Biden Drafts Gun Agenda While Acknowledging Weak Links to Tragedies
The White House took aim at gun-rights groups today with the second day of a rash of meetings intended to roll recent mass shootings into a sharp gun-control agenda for President Obama’s second term.
After meetings with various stakeholders, Vice President Joe Biden promised to have his recommendations to Obama by Tuesday — less than a week before Inauguration Day.
“There’s an emerging set of recommendations, not coming from me but coming from the groups we’ve met with. And I’m going to focus on the ones that relates primarily to gun ownership and the type of weapons that can be owned,” Biden said at his first meeting of the day, with sportsmen and wildlife groups.
The veep followed this up by meeting with gun owners’ groups in the afternoon, then with entertainment industry representatives in the early evening.
The National Rifle Association lashed out at its meeting as an agenda-pushing roundtable. “We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment,” the group said in a statement. “While claiming that no policy proposals would be ‘prejudged,’ this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners — honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.”
“We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of Congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works — and what does not.”
Biden boasted of meeting with a wide swathe of groups in preparing his recommendations, from the Boys & Girls Club to domestic-violence prevention, from the American Bar Association to the Rotary Club. Yesterday’s sit-downs also included physicians, school board members and teachers, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
“We are having the conversation the American public wants us to have. Conversations are needed regarding assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and changing social norms, as well as, the very important need for comprehensive background checks — supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners and NRA members,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign, said of the meeting that was also attended by Attorney General Eric Holder.
Gross said the administration’s commitment “is evident in not only their words, but also their actions.”
It was actually the second time the Brady Campaign has been at the White House since the Newtown, Conn., school shooting: just four days after Sandy Hook, the gun-control lobbying group met with Obama’s senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett. The next day, Obama announced the formation of the task force led by Biden.
On Wednesday, Biden also met with 17 religious leaders, a meeting he characterized as “the first time there has been an overwhelming consensus from the evangelical groups nationwide, particularly those from rural areas, to the National Catholic Conference of Bishops, the National Council of Churches, the Muslim community, because this does have a significant moral dimension to it, how we make American communities safer and how we go about it.”
Yet with the clear current events hook at play — and Democrats from Congress to statehouses making the rounds on news shows to press that point — Biden acknowledged that current gun control propositions don’t necessarily even have a link to the spate of mass shootings over the past year.
“If you look at every one of the tragic events that have attracted so much attention, it’s hard to be able to pinpoint what you could have done to assure it wouldn’t have happened,” Biden said.
“But there’s also things we know. We know that there’s certain actions we take that have diminished, have diminished the extent of the gun violence that otherwise would be occurring in the United States.”
The hints about the recommendations dropped by Biden mirrored what gun-control advocates on Capitol Hill have been pushing for in the wake of Newtown — universal background checks that don’t vary from state to state (including at gun shows and person-to-person sales), fixing a backlog of felons yet to be entered in the system for background checks, and restricting the size of gun magazines.
Biden said he’s been surprised to see former Senate colleagues — not referred to by name — “who have been pretty universally opposed to any restrictions on gun ownership or what type of weapons can be purchased, et cetera, there is — I’ve never heard quite as much about the need to do something about high-capacity magazines as I’ve heard spontaneously from every group that we’ve met with so far.”
He also indicated that the recommendations could include stricter mental health checks, stiffer gun penalties in school zones, and new federal agency research on gun violence.
“One of the things that we’re prohibited from doing beginning in the early part of this century, about 2004, is just even the Centers for Disease Control gathering up information about the kinds of injuries, and what are the injuries and what are the source of the injuries,” Biden said.
There was no information from the Justice Department to indicate how Holder’s meeting went today with retail chains who sell guns — Academy Sports + Outdoors, Bass Pro Shops, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Cabela’s, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Dunham’s Sports, Gander Mountain, Sportsman’s Warehouse, and Wal-Mart.
L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a member of Mayors against Illegal Guns who could also be eyeing a cabinet position in Obama’s second term, said the proposals — along with renewing the assault weapons ban — are “a good place to start.”
While endorsing the slate of measures, including “the cracks in the cheese” known as gun-show loopholes, though, Villaraigosa acknowledged the efficacy of guns in the hands of the right people on campuses.
“What happened in Newtown, what’s happening over the last couple of years across the country in terms of — these mass shootings, they need to be stopped. We need to do something about the violence. And not just responsible control laws,” he said on MSNBC. “I’ve said, as well, in L.A. is an example. We have our police officers patrolling every school, visiting the schools on a daily basis.”
What kind of deep and profound mental illness would a man have to be possessed with to furnish Murderous Mexican Drug Gangs with thousands of assault weapons, used to murder hundreds of people, including children, and then pretend that he didn’t know anything about it? Should such a highly disturbed and heartless killer, who belongs in a Mexican prison serving a life sentence, be allowed to have any control of guns whatsoever? I think not, at least in a sane world. But then are we living in a sane world anymore?
Sandy Hook is the slaughter the fascist killer was trying to achieve with his Operation Fast and Furious, which rightfully should be call Operation Murder and Mendacity. He needed people murdered with guns he could tie to America. His problem is that although he achieved the slaughter he wanted, hundreds of dead Mexicans, including scores of children, he lost control of the narrative and had to slither back into the dark for a while when Jaime Zapata’s murder threw a monkey wench in his cold blooded scheme. Now with the bodies of the children of Sandy Hook, he thinks his dream has come true and his Tyrannical Executive Orders and “strangulation by regulation” can be jammed down our, his subjects, throats, at least he figures so anyway. In Herr Hussein Obama we have our First American Tyrant, the God in his own mind, the Founding Fathers worried about.
“It’s hard to be able to pinpoint what you could have done to assure it wouldn’t have happened.”
Maybe first come to a realization that everybody is foolishly deemd without serious or potentially serious emotional and mental flaws — until they prove, after-the-fact, they aren’t!
Since the overwhelming majority of debate on PMJ over gun onership rights agree that those emotionally and mentally flawed should not own guns, why is there not an obvious agreement to screen for this class of people prior to point of sale completion. The concept of ‘screening’ is already in place and seems acceptable so why not add a pyschological personality screening component also? It can be taken and computer scored in a jiffy and shazam — you now the proud new owner of a real gun or a water pistol.
How about a screening for the mental health of a President and AG? We got a couple right now that went on a gun running murder spree in Mexico that directly resulted in the murders of hundreds, including children, and that’s just from the guns that have been recovered so far.
The Newton shooter was not in possession of firearms he had obtained legally. Your suggestion is fine, as far as it goes. However, it is but another infringement upon the law abiding that, had it been in effect before Newton would have had no effect on the outcome.It is another example of doing something, period. That’s all it is.
Also, various venues calling for laws compelling the locking up of legally held firearms in homes with persons who would be deemed unable to own a firearm violates the rights of the legal person to self defense.
If a parent had a child with ADD, for instance, and the list would be very long of other diagnoses, would that parent be required to lock his or her handgun possessed for the sole purpose of home self defense? Ludicrous.
Not to worry, Mike. It’s only temporary until the pre-crime units come for the child with ADD so that he (oops, I mean “it”) can be forever locked away from better people.
“emotionally and mentally flawed should not own guns”
How about not letting then run thousands of guns to co-conspire in a mass murder spree, or at least shipping them down to Mexico to stand trial for their cold blooded crimes?
It is impossible to keep the mentally ill from owning guns because of health privacy laws. All they have to do is lie on the application- unless a person is under court-ordered care there is no way to find out they have problems. All this chatter about improving background checks is just to make it harder for the average Joe & Josephine to own a gun.
You do realize that the govt is trying to get digital medical records so that they will have access to all. These records will not be secure enough to prevent the govt from ready access.
So, um, … background checks DON’T make buying a gun harder for the mentally ill; but they DO make it harder for the average joe.
I see.
Answer: there is no universally agreed upon test that will certify blindly and accurately that you are or are not completely nuts.
Well, if its only 50% accurate in current times thats a good start. Even if it was only 10% accurate it would be good. Good enough for law enforcement, good enough for the gander.
Zeke, you can always institutionalize yourself voluntarily.
Just letting you know that you have options.
In some of my latter day military capacities I was required to undergo psychological testing and extensive background investigations. In my latter private sector days, I was required to undergo pyschological testing and extensive background investigations. Never failed a one of them! Can you say the same?
“The concept of ‘screening’ is already in place and seems acceptable so why not add a pyschological personality screening component also?”
Because the Left has an alarming habit of defining Conservatism, really ANY political opposition to them, as a mental illness. I have no trouble at all imagining an administration like this saying that the desire to own a gun is in itself a personality trait that disqualifies you from having one.
And like most such ideas it wouldn’t do anything at all to stop lunatics anyway. Someone who has the wherewithal to go to the gun shop with a credit card probably also has enough on the ball to lie and just give the answers they know the test is looking for.
A better answer, in fact the only real answer consistent with protecting everyone’s rights, is to accept that some handful of determined lunatics will always find a way to do evil. Once you accept that the answer is clear: level the field by allowing normal, sane people the means to defend themselves. Stop presenting easy target pools for these people and make them know that if they throw shots in public it’s likely someone is going to throw some back.
“…probably also has enough on the ball to lie and just give the answers they know the test is looking for.”
Not unless they know the validater sequence.
Psychological screenings are highly subjective and take hours, if not days. Are you willing to subjugate your rights to the whims of a government psychologist, who likely already hates guns and gun owners?
Law enforcement does! You have any ideas at to why?
So, as a mentally and emotionally flawed creature; you’re volunteering to be screened out?
In the scheme of un-natural forms of death, these shootings are nothing more than a statistical blip, or an anecdote. But it works… as we all sit here discussing a virtual non-issue.
Barack Obama – Gun Running Merchant of Death – The Perpetrator Of The Rolling 9/11 Against Mexican Civilians.
“The most important three letters – G U N S”. – Joe Biden
No doubt. No doubt at all. All three of them
On the plus side, I just reviewed my state’s concealed carry law and it’s great! As a woman, I like knowing I can stick a gun in my glove box or purse and I’m good to go. No permit needed- it has to be actually under my clothing to be considered “concealed”. Some parts of this country are still sane.
In my state a concealed carry permit requires a 65-dollar fee and a four-hour gun safety class. And you have to carry your permit card whenever you’re packing. Just in case some bored, obnoxious cop decides to harass you because he’s jealous of your car or something. And when he asks, “what are you doing with this gun?” you can show him your card, tell him to go on his merry way, and leave you the hell alone.
Hey, we’re not sure if it’ll really do anything but let’s ban guns! (Gee, thanks.)
But we already know what it will do, just look to Great Britain for the perfect example. They took a nation of citizens and turned them all into helpless victims. But that has always been the real goal, disarm the law abiding citizens so only criminals and government agents remain armed. But I repeat myself.
Well, if they tried ordering everyone to turn in their guns like they did in England, a full confiscation, they’d be pretty likely to have a civil war on their hands. There;s no legal constitutional mechanism for them to pass a total gun ban, not without a properly ratified amendment superseding the second, so those resisting would have a strong legal claim. Instead of a disarmed populace they desire, they’d have a few million dead by the time the dust settled. Who knows, maybe they want that too but I honestly doubt it. They’re far more likely to just issue some executive order related to enforcing background checks and call it a day. I can’t wait for the butthurt from the press when it becomes apparent that people are going to keep those “assault rifles” and standard capacity magazines after all.
I think you overstate the strength of their (your?) case. In order to legally pass any form of gun control the Dems would need to control both houses of congress and the presidency, and they’d need to be willing to be hammered for it in the next election. There are no anti-gun Republicans and a lot of pro-gun dems, therefore any legislation going after guns will cost the democrats votes while not winning them any they didn’t already have. The only Democrats who can afford to go against guns are those from districts with a >20% permanent Democrat majority, big city mayors, people like Feinstein, etc. Also, don’t kid yourself into thinking that the most recent shooting fundamentally changed the debate in any way, the press is just saying that because they want it to be true so badly and because this is the first shooting where Obama doesn’t have to face re-election. They largely stayed silent on gun control the previous times because they didn’t want to force Obama to take a stance that could well cost him the election. They’re pushing hard for it now, but it won’t matter with Republicans in the house. The media often publishes some push-poll taken in the hysteria immediately after the strongest coverage of a shooting and declare it as proof of “changing attitudes on guns”, but that’s about as dishonest as it comes trying to apply a fit of hysteria to the long term. Even the gun control advocates know that they only have a narrow window to strike when they can try and ram something through on emotion rather than fact. I cannot predict the future, but what I can most safely predict is that there will be no long sustained push for gun control any time in the near future. Any gun control measures that pass in the future will happen only if there is a perfect storm of politics and hysteria. While there may not be any long sustained push by an entire party to pass any gun control legislation, any that passes will face a long sustained opposition and attempt to repeal it. The Democrats cannot allow gun control to become a major campaign issue on the national level or they lose, therefore they can only strike on it briefly and as far away from the next election as possible. The culture of the country may change someday, but the media will sure have their work cut out for them trying to make that happen.
Sorry, the above post was supposed to be a reply to Zeke below.
I would respectfully suggest that you go back to 1776 and counts the numbers of gun regulations enacted since then.
“There are no anti-gun Republicans …”
I think most anybody could challenge that statment, but let my put it aside and make ‘my’ point more clear. First, minority numbers of extremists exist on both sides of the political spectrum. Second, the overwhelming vast majority of american citizens have never advocated repealing the second amendment and do not do so now. Since 1776 there have been numerous statutory (regulatory) enactments to the second amendment. Most of them have centered on the very same national debate issues. Those who are atempting to claim malitia rights are simply riding a dead horse to its second death. “the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription. Now refer to the statutory defining malitias and to the framework the selective service/draft statutes. “the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service –to include self-defense.” Those claiming fears of second amendment repeal are riding the same dead horse and are todding off into the world of delusion.
The national discussion is simply who can be private gun owners and what kinds of guns should be allowed to that constitutionally protected class of citizens. Regulating who can own guns has long precedent acceptance by the general public who do not contest this regulating and in fact convicted felons and adjudicated mental deficiencies are barred. On the other hand types of guns have been regulated and with little or no public contest.
Also, refer to USC 18, Chapter 115.
“Biden Drafts Gun Agenda While Acknowledging Weak Links to Tragedies”
Yeah? Atta boy, Plugs. Meanwhile I joined with many others today in joining the NRA. I’m really looking forward to getting the snazzy NRA cap along with all the other stuff. Take you grubby paws off my 2′nd Amendment rights, you stupid leftist tool!
P.S., you ever stick that boney finger in MY face, I’ll stick it where the sun don’t shine, on you.
It’s obvious the left is following the guide line, “I don’t care if it’s right or actually does any good, just do something.” I guess they figure if they disarm the public, the public will have to beg for protection and that will come at great cost; namely give up your remaining rights and pay at least 50% of your income to the gub’mnt for protection.
And this from the people that brought us “Fast and Furious”. I wonder how many of those guns he and holder sent to Mexico have made it north of the border to be used to terrorize the American public after chairman obama has seen to it no one has guns other that his jack booted enforcers and his gang banger buddies.
Right. It’s totally different from permanently institutionalizing everyone with any mental illness.
Guess I’ll need to go to the local undocumented pharmaceutical dealer to get a gun. I’m sure he’ll properly process my background check after recieving a few Benjamin Franklins. He has an office well away from the local schools and any other “gun-free” zones.
One thing I’ve taken note of is that mayors of cities in states with their own ‘assault weapon’ ban (NYC, LA, New Haven, etc.) and governors of those states are the ones pushing for a federal ban.
Setting aside obvious 2nd amendment issues, it’s amusing to see them so uncritically undermining the very thing that let them create their own ban-state sovereignty.
If a federal AWB passes, it shouldn’t be hard to overturn-not much should pass strict scrutiny. I would love to see the faces and hear the reactions when precedent enables their bans to be overturned too. I’m sure they’ll be all about state’s rights, laboratories of democracy, etc.
They have no shame, the irony will be lost on them. It’s like when the Massachusetts Democrats changed the state constitution to keep Romney from nominating a Republican in case Kerry won in 2004, then changed it back when it suited them. They see nothing wrong or hypocritical in changing their stance on a given rule to suit their needs of the moment. It’s like how the exact same Democrats who praised the filibuster as an essential protection for the minority when Bush and the Republicans were in power now rail against it as “impeding progress” and try to get in abolished. Make no mistake, if they did abolish the filibuster now while they were in power they would not hesitate to try and reinstate it as soon as they were out of power and it would benefit them again. Hitler used the democratic process to take power, then immediately denied those same processes to his opponents and laughed when people tried to point out the hypocrisy. That’s the same mentality we’re up against here, they’re all for state’s rights when they lean left, totally against them when it goes against their plans. They literally have the gall to applaud the entire concept of states rights when they pertain one side of an issue, then slam the entire concept of states rights when pertaining to the other side of the same issue. Good old fashioned doublethink. See how they encourage California to create “sanctuary cities” in violation of federal law, but file lawsuits against Arizona for trying to enforce laws on the very same issue? They. Have. No. Shame. No Conscience. No Restraint.
“If a federal AWB passes, it shouldn’t be hard to overturn…”
Ponder this! During the last federal ban during the Clinton administration, not a single gun radical or their lobbyist lawyers approached the courts or the supreme courts for a constitution rendering. Likewise, of the many ‘regulations’ enacted, in addendum to the 2nd amendment, how many have gone to or survived a supreme court rendering? Just throwing it out to you!
That was before the Heller V DC decision and others. Gun rights proponents were afraid to challenge laws in the courts for a long time not so much on the fear that they’d lose their specific case, but that the court would use a “creative” interpretation of the constitution to set a precedent effectively nullifying the second amendment. Wicard v Filburn essentially ripped the 10th amendment right out of the constitution and they wanted to prevent a liberal court from doing the same thing to the 2nd. Now that the precedent has been set firmly stating that the 2nd means what it says it means they many be more amenable to challenging stuff like the AWB.
Also, what’s so radical about opposing the AWB? The AWB was worthless, as in completely and totally worthless banning mainly cosmetic features that certain ignorant politicians thought looked scary.
I understand your points. However, when abuse of a right becomes a matter of inflaming the conscience of enough people, things begin to change for that right. It never happens over night and never is smooth sailing in the courts but eventually, as the abuse persists and or increases, it does get addressed and taken care of. The process of gun rights reformation is but in its infancy currently. The second amendment will always stand, but regulating who can be gun owners and what guns are classified for ownership will eventually be reformed if abuse continues to inflame society at large. The destiny of ‘any’ right in this country, is always left to the people and their ability to be responsible stewards of those rights. And in this country, the constitution provides equal rights and protections for a minority class such as victims of crimes, etc.
In my younger years I could never have imagined placing the sanctity of such an important document as our Constitution, and the Second Amendment, into the hands of such a dullard as Joe Biden. My God, what has become of my country?
This act, in this Kafkaesque play, has already been written. Uncle Joe has been handed his script, written by the same nameless, faceless, unseen people as who wrote obummacare. This is the theater of the absurd. Treason hidden in plain sight.
Conclusions and methods of implementation are already drafted. All that remains is to ‘click print’ and we all will know their plans. As if we don’t already know what they plan.
All that is left to ask is where will the next act in this play, a Ruby Ridge or Waco incident, be engineered that will set off the debate on the final solution — the confiscation of firearms? That’s right, Final Solution. Once the firearms are gone we are all slaves.
Just say “NO to EOs”.
“L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a member of Mayors against Illegal Guns who could also be eyeing a cabinet position in Obama’s second term, said the proposals — along with renewing the assault weapons ban — are “a good place to start.”
Mayors against illegal guns? Are there any mayors FOR illegal guns? Of course all mayors are AGAINST illegal guns. I don’t know of ANY Americans that are FOR illegal guns except criminals and gang members. So what really is their point? I also didn’t see the mayor of Chicago quoted here, where literally dozens of people are being murdered each month due to gang violence committed by people using ILLEGAL guns. So why is it Biden and his minions are going against LEGAL gun owners and making their lives more difficult, rather than making tougher Federal laws against people who actually use guns illegally?
And yet I see nothing being discussed about stiffer penalties for people actually committing crimes with illegal guns. Nothing. You would think that those are the very people who need to be discouraged from getting a gun, NOT a homeowner who wants a gun to protect his family. Yet liberals are famous for turning honest people into criminals and allowing criminals to go free. Is THAT their form of “social justice?”
There is absolutely NO law that would have prevented what happened in Connecticut. None. All of the guns that kid had were purchased LEGALLY by his mother and were mainly used by her. How many teenagers get into their parents’ car and end up killing people in traffic accidents, yet I don’t hear anybody wanting to ban cars or restrict the use of cars by insane people or young people.
Sadly, there will always be crazy people who get access to guns. That has happened ever since this country was formed. But what we certainly CAN do is make life A LOT more difficult for criminals who use illegal guns. THEY are the ones who commit the bulk of the crimes in this country. We should be focusing on them and NOT the average American citizen who follows the law.
And yet I see nothing being discussed about stiffer penalties for people actually committing crimes with illegal guns. Nothing.
For 20 years it has been widely advertised that you use a gun and you go to jail. And gun violence (robbery, shooting, etc) stays the same or rises. It is well known that using a gun puts you in federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison. And gun violence (robbery, shooting, etc) stays the same or rises.
There are two distinct groups here. Group 1 is inner city thugs etc who do the 98% of the shootings and robberies. Group 2 is the erstwhile middle class types who go off their meds and shoot 20 people while committing suicide.
The stiffer penalties threat doesn’t work on group 1; they already know the outcome of getting busted. Nor does it work on group 2, they’ve already decided on suicide before they load up the guns they acquire (one way or another.) If the stiff penalty of certain imminent death isn’t a deterrent, how does adding more penalties help?
Gun control legislation is only incidentally, if at all, related to public safety. The left is smart enough to know nothing they have proposed will measurably deter criminals and psychotics from committing crimes with guns.
Gun control is first and always about discouraging the law abiding from owning guns. Now contrary to the thoughts of some of my fellow contributors on this page and others, I don’t think the immediate objective is gun confiscation. Rather, the left is after symbolism, and what they regard as a “moral” society. That explains their near death-wish effort to pass Obamacare. It is becoming apparent that the statute is a mess, will do little of what it was advertised to do, and will be inordinately expensive. But that’s OK; we now live on a country that has “(near)universal heath care”, just like those sophisticated Europeans!
Likewise, a sophisticated and moral country would ban, or strictly regulate, guns in civilian hands. Any other circumstance is tantamount to the wild west; shootouts in the street, citizens defending themselves, etc. Just can’t be tolerated. Nothing short of a moral crusade explains the fanatical dedication of the progressives to “universal health care”, “taxing the rich” and “gun control”, among other items on the long list of the leftist agenda.
Anytime the Obama administration wants to have a “conversation” with the American people get ready for more of the same demonization and divisiveness. Another tragedy to not waste while behind the curtain this group of libs is extorting, bribing, threatening, and sowing hatred every step of the way. The right way is to achieve this change would be to get our constitution amended which of course is not going to happen. So lets use the Saul Alinsky tactics to demonize law abiding citizens and turn citizen against citizen. When the last such confrontation is over in four years we will regret every having elected this moron for president. These are the same hypocrites that brought us the lawless Fast and Furious gun running scheme, who threw and innocent man in jail for exercising his first amendement rights to criticize islam, and who watched while four US citizens including an ambassador die at the hands of terrorists in Bengazi Libya. Forgive me if I am not impressed with these fools. But we know where this is going.
You can be sure that the single most critical factor will not be part of the “agenda” coming out of the White House;
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/
As David Kupelian points out, every single mass murderer being used to justify “gun control” was on heavy antipsychotic medication on an outpatient basis. Furthermore, most of the drugs involved are known to cause aberrational behavior as a side-effect.
This factor is routinely ignored by the press, and the politicians. Simply put, it conflicts with their agenda. That being the disarming of the American people.
We had an incident just like this here in my town two days ago. A man tried to hold up two different stores, failing both times due to running away when the clerk hit an alarm. He had two guns. He was finally corralled after a police pursuit near the edge of town. About that time a flash came through the Ohio State Highway Patrol, BOLO (Be On The Lookout) for the car he was in. Why? Taken by family member (him), mental outpatient, off his meds. Right now they’re trying to figure out where he got the guns; they didn’t belong to the family. Perp has long drug-abuse record in addition to mental “issues”, so best guess is he scored the weapons from a dealer.
Believe me, this is not a rare occurrence. It just didn’t make the national news because he didn’t shoot up a schoolyard.
Combine psychiatric “professionals” who think their patients must never be inhibited from “being themselves” (collateral damage not entering into their calculations), and politicians who dream of absolute power. Add a few seriously-deranged individuals who should be locked up, period, end of story, who are nonetheless allowed to run around loose. Then make sure said individuals can acquire deadly weapons, usually by theft or from other illegal sources (drug dealers).
Stir well, count the bodies- and demand more restrictions on law-abiding citizens.
Repeat as necessary until Total Power is achieved.
That is the Great American Gun Control Debate in a nutshell. And our “enlightened leaders” couldn’t get to first base… without the nuts.
clear ether
eon
I just heard about this strange item. It appears UnitedWay posted a Sandy Hook Relief page 3 days before the shooting.
http://www.naturalnews.com/038633_Sandy_Hook_Google_search_results_December_11.html
Most every citizen is ‘presumed’ emotionally, mentally stable and law abiding — until they aren’t.
Gun ownership in my mind is akin to a relationship with intent to marry. I’m assuming aside from a fleeting rush of sexual harmones, most use this time to evaluate the others emotional state of mind and any proclivity to engage in irrational and unacceptable social, especially, violent behaviors, etc. many I supose don’t invest much in those areas as high numbers in domestic violence and homicides data indicates.
True. But if somebody is already on heavy anti-psychotic medication, by order of a psychiatrist (who has to have an M.D. to be allowed to prescribe anything), I don’t think they can be defined as “emotionally and/or mentally stable”. Unless the psychiatrist in question really likes risking a malpractice suit, that is.
My solution would be that any licensed psychiatrist who does this, i.e. simply “over-medicates” a patient who is clearly dangerous (all of those listed fell into that category), rather than putting them into custodial care where they cannot harm others or themselves, should be held civilly liable for any harm they cause when they are “on the street”. Up to and including wrongful-death suits.
A few large court settlements might make the profession rethink their attitudes about telling the next of kin of such patients to “value their insights” rather than listening when those relatives tell them the patient dreams of being the Joker, or Neo, or some character from Grand Theft Auto.
clear ether
eon
I’m not nearly so concerned with the minute numbers in the class you discuss. I’m far more concerned about the people next door and down the street in every community across the land. The moms and dads who attack their childrens little league coaches and umpires, the hot heads and drunks, the road rage idiots who shoot at people or use their vehicles to assualt or intimidate people. The domestic violence people who never get reported. The ones who smoke their dope and abuse other drugs. The people who threaten other people who casually threaten bodily harm and on down the line. Then theres the class of radical extemmists who live in a world of delusion and paranoid disconnect from reality — actually clinically psychotic. These people are the most dangerous and are everywhere as ‘legal’ gun owners. All of these people who have never seen the light of a psychologists office or a courtroom.
The OBAMA Administration demanding “comprehensive background checks” is the funniest thing I have heard this year.
All of these mass school shootings (and I include the Aurora theatre because of the notorious McREL ed lab there and what James Holmes’ Westview High School in San Diego was piloting) track back to schools and districts pushing cutting edge versions of Outcomes Based Education. This is important because school becomes a place where psychological techniques designed for levelling and emotionalizing responses become dominant instead of the transmission of knowledge.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/what-happens-when-repeated-and-intentional-threats-to-student-beliefs-becomes-mandated/ is based on what is known without going into the specifics of Newtown or CT generally. I have that info though and it is consistent with what I am saying. CT has officially gone to a policy that the focus of the classroom must be equally accessible to all students. That means a social and emotional focus.
This SEL (social and emotional learning) focus is the quiet core of what is being nationalized as part of Obama’s education initiatives. The accreditors have mandated it and there is a Positive School Climate executive order now. In addition the Positive Behavior Improvement Systems that were originally piloted in Colorado are going national as part of a Response to Intervention position paper. Applicable to all students, not just those with exhibited behavior problems.
To be graphic about it, the psychological and behavioral assaults that correlate to these tragedies because they are trying to gain physiological changes to the Prefrontal Cortex to support desired personality traits. The primary pusher is CASEL in Chicago located on the same campus that thinks Bill Ayers is acceptable prof material.
We are apparently already subject to a dictatorship. These clowns in the administration do not discuss, they dictate how it’s going to be. If that doesn’t meet with your approval, the supreme dictator just declares “executive privilege”, or, dictatorial powers.
“If you look at every one of the tragic events that have attracted so much attention, it’s hard to be able to pinpoint what you could have done to assure it wouldn’t have happened,” Biden said.
Translation: We know what doesn’t work, and like the economy we’ll just keep doing the wrong things, because it gets us reelected.
Early on, my Momma told me you can’t win an argument with crazy people. I give you profound evidence courtesy of the criminally insane MaObama administration.
Witness this scenario: You own several high-powered weapons that you have legally purchased over the years, spending thousands of dollars of your hard-earned money. You’ve taught your entire family how to use, store and clean them, and the importance of owning them. And now you’re going to let some dimwitted government lackey come around and confiscate them, all because Dear Leader wants to “protect the children”. Get real! Ain’t gonna happen. They have greatly underestimated the American People. The sleeping giant awakens.
The truly dangerous, and tragic fact which is coming from the Vice President of the United States’ pronouncements is that a significant portion of American citizens consider that he is lying through his teeth. What is dying in America, and on Second Amendment issues, is almost dead, is a ubiquitous lack of trust between those on both sides of the issue. A law which limits the size of a ammo magazine will do nothing to curtail the slaughter of innocents. This is candidly admitted by all. If a shooter commits six felonies, why would any sentient person consider that another law would stop his insane conduct? Why does this Administration concentrate on the murder of white people in a liberal state but ignore the murder of black citizens which is many times more prevalent? Why do they not investigate Chicago, home of strict gun laws which is an abattoir? The sole possible answer is politics. They seek power. They want citizens to be disarmed.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a hard limit on governmental power. There would be more respect, and consideration, if folks told the truth.
You Know You’re a GUN CONTROL HYPOCRITE IF….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6-FtsnIFsc&feature=player_embedded
“If Holder didn’t know about Project Gunrunner, why did he give a speech about it over 3 years ago?”
http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090402.html
Holder speech on April 2, 2009 (according to DOJ site!): “Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion. DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail.”
“We must DO SOMETHING!!! Anything. If giving up all our rights prevents the death of one person, it’s worth it. No one should own a semi-automatic rifle or magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It’s for the children. Etc.”
The above liberal rhetoric is smoke to hide the real agenda: (1) Expand the power of government, especially the federal government controlled by Barry and his followers, and (2) decrease the individual rights of Americans. Extra benefits include giving the government exclusive control of firearms and making it more unlikely that citizens will ever be able to revolt against an oppressive government.
In related events, the Hypocrite in Chief today signed a new law giving ex-presidents armed security for life. The One won’t need a gun because he’ll have armed federal agents protecting his ass for life. In an emergency, the rest of the population will have to wait for the cops (with guns) to arrive.
Rate of Killings Rises 38 Percent in Chicago in 2012 Daniel Borris for The New York Times Officers and onlookers at a crime scene on Chicago’s West Side. By MONICA DAVEY June 25, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/rate-of-killings-rises-38-percent-in-chicago-in-12.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Chicago has some of the strictest rules and laws on guns, do criminals obey laws? Common sense tells me they do not, and that is why they are criminals. Hello!
It’s all just kabuki theater from our “august” ruling class.
A useful thing to do would be for Homeland Security or someone to offer a reward, such as an amount equal to the principal’s yearly salary, for stopping a mass murderer in progress.
Does anybody actually listen to Biden? According to a report in the Daily Rash, during his appearance on CBS This Morning, the vice president said the Department of Homeland Security is “crawling” with lesbians. Apparently nobody heard him. http://www.thedailyrash.com/biden-says-department-of-homeland-security-crawling-with-lesbians
“Well sure, it doesn’t make any objective sense, but we’re going to go ahead and do it anyway…!” = CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.
Planning to take everyone’s guns away is simply pre-judging everyone as:
“Guilty Until (Never) Proven Inocent!”
This is also known as “slander!” And, I believe, that’s ILLEGAL, too.
Next you’ll ask for something crazy like “due process” or something.
Biden said, “…I’ve never heard quite as much about the need to do something about the high capacity magazines as I have heard spontaneously from every group we’ve met with so far.” Among the groups are Boys and Girls Clubs, ABA, Rotary, physicians, school board members and 17 religious members. There is no evidence that any of the spokesmen from these group even knew what they were talking about. Obviously, some did and possibly most didn’t. They were, in essence, their opinions and no more. I have an opinion. Everybody has an opinion. Opinions are like a certain body part, everyone has one.
So, are we to look forward to Biden making recommendations that will infringe on citizens’ 2nd Amendment Constitutional right, based on opinions of select groups? Since there is no evidence that the opinions were backed up with any facts, it is probable the we will see our Constitutional rights infringed upon based on a CONSENSUS OF THE IGNORANT.
Have you ever considered about adding a little bit more than just your
articles? I mean, what you say is important and everything.
However think about if you added some great visuals or videos
to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with pics
and clips, this site could undeniably be one of the very
best in its niche. Good blog!
What is the difference between a gun and an assault weapon? A: None. All guns are assault weapons if used that way. And another thing, since that newspaper gave out all the adresses of liscensed gun owners, people with a mental disorder that are already on a list somewhere now have an adress to illegally obtain a gun by breaking in and stealing one.
A simple search to difine criminal assault and a simply definition of a gun might help you sort the apples from the oranges. The type of gun used in the commission of an assault is whats prudent for discussion. I think you may be confused with military weapons classifications.