looks like. That said, here is what her congressional website says in that regard (http://giffords.house.gov/legis/bipartisanship.shtml):

Guns

• Congresswoman Giffords signed Amicus Briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in support of rights granted under the Constitution’s Second Amendment regarding the DC and City of Chicago gun bans.
• Congresswoman Giffords is a cosponsor of the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act which allows a 90-day amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can register in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record any firearm acquired before October 31, 1968.
• She was a cosponsor of the Second Amendment Enforcement Act in the 110th Congress. It would restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia by correcting DC’s law in order to restore the fundamental rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.
• Congresswoman Giffords spearheaded a letter to Southwest Regional Chief of U.S. Forest Service Gail Kimball on May 12, 2008 expressing concern of decreasing opportunity for recreational shooting on National Forest Service land. It was signed by Congressman Trent Franks and Harry Mitchell.

My fervent prayer is that she would be well enough to make an announcement in support of the RKBA and freedom from imposition of a capacity ban before any such magazine capacity bill was voted on. If she were able and so inclined to do that, then she would completely take the wind out of the opposition's sails.

We shall see.

[Purplehood]

TAM,

Based on the info you provide, we all might be optimistic about her being "reasonable" in regards to the RKBA. But we have to remember that she has just been shot and horribly injured by a handgun. Assuming that she recovers sufficiently to be politically active (or simply enough to be considered vocal and rational), she may develop a completely different attitude.

[chasfm11]

According to FOX the President's approval ratings are higher than many past Presidents at this point in their term.

To add to the overuse of sports metaphor in politics, he is peaking too early - it's only "mid season", just past "halftime" and there is plenty of time for his ratings to slide back into the 30s before November 2012.

We can only hope.

[A-R]

TAM, I truly do appreciate your post for its sober, serious, and well-reasoned analysis. And don't want anything below to take away from that.

But I did double-over laughing at the add-on to this common analogy

I trust Obama about as far as I can throw him - and I have a bad back

Well done

[b322da]

I didn't get to hear the entire speech because of a phone call that came in, but I did notice that what I heard was long on unity and short on specifics. However, I will give him this: He categorically stated that if Congress sends him any bill with earmarks included, he WILL veto the bill. Now, let's see if he has the gonadal fortitude to make that one stick.

Of course he will never have the chance to veto one, TAM, since the new Speaker of the House has promised that never more will one come out of the House of Representatives enroute the White House. <smile> <wink> <smile>

Elmo

[Mack]

[*]Congresswoman Giffords is a cosponsor of the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act which allows a 90-day amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can register in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record any firearm acquired before October 31, 1968.

Ok, I will show my ingnorance.

What is the "National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record"? It sounds like gun registration to me. And why would you need to register a transfer that happened before 1968?

Again showing my ignorance. But if I don't ask then I will never know.

[A-R]

[*]Congresswoman Giffords is a cosponsor of the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act which allows a 90-day amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can register in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record any firearm acquired before October 31, 1968.

Ok, I will show my ingnorance.

What is the "National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record"? It sounds like gun registration to me. And why would you need to register a transfer that happened before 1968?

Again showing my ignorance. But if I don't ask then I will never know.

No positive, but I believe this applies to Class III NFA weapons - like machine guns etc.

[tacticool]

Why should the families of military veterans have more rights than the families of medical veterans?

But even that is the wrong battle. The constitution is clear. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. Any attempts to pass or enforce unconstitutional laws should face the same response as an invading army.

The constitution is clear on that too. Enemies foreign and domestic.

[steve817]

TAM,

Based on the info you provide, we all might be optimistic about her being "reasonable" in regards to the RKBA. But we have to remember that she has just been shot and horribly injured by a handgun. Assuming that she recovers sufficiently to be politically active (or simply enough to be considered vocal and rational), she may develop a completely different attitude.

I have been looking for James Brady's stance on guns prior to him getting shot.

[rm9792]

[*]Congresswoman Giffords is a cosponsor of the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act which allows a 90-day amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can register in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record any firearm acquired before October 31, 1968.

Ok, I will show my ingnorance.

What is the "National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record"? It sounds like gun registration to me. And why would you need to register a transfer that happened before 1968?

Again showing my ignorance. But if I don't ask then I will never know.

It refers to the Class III weapons registry showing all made before 1986. Civilians cant own full autos made after that. Legally you can register a post 86 firearm but the registry isnt funded. IOW the hotel has rooms but the lobby is locked.

[Purplehood]

TAM,

Based on the info you provide, we all might be optimistic about her being "reasonable" in regards to the RKBA. But we have to remember that she has just been shot and horribly injured by a handgun. Assuming that she recovers sufficiently to be politically active (or simply enough to be considered vocal and rational), she may develop a completely different attitude.

I have been looking for James Brady's stance on guns prior to him getting shot.

Good point, but will we ever know how James Brady himself really feels about the issue? From my viewpoint it looks like his spouse simply started a cause based on the notoriety of the incident and ran with whatever agenda that she had. James Brady may have or had absolutely no real input on the issue due to his injuries.
I honestly don't know how much of a recovery he has had.

[Mack]

[*]Congresswoman Giffords is a cosponsor of the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act which allows a 90-day amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can register in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record any firearm acquired before October 31, 1968.

Ok, I will show my ingnorance.

What is the "National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record"? It sounds like gun registration to me. And why would you need to register a transfer that happened before 1968?

Again showing my ignorance. But if I don't ask then I will never know.

It refers to the Class III weapons registry showing all made before 1986. Civilians cant own full autos made after that. Legally you can register a post 86 firearm but the registry isnt funded. IOW the hotel has rooms but the lobby is locked.

Thanks for the information.

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM,

Based on the info you provide, we all might be optimistic about her being "reasonable" in regards to the RKBA. But we have to remember that she has just been shot and horribly injured by a handgun. Assuming that she recovers sufficiently to be politically active (or simply enough to be considered vocal and rational), she may develop a completely different attitude.

I have been looking for James Brady's stance on guns prior to him getting shot.

I don't know if she still is today, but for at least a few years following the shooting that crippled her husband, Sarah Brady maintained that she was a member of the Republican Party. I'm guessing that relationship ended in 1993 when she stood by President Clinton's side during the signing of the Brady Bill. Indeed, she spoke at the 1996 Democratic Convention. The Brady website makes no mention of her current affiliation. In fact, when you google "sarah brady republican," you will find lots of references to past Republican activities, but nothing about any party affiliation since her husband was shot. In this article dated in 1997, it says (SOURCE):

After years as active Republicans, Jim and Sarah Brady attended the 1996 Democratic National Convention, thanking President Clinton for his support of gun-control laws and endorsing his proposal to prohibit people convicted of domestic violence from buying handguns.

Today, she hesitates when asked about her own political beliefs.

"I don't really like labels too well," she says. "I think I'm a pragmatist, or a moderate."

Further down the page, Brady says:

Asked about differences between her group and gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association, Brady said, "Our objective is to cut down deaths and injury.

"They are looking only to protect gun owners' quote -- and I stress that -- rights, because I don't believe gun owners have rights. The Second Amendment has never been interpreted that way. Now I am not for taking guns away or denying guns to law-abiding citizens, but I don't think it's a constitutional right that they have, and every court case that's ever come down has shown that," she said.

Obviously, she hadn't had a chance to read Heller or McDonald at that time, but it doesn't get any more stark than that, and my guess is that even post-Heller/McDonald, her opinion about the 2nd Amendment has not changed. Fortunately, she is not the arbiter of what is Constitutional, and what isn't. Although there have been many democrats both in Congress and in the several state legislatures who have steadfastly stood by the RKBA over the years, I believe it goes without saying that, among pro-RKBA congresspersons and legislators, republicans FAR outnumber democrats. Sarah Brady's misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment is closer to the democrat mainstream than it is to the republican mainstream. And to the degree that James Brady still retains any cognitive abilities (I honestly don't know how well his mind works now), he appears to agree with his wife.

Democrats, by and large, believe in "sensible restrictions." Republicans can beat democrats every single time by portraying themselves as the party of liberty. Liberty from oppression. Liberty from government intrusion into our personal healthcare decisions. Liberty from punitive taxation. Liberty from the silencing of political speech. Liberty to use our private property as we see fit. Liberty to grow new businesses without crushing regulation. Liberty to invest in our retirements without fear of asset confiscation. Liberty to pursue wealth without fearing that democrats will set a limit on what is "reasonable" income. On and on and on. In short, liberty from constant restrictions on our liberties. At this point in time in our history, democrat policies are the killers of the American dream, and they are the restrictors of personal freedom. Republicans need to hammer that home.

Now, I hate to say this, because I am unashamedly and passionately outspoken about the right to life, and all other things being equal, I will always support the right-to-life candidate over the one who isn't, but I think it might be a mistake for the Republican Party to make abortion a centerpiece of their platform. Wherever the Republican party makes as a centerpiece of their platform the restricting of what many have come to view as a right (which I personally believe is not a right), we give democrats a club to wield, labeling republicans as oppressive and anti-liberty. The media, being the democrat whores and shills that they are, will use that one thing to beat republicans down with, and will ignore and deliberately obscure all those other pro-liberty parts of the Republican Party platform.

And gun-rights is part of all that. Whenever a democrat (or a RINO) tries to use crime as a reason to justify "reasonable" restrictions, the counter argument MUST be in this order:

1. You are telling me that I, a law-abiding citizen, have to give up an increment of a constitutionally guaranteed liberty, set down and actually practiced by the founders, in order to try and control people who have no regard for the law in the first place.
2. The FACTS show that crime has gone down in every state where gun-rights have been restored. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
3. Your insistence on the curtailing of MY rights is directly due to the fact that you refuse to exercise your own. Safety does not come from the state. Safety comes from reasonable people, dealing reasonably with one another. When someone is unreasonable and decides to help themselves to your property, your life, your sexuality, the state cannot save you. The state simply cannot get there in time. The state cannot protect you.
4. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that police do not have a duty to protect (Castlerock v. Gonzales). The police (as the arm of the state) not only can't get there in time to protect you, they have no constitutional mandate to do so. Your desire to restrict gun-rights creates a class of victims that is equal in size to the population of the country.
5. So grow a pair.

OK, I'm done ranting.

[Purplehood]

TAM,

That post was so remarkable and spot-on with how I feel regarding the RKBA (I may disagree with other stuff, but that is my bag), that I have printed-out your 4 points that you have below as discussion-points for my liberal colleagues and acquaintances.

You are telling me that I, a law-abiding citizen, have to give up an increment of a constitutionally guaranteed liberty, set down and actually practiced by the founders, in order to try and control people who have no regard for the law in the first place.


The FACTS show that crime has gone down in every state where gun-rights have been restored. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.


Your insistence on the curtailing of MY rights is directly due to the fact that you refuse to exercise your own. Safety does not come from the state. Safety comes from reasonable people, dealing reasonably with one another. When someone is unreasonable and decides to help themselves to your property, your life, your sexuality, the state cannot save you. The state simply cannot get there in time. The state cannot protect you.


The Supreme Court has actually ruled that police do not have a duty to protect (Castlerock v. Gonzales). The police (as the arm of the state) not only can't get there in time to protect you, they have no constitutional mandate to do so. Your desire to restrict gun-rights creates a class of victims that is equal in size to the population of the country.

[A-R]

And gun-rights is part of all that. Whenever a democrat (or a RINO) tries to use crime as a reason to justify "reasonable" restrictions, the counter argument MUST be in this order:

1. You are telling me that I, a law-abiding citizen, have to give up an increment of a constitutionally guaranteed liberty, set down and actually practiced by the founders, in order to try and control people who have no regard for the law in the first place.
2. The FACTS show that crime has gone down in every state where gun-rights have been restored. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
3. Your insistence on the curtailing of MY rights is directly due to the fact that you refuse to exercise your own. Safety does not come from the state. Safety comes from reasonable people, dealing reasonably with one another. When someone is unreasonable and decides to help themselves to your property, your life, your sexuality, the state cannot save you. The state simply cannot get there in time. The state cannot protect you.
4. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that police do not have a duty to protect (Castlerock v. Gonzales). The police (as the arm of the state) not only can't get there in time to protect you, they have no constitutional mandate to do so. Your desire to restrict gun-rights creates a class of victims that is equal in size to the population of the country.
5. So grow a pair.

OK, I'm done ranting.

I really like your list. But I have found in my many many MANY discussions with folks who don't automatically know/understand/believe in gun rights, that starting off the discussion with "it's my right" or something like that doesn't work too well when the predominent thought in their heads is "but it's MY RIGHT not to be killed by a madman and all these guns makes it easier for criminals and crazy people to kill ME"

I usually start off with facts showing gun control actually has the opposite effect, causing more crime, more helpless victims. Back that up with the fact - that most of them don't know/understand - that police cannot will not and are not even REQUIRED TO protect them from crime (only to pick up the pieces after you're already broken). Then I end with why are we taking away guns from EVERYONE in some drastic, misguided hope that it will take guns away from people who shouldn't have them? This is when I may or may not go into the whole "rights" angle depending on their reactions.

I've just found that with those who are not dead set against guns - period (you're never going to convince them of anything anyway) - that the rational arguments are the best start. You first have to counter the irrational fears so many people already have. Most who have those fears will see a rights vs. fears argument as ridiculous from the get go, as if you're saying that your right to own a gun is more important than their right to not be shot by a gun. I realize that statement sound ridiculous to all of us, but to someone who's never been around guns much and who is brainwashed into irrational fear by the media, it makes perfect sense. They first need to realize that banning guns doesn't make them safer. Illegal drugs have been banned for decades yet people still get drugs. Show them the hopelessly desperate, irrationality of gun control first, then lead them to understand that when bad people do bad things with guns, they are only ever stopped by good people with guns. If those good people are police, then the time between the start of the crime and the end of the crime is longer and more will suffer/die as a result. When the good guy with a gun who stops the bad guy with a gun is instead the potential victim or a neighborh, family member etc - often the potential victim is spared. And don't we have a right to protect ourselves?

I guess my point is that folks have to be convinced that owning guns can have a positive affect before they give a darn whether it is a right or not.