Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

Fair enough, apologies bengunn, didn't realize your question was from pg. 1. Nonetheless, it's still a stupid question. The idea that anyone has the goal of eliminating all violent deaths is ridiculous on its face. Probably you know that, so it's hard for me to take your "I'm just asking questions," posturing seriously.

Yeah man, this question: "what do we ban next after guns are banned and people still kill each other?" is quite a scholarly inquisition into the complexities of the issue.

*mutter* By my reading of the times and the text, it's actually the opposite. It's meant for modern weapons of war, and meant as the State's last line of defense against foreign or domestic threats. It's born out of a deep distrust at the time of a standing federal army. The current purpose of the Amendment is in theory covered by the National Guard and the fact that as much as people distrust The Government, we're more than happy to fund the fuck out of a standing army.

Feel free to correct me if I'm misreading the timing of the 2nd's passage and purpose. It just seems to me like the idea was to keep the ability to muster a militia in the states, not every man being an armed solo agent. If anything, it's purpose would not include handguns, but absolutely include automatic rifles at this point.

And if people want to quote the founding fathers ad nauseum they should first discover that we were never intended to have a standing army in the first goddamn place, and having one has kinda built a barrier between our citizens and the conflicts we fight that quickly breeds these pretend-cowboy morons.

And, yeah, it's usually the same people who say they want their guns to protect themselves against some imagined government threat that also wave their fucking American flags at the first sign of any foreign conflict for our military.

A Scribd writeup of Obama's Executive Orders announced this morning, linked via the NPR's front page. It seems like pretty rational first steps and analysis oriented, and well within the bounds of the president's power (though I expect a fair number of wingnuts to go crazy over it anyways because OBAMAAA + executive orders).

Lots of rhetoric for a Congress to do more, which is really where the battle has to be fought. I'm most satisfied by one of the EOs directing the CDC to investigate gun violence.

*Mutter* I actually don't think he can do that with an EO without a fight. The reason the CDC doesn't do that is that they're banned by Congress from spending a dime on anything that may say anything negative about gun ownership. An EO can't override a spending order from Congress, even if said spending order should totally be nuked from orbit.

It's patently fucking revolting the NRA pressured the CDC to refrain from researching gun violence statistics, and that it was allowed to happen at all.

Crap... now I'm going to have to unfriend more people on Facebook once the wave of "Why is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention being ordered to investigate gun violence?! Dumb Obama!!" posts begins...

Because the NHS is also prevented from researching it by Congressional funding ban! :P

A few things I have issues with in that list but for the most part I don't see a problem with the ideas in there.

This is actually one of my red lines in terms of determining if someone is a reasonable person who likes guns vs. a straight up gun nut. Reasonable people can differ about the degree to which the benefits of massive firearm ownership outweigh the costs, and they can disagree on the principles behind it. But if you disagree that the subject should even be examined in a scientific fashion? You're an idiot and I don't have time for you.

I'm a bit confused why the gun laws vary from state to state but Congress did (and could again) pass a federal level law on gun control? If the ATF polices firearms regulations why is it up to the states to decide on things like conceal-carry permits?

Here in Canada firearms and explosives (which ammunition falls under) is a federal level jurisdiction.

Because the states get to do what they wanna do unless the federal government says otherwise. It's an easier lift to get this stuff passed in red states than it would be in Congress, so that's how it's done.

Edit: Yes, a very simple view of things, but accurate enough for the sake of the question.

Follow up to the shooting of the car burglar: Apparently it is explicitly legal in Texas to use deadly force "during the nighttime" to protect property, or prevent criminal mischief, even if the thief is fleeing with the property at the time. Texas Penal Code 942. http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html

It has to fall within Texas Penal Code 941, which lets you use force to protect moveable property or land when the force is "immediately necessary" to prevent or terminate the interference. You can also use force to recover property if you are in fresh pursuit, as long as you reasonably believe the "thief" has no claim of right to the property ("claim of right" means something they could assert in court, even if you disagrees with it-- for instance, repossession or a dispute between heirs) or if the "thief" uses force, threat, or fraud to take it. http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html

Warning: clicking this link may result in REALLY LOUD COMMERCIALS BLASTING THROUGH YOUR SPEAKERS UNEXPECTEDLY

Because STATES RIGHTS!

Probably it's got origins that have to do with hunting regulations than anything else. Which is still pretty irrelevant as far as regulating the firearms themselves goes.

As long as the states don't overrule the Feds they can pass laws on the same topics, with some exceptions that are exclusively federal, notably (and controversially) immigration.

o.O

Also there are some things the Feds can't regulate because the Fed. government can only regulate topics granted in the Constitution. Health, safety, criminal laws, are traditionally a matter for the states; it's actually a bit of a stretch to regulate guns at all (Congress falls back on the good old Commerce Clause (power to regulate commerce between the states) to do it, which the Obamacare ruling just arguably cut back on).

Edit: I just wanted to acknowledge that this and my above post are disgraceful oversimplifications of half a semesters'-worth of Constitutional Law. Sorry about that!

o.O

Don't think too hard about it. Our insistence that we're more like fifty countries operating with loose oversight and interaction rules is one of our more baffling relics.

The funny thing is, federal regulations on gun ownership would be a huge boon to gun lovers, since you'd get away from the seemingly random patchwork of what is legal where, and being unable to concealed carry across certain state borders, etc. It's just smacked down by a fear of The Feds having A DATABASE or some shit. We as a country believe both that our government is completely incompetent, and are super genius masterminds at the same time.

On a more serious note with the CDC research EO: It actually appears to be legal! The full text of the EO spells it out, but essentially the ban is that the CDC cannot spend any money on advocating or promoting gun control. The EO asks for more money for the CDC from congress, and tells the CDC that scientific investigation isn't advocacy or promotion of a viewpoint so go fucking nuts on actually researching shit.

The NRA hasn't commented on it yet, likely hoping everyone forgets that the language is in there by their insistence that we please not research this topic. Cute trick, Team Obama!

I didn't realize you were the authority on what was considered scholarly around these parts. I'm sorry you don't like, understand, and/or appreciate my post. I'm not sure why you couldn't have passed over it instead of resorting to personal attacks. That's why I left the thread before and while I will leave it now. I hope next time you can get your point across without being a douche.

Its Pogo, he doesnt have the ability to make a point without being an asshole or a douche.

Says the guy who just got banned for doing exactly that.

Pogo, you have been temp banned from this forum multiple times. You are hardly one to talk down to anyone who has gotten banned.

Says the guy who has me on ignore.

Pogo is, as usual, bringing a bit of hyperbolic vitriol to the conversation. That said, it's best to refrain from using common logical fallacies when having a discussion. Your question might as well have a big giant neon sign that says "SLIPPERY SLOPE" attached to it.

To be fair, we established in the political cartoons thread that excessive labeling makes this forum unhappy.

How many of these 23 executive orders would the NRA have problems with? They seem reasonable to me...

The NRA's response was basically a non-response. I think they figured out that their first "ARM THE TEACHERS!" thing is what spun this into a clusterfuffle.

edit: I like the implication that nobody is thinking of the children at the end. And the "We're going to continue to focus on *list of things that have nothing to do with the NRA and are all government activities*"

Initial crazy response seems to be focusing on #16.

You can see some .. uh, interesting re-framing going on in places like this article entitled Obama using Obamacare for Gun Control.

Actually what he was employing was reductio ad absurdum. That's not a fallacy so much as it is a common opening gambit for trolls / the totally ignorant.

Probably all of them, because they're at the Federal level.

On a more serious note, I count at least 10 that I think they would consider problematic in some way.

It was more along the line of "Haha look what the owner of FOX News is saying"

Oh, I got that and his point, I just think his point is strangely backwards even if he's coming out against FOX's bullshit. Somewhere the 2nd morphed from keeping a militia around to defend your state into this wonky Judge Dredd power fantasy with a few hunters looking over and going "dude? That is so not what a gun is for."

I wonder what exactly a 'school resource officer' is and why the feds should be giving money for schools to hire them.

Fancytalk for police officer (makes it sound less scary to parents I guess?). My high school and middle school both had one at those campuses. They technically were from the sheriff's office, but I'm sure it differs from district to district what their qualifications and jurisdictions actually are.

The officer from the middle school was also the same officer who did D.A.R.E. at the elementary school level.

Yesterday I posted on Facebook (which I rarely use these days in favour of Google+) the site, The Truth About Assault Weapons, which explains to non-shooting laymen the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms are and what is an "assault weapon." (Yes, it's heavily biased)

One of my ex-coworker buddies apparently didn't check the site because he started ranting that civilians should not have access to automatic guns and they should be banned outright. I calmed told him the difference between semi- and fully-automatic firearms and that fully automatic rifles are banned to civilians in the US (and Canada) and you would need a special (and expensive) permit. He responded that I was picking at semantics. I told him he didn't educate himself and was arguing from the gut rather than from facts.

A cousin lives in Manhattan and she says that her preschool son's school has an armed off-duty NYPD cop as a guard now. She questioned why gun owners such as myself needs more than one bullet at a time and that we don't need to spray hunted animals with bullets. I responded to her maybe her concerns should be on the people rather than the tools -- concentrate on raising mental illness health care, make gun safety courses mandatory, and changing the gun culture. Canada has a high gun ownership (nowhere near the US's) but there is no fear of being shot walking around town or of mass shootings to the point that we need to be armed. I noted that hundreds of people die needlessly in preventable gun accidents each year in the US, more than the mass shootings combined (which are outliers to 30,000 gun-related deaths in the US). Mandatory gun safety courses and proper storage would save more kids each year than an "assault weapons" ban.

People on both sides of the gun control debate that argue from the gut rather than facts ensure there is no dialogue but just more screaming based on emotions, especially fear.

An actual cop. And as for the feds, it's because people want federal action, and telling the states they should do something winds up with mixed results especially around school funding mechanisms. So it's just easier to federally fund them.

Think NRA's ARM TEACHERS thing, only with actual trained professionals instead of arming your english lit teacher. And yeah Alligator, my HS had one around, though I don't think he carried while walking around.

Ok thanks for the info. Learned something new today.