Assault Weapons?

[Brian in SLC]

Quote from a feller I got a kick out of, "guns make stupid people feel powerful."

Fun article in the SLC trib:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/enterta...-guns.html.csp

Kirby: Utah gun lobby being commandeered by crazies
By Robert Kirby
| Tribune Columnist
First Published Feb 12 2013 08:37 am • Last Updated Feb 12 2013 08:06 pm
When it comes to political causes, everyone is passionate about their own. Passion is in fact the fuel that drives most political causes. Unfortunately, passion is also the first enemy of civility and logic.
Evidence of this is in how various groups promote their respective causes "on the hill." A good example would be supporters of SB55, a bill calling for health insurance coverage for autism.
To illustrate their point, families brought their autistic children to the Capitol Friday. In the middle of the rotunda was a pit containing 18,532 colored plastic balls — one for every autistic child in Utah.
As visual aids go it was very effective. Even a dullard like me with no real first-hand autism experience could relate. I saw the pit and thought, "Wow, that’s a lot of kids. Is there something to this SB55?"
Here’s another question: How far do you think SB55 would get if the parents of autistic children threatened to shoot federal employees if they didn’t get what they wanted?
At the same time the autism lobby was calling for government support, a gun rights group was outside on the front steps of the Capitol advocating support for the Second Amendment.
For the record, I am not anti-gun. I own guns. I own guns in a number generally associated with "a lot." Also, I’m not a huge fan of big government. But I’m even less of a fan of extremism.
Unlike the autism support crowd inside, there were a number of problems with the visual aids of the "gunners" outside. In a word, them.
Among the more reasonable appearing gun ownership types were the unwitting poster children for the gun control lobby.
About a third of the crowd showed up in urban camouflage, conspicuously toting weapons of various calibers and rates of fire, and waving flags and signs daring the federal government to do something about it.
Even a dullard like me with lots of first-hand firearms experience could relate. I watched the crowd and thought, "Wow, that’s a lot of scary gun owners. Maybe there’s something to this gun control thing."
Among the symbols of pro-gun defiance was a flag featuring an assault rifle and the words, "Come And Get It."
Really? If it came to an actual fight over your guns, do you honestly think it would be a fair one? The government could deprive you of your guns by simply flying a bomb through your bedroom window some night.
Also, if you’re the kind of person who thinks responsible gun ownership is to go around daring someone to engage you in a fire fight, I think it ought to be against the law for you to own a Pez dispenser never mind an assault rifle.
But my favorite visual aid was a Confederate battle flag on which was superimposed an assault rifle. Perhaps it was intended to be an affirmation of states’ rights. If so, it wasn’t a very good one.
It takes a pretty clueless gun owner to think he’s going to change anyone’s opinion by waving a symbol of historical racism in support of the Second Amendment. The last time that flag was used to support a states’ rights cause the federal government burned the South flat.
This isn’t a problem with the crazies themselves, but rather the more reasonable Second Amendment advocates who allow their cause to be commandeered by nut jobs.
In that case the biggest detriment to responsible gun ownership isn’t going to be the people who don’t like guns. It’s going to be the ones who obviously like them way too much.

[Brian in SLC]

From Wayne himself, "no loopholes".

[Iceaxe]

From Wayne himself, "no loopholes".

The NRA has revised their position from 15 years ago.

When bad things happen the people demand increased safety. The government responds by taking away more of your rights.

Freedom comes with a price tag.

[Iceaxe]

From Wayne himself, "no loopholes".

Come on Brian, you are better then that. I know you do your homework.

FYI - The instant background check was actually the NRA’s proposal. It was offered as an amendment to the Brady Bill. But things have changed in the past 20 years.

The NRA poistion now is that background checks are an ineffective invasion of privacy. It is no longer an effetive legislative option because of the powerful “mental health lobby.” The NRA once supported universal checks but states changes in special interests surrounding mental health and privacy have derailed the effort and led to NRA leaders throwing in the towel.

Unless mental health is computerized and all records placed in a central database, along with HIPAA laws being changed and the support of the AMA, the only thing Universal background checks will accomplish is to provide a database for gun confiscation (mandatory gun buy backs), as they are ineffective in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

[stefan]

Unless mental health is computerized and all records placed in a central database, along with HIPAA laws being changed and the support of the AMA, the only thing Universal background checks will accomplish is to provide a database for gun confiscation (mandatory gun buy backs), as they are ineffective in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

are you intentionally ignoring background checks and criminals here?

[Iceaxe]

are you intentionally ignoring background checks and criminals here?

Not at all...

I'll make this really simple for you.... Until doctors are forced to submit the medical records of the mentally ill into a database that is accessible to those doing a universal background check, doing a universal background check is not worth the time or effort.

Currently the medical profession opposes such a database, and because of their lack of support the NRA has withdrawn support for a Universal Background Check. The part of the video the pro-gun crowd conveniently dismisses is the "No Loopholes". Until the medical records loophole is closed the universal background check is nothing but a giant loophole you could drive a tank through.

Something else to keep in mind, something like 90% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally. Criminals by definition do not follow the law. If the existing laws were enforced, theoretically those guns would be off the street and those criminals would be locked up for illegal possession.

[Iceaxe]

Wait, I hear all the anti-gun folks saying, “Don’t worry, no one is talking about confiscation of your guns.”

Well, apparently Missouri Democrats are.

The Missouri state legislature is strongly Republican controlled so the bill is likely to go nowhere, but it’s further proof that the anti-gunners goal is confiscation.

Here is the worrying part of the bill:
Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

Full Bill Here: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...ro/HB0545I.HTM

[Byron]

/\ /\ /\ That's friggin' crazy. Never vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, ever.

[Brian in SLC]

Until the medical records loophole is closed the universal background check is nothing but a giant loophole you could drive a tank through.

Something else to keep in mind, something like 90% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally. Criminals by definition do not follow the law. If the existing laws were enforced, theoretically those guns would be off the street and those criminals would be locked up for illegal possession.

I think, though, that if you've been deemed mentally incompetant by a judge, isn't that record available as part of the background check now?

And, you got a criminal who uses a gun in a crime, are you sayin' the police don't run the gun through the database to see if it was stolen, then, tack that on to their crime too? My trip to the ATF downtown here in SLC would say, yeah.

I guess I've never quite understood the arguement that if existing laws were enforced, that these illegally obtained guns would be off the street. Wouldn't that be the cart in front of the horse?

If the guns were "registered", then, stolen guns recovered would go back to the owners, yes? Good thing? I kinda think so. Was in my case.

With Obamacare now covering pre-existing conditions, then, maybe some of this medical information would be more available? Dunno. Might grease the skids, though. Your insurance company knows exactly what medical issues you've had, HIPAA or not. Maybe the gun and insurance lobbyists could get together and buy a congressman a steak for dinner, and, have them slip a little something in a bill at 12:04am when no one's looking...

[Brian in SLC]

Always some interesting stuff in here:

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/documents/2012Q4.pdf

[Brian in SLC]

/\ /\ /\ That's friggin' crazy. Never vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, ever.

Well, there's plenty of crazy on boths sides of the aisle, that's for sure.

[Iceaxe]

I think, though, that if you've been deemed mentally incompetant by a judge, isn't that record available as part of the background check now?

NOPE! In fact last time I check (two weeks ago) only half the states allowed any access to mental records. Utah was one of the states that did not allow access, but Utah has since agreed to submit their mental records to be included in background checks.

And, you got a criminal who uses a gun in a crime, are you sayin' the police don't run the gun through the database to see if it was stolen, then, tack that on to their crime too?

That is exactly what the police do. But what does that have to do with a universal background check or gun registration? And in case you don't know the answer "not a dam thing", as we are taking about completely different databases.

I guess I've never quite understood the arguement that if existing laws were enforced, that these illegally obtained guns would be off the street. Wouldn't that be the cart in front of the horse?

It's kinda sarcasm.... meaning if the criminals obeyed the law they would not have the gun to begin with, so why is anther law that the criminals will not obey going to stop them? Or passing anther law that is completely unenforceable going to change things. If the criminal is caught with the illegal gun right now he can be locked up for something like 5 years just for having an illegal firearm. Same reason you see the "let's just pass a law against Meth" stuff floating around, it's pointing out the absurdity.

If the guns were "registered", then, stolen guns recovered would go back to the owners, yes? Good thing? I kinda think so. Was in my case.

And how would that change anything? If your guns are currently stolen they are returned to you (so long as you report the theif, which is a good thing).

FYI: Canada recently eliminated their long gun registration law because it was of no advantage to law enforcement and was costing a lot to maintain. In other words they figured the money would be better spent in other places.

With Obamacare now covering pre-existing conditions, then, maybe some of this medical information would be more available? Dunno. Might grease the skids, though. Your insurance company knows exactly what medical issues you've had, HIPAA or not. Maybe the gun and insurance lobbyists could get together and buy a congressman a steak for dinner, and, have them slip a little something in a bill at 12:04am when no one's looking...

I don't know all the details of HIPAA, from my own personal experience it has some major flaws. I know the medical industry in highly opposed to releasing any records so that is a very difficult obstacle.

[Brian in SLC]

NOPE! In fact last time I check (two weeks ago) only half the states allowed any access to mental records. Utah was one of the states that did not allow access, but Utah has since agreed to submit their mental records to be included in background checks.

Not talking about mental health records. Talking about being adjudicated as mentally defective. I think that's in the database.

I think some/most of the HIPAA stuff comes from being denied insurance, IMHO, for pre-existing conditions.

Registration...dunno. Is it coming? Is it a good idear?

I think I heard quoted the other day, and, haven't vetted it, but, 80% of folks in the US don't own guns. And, the folks out there fightin' for the 2nd amendment right to arm bears, uhh, I mean bear arms, are, probably due to the media influence, nut ball crazy lookin' idiots. I agree with "reasonable people" that its a shame that either side will define this issue. Let's have some common sense and ground here.

[oldno7]

If you want "common sense", which infringing on the 2nd Amendment does not qualify, try banning cell phone use in automobiles.

then you, "uncommon" common sense types can pick on a privilege vs. a right.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...68M53K20100923

[oldno7]

Dear Mr. xxxxxxx

Thank you for taking the time to write with your concern regarding possible infringement upon Second Amendment rights, in light of the tragic events in
Newtown, CT.

As a parent, grandparent, and great grandparent, I am heartbroken by the tragedy which occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. With the loss of 26 lives, including 20 children, a dark cloud has been cast over our nation. As we mourn the passing of so many fellow Americans, there has been a call to act by the Obama Administration, Members of Congress and the American public to find legislative solutions to curb gun violence.

Up to this point, the legislative efforts which have been discussed, have taken a single-sided approach to the problem. However, experts in the area of these types of shootings have identified many common contributing causes, including various issues with mental illness and treatment, violence in our culture through media, breakdown of the family unit, breakdowns in background checks for weapons purchases, response times of law enforcement, and the emergency action plans for schools. As we move forward, we must focus on carefully considered, comprehensive approaches that include all of these factors. Anything less is a disservice to victims and their families.

As you may well know, throughout my service to the people of Utah, I have long opposed any encroachment upon the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I strongly believe that the Constitution clearly guarantees the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. In addition, I have consistently opposed legislation that erodes the right to bear arms, as it has been shown that such legislation does little to deter the commission of crimes with guns.

I stand committed to actively work to support legislative efforts to curb violent attacks in concert with the rights and liberties guaranteed to us by the Constitution. There is no single contributing factor to these tragedies. All stakeholders must be willing to approach any action with an open mind and to resolve not to rely on political rhetoric, but instead to depend on available facts.

Again, thank you for your interest in such an important matter. Rest assured, I will continue to uphold the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and will work to help provide the tools necessary to curb future violent attacks.

Your Senator,





Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator

[Sombeech]

We can all agree that the main reason the Gun Control conversation is so big right now and again is because of Sandy Hook.

But what is being proposed would have had zero, nada, negatory good buddy, goose egg, and absolutely no influence on the shooter because he stole the gun. Yet the Gun Control crowd just breeze on past that "slap in the face fact" and keep on a pushin' for more restrictions on law abiding citizens.

It would be nice to discuss proposals that would have actually had some impact at Sandy Hook if they were in place, since, ya know, Sandy Hook is the main reason these conversations are so relatively hot right now.

[Iceaxe]

I think I heard quoted the other day, and, haven't vetted it, but, 80% of folks in the US don't own guns.

I don't know how or where you are getting your numbers. Are they counting children or something? But last time I looked something like 48% of all households owned at least one firearm.


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[oldno7]

I didn't watch zeros entire speech, but it seems he never mentions keeping schools safe.

It was never about schools and children for this admin. it's always been about banning guns.

Sandy Hook was a mere prop that they use when it is convenient.

[oldno7]

the liberal/progressives call them gun nuts---the rest of us call them Patriots!

[Brian in SLC]

IIt was never about schools and children for this admin. it's always been about banning guns.

Sandy Hook was a mere prop that they use when it is convenient.

You are wrong. Never been about banning guns. First four years? Nothing. Nada. Assault weapons ban sunsetted and did Obama do a single thing? Nada. Congress? Nada.

Its never been about banning guns.

Its mostly about endless and mindless rhetoric from unintelligent people.