So many comments, I admit I did scroll through a few.
Megan Kelly of Fox News said that there must be an Onion hidden in the pedestal. She’s being an asshole, but I also muse that she might be somewhat right.
Bring president brings news of tragedy, undoubtedly every week, if not day. If you’re not hard when you start the job, you will be by the time you’re done.
Maybe Mr. President did some mental gymnastics, or is just a great actor. I am somewhat certain he had to pull something special to have a public breakdown, because the job description involves armoring yourself for years and years not to.
Maybe, but then, why? What would be effective about his tears as a strategy? Kelly is just one example of how his opponents, who control congress, will only ridicule him for it. And it’s not like the last time he cried for those children had any positive effect on getting the minimal gun control policies he’s been asking for passed.
But…pissing off all those Fox-watching, flyover-country living, non-hybrid driving, unrelentingly cisgendered legions of the completely unhip is IMPORTANT to a lot of posters here.
The provision of significant schadenfreude to liberals is a worthy goal in itself, regardless of whether there are substantive results.
“Practical impossibility” as defined how? Did you miss my original question? I’m still waiting to see all of the horrible hoops you’re having to traverse in order to purchase a firearm in the United States.
Were you denied when attempting to purchase a firearm? Still waiting for those hoops you’re on about.
Thing that gets me is that telling a gun owner they have new responsibilities since the 18th century is somehow an infringement on their freedoms?
Does ANYONE actually think the 2nd Amendment says we have the freedom to be irresponsible yahoos with our guns, and that yahoos behaving irresponsibly, when it is with guns, is some special case when it comes to regulating deeply antisocial weapon-based behavior?
It amazes me that the 2nd amendment is seen as a right to fewer responsibilities than we have to take with other deadly things.
yes, we want to defend kids in order to politically humilate you. Surely.
Also, 50+ shool shootings per annum, up from around 10 in 1999 is hyperbolic. Reality itself though, has become hyperbole. TIME TO REIGN IT IN COLLECTIVELY
It should be zero, and you’re too busy making sure nobody comes for your things to see what a douche position you’ve taken.
If it comes to that, if your THINGS matter so much, then yes, your cold dead hands could be involved. Adult’s hands, not children’s. Enough cold dead 10 year olds at school.
Regarding mandatory insurance–homeowners’ insurance already addresses liability and theft to a large extent. From an actuarial standpoint, the risk is so low that it doesn’t merit consideration (accidental shootings number in the low thousands, versus of hundreds of millions of firearms in legal circulation).
I know that mandatory expensive insurance seems like a plausible solution, but I just don’t think it will do what you expect.
A large percentage of firearms used in crimes are illegally obtained. I read one estimate that put the number over 60%, but it doesn’t appear that anyone is tracking this data at a high level. Rates of recidivism and FBI crime data suggest that this is probably true, though, as do surveys of prison inmates. Even if the number is as low as 20%, it’s certainly worth addressing. There are two ways those firearms enter the black market: theft or legal sales from dealers that then make their way into illegal markets through private transfer.
Theft is difficult to address.
I would be interested in criminal liability for individuals who furnish firearms used in crimes through private transfers that skirt background checks. As an example–an AK variant used in the Paris shootings was legally sold by a dealer in Florida. If we track the chain of custody for that gun post-purchase, at some point we will find a private transfer with no background check. The private citizen sold that gun should be tried as an accomplice to murder.
I think this would have a chilling effect on one channel of firearms used in violent crimes. We can skip the gunshow loophole entirely. As long as you’re not a dealer, you can transfer firearms as you always did. Your can sell your neighbor a Glock any day of the week. But if your neighbor uses that Glock to kill his wife, you’ll face charges.
Don’t want the criminal liability? Get a background check when you sell that gun to your neighbor. Now you’re off the hook. We’re all grownups and we can make our own decisions. We just have to face the consequences if we make a poor decision.
I’m sure he’ll sleep more soundly tonight because of the condescension oozing from the mealy side of your mouth.
Obama was a community organizer before he was a senator; he was standing in a room filled with people who’d lost family members to gun violence; before, and during, his comments, many of the audience members held up photographs of their now-slain family members, many of the slain being children; in the last three(?), four(?), ten(?) public statements Obama has made about gun violence, each time he was visibly angry/impacted about the issue at hand; and lastly, as a person of color and a previous community organizer, this is an issue he’s had to deal with since getting involved in social work.
But yeah, I’m sure he was faking a few tears to score cheap political points. Because he does that sort of stuff all the time.
Can we compare that to how women seeking FEDERALLY LEGAL abortions are treated, thanks to the many state and local laws created specifically to make the legal option effectively impossible?
No, because that involves “Womens”, and “Womens” legal stuff isn’t quite as important as guns. “Womens” stuff also usually involves dirty words like “sex” and another one that begins with a ‘V’ (shudder), so we’re not havin’ any of that.*
