Observations on those who want more gun control

[M14 Shooter]

Since the Newtown shooting, the debate over gun contril has escalated sharply; not surpisingly, many people have taken that position that we need more gun control laws because the current laws did not prevent said shooting.

Many ideas have been bandoed about, all of which many, if not all, of the following in commonn:
- The proposal would not have stopped the Newtown shooting
- The proposal will not stop another Newtown shooting
- The proposal will not pass thru Congress
- The proposal, if passed into law, infringes on the right to arms and therefore violates the Constitution

Put simpler, the proposals will serve no good purpose, has no real chance of being put in place, and will be struck by the court.

One of the most important things here is "no good purpose" -- it is impossible to argue that a gun contol law is a means to affect a compelling state interest, and is the least restrictive means to that end, when the law in question will have not have the desired effect on the interest in question. Now, the importance of this -should- be obvious, but it will surely be lost on most.

The only sound conclusion here is that the reactionaries who want more gun control simply, and midlessly, seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding and are using the blood of 20 schoolkids to push their agenda.

 

[waltky]

Gun control vs. gun appreciation...

Dueling Rallies: Million Moms for Gun Control vs. Gun Appreciation Day
January 11, 2013 - A few days after Second Amendment supporters designated Jan. 19 as "Gun Appreciation Day," people on the other side of the issue are responding with some rallies of their own.

One Million Moms for Gun Control announced Friday it will sponsor "several major events" in January to demand "common-sense gun control laws." The group said it will hold a demonstration at City Hall in New York on Monday, Jan. 21 -- which is Inauguration Day and the federal holiday marking Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday. The goal of the Million Moms' rally is to "reinforce a message of nonviolence and a safer world for our children." The group also is planning a second rally -- a march on Washington -- on Saturday, Jan. 26 to demand "immediate action on common-sense gun control legislation." "Mothers will not rest until there is change," said Shannon Watts, founder of One Million Moms for Gun Control. "The alarm sounded for us after Sandy Hook, the 16th mass shooting of 2012, and now we are going to deliver our elected officials a wake-up call." Moms who can't make it to the rallies will be able to take part in local and virtual gatherings.

Watts says the rapid growth of social media, the organizing power of mothers, and "our fierce, boundless love for our families" will ensure the campaign's success. On the social media front, the Moms are launching a campaign called "How do you wear your heart?" The Internet will allow "Moms" across the country to "creatively connect and express their views on gun control." The campaign encourages supporters to wear special heart pins to show their support for gun control. And they'll be urged to share photos of themselves wearing those pins. One Million Moms for Gun Control was formed within 24 hours of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. In less than a month it claims to have tens of thousands of members and 75 local chapters across the country. Before the Moms piped up, a coalition of Second Amendment, Republican and tea party groups was urging Americans to stand up for their Second Amendment rights on Jan. 19.

The first annual Gun Appreciation Day invites gun owners and tea party activists across the country to demonstrate their passions: "On 01-19-13 go to your local gun store, gun range or gun show with your Constitution, American flags and your 'Hands Off My Guns' sign to send a loud and clear message to Congress and President Obama," the website says. Jan. 19 falls two days before President Obama is publicly sworn in for his second term. “The Obama administration has shown that it is more than willing to trample the Constitution to impose its dictates upon the American people,” said Gun Appreciation Day Chairman Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc., a Republican consulting group. "If the American people don’t fight back now, Obama will do the Second Amendment what he has already done to the First with Obamacare – gut it without a moment’s thought to our basic constitutional rights.”

MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, is gathering signatures on a petition condemning Gun Appreciation Day. The petition reads: Gun groups are planning to have a National Gun Appreciation Day on January 19th, the same weekend that Americans celebrate the life and service of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., an American leader who was assassinated by a rifle's bullet. This is an outrage and a slap in the face to Americans who value life and freedom!" Organizers say the petition will be delivered to the National Rifle Association.

Source

See also:

Biden Compares Gun Control to Car Air Bags: 'We're Saving Lives'
January 10, 2013 – Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday compared restrictions on guns to auto safety regulations such as air bags, by saying neither the gun nor the auto industries wanted regulations to save lives.

“Well they didn’t want to have air bags. Well, guess what? We have air bags. We’re saving lives,” Biden told reporters before a meeting with several stakeholders on the gun-control issue, as he plans to craft a set of proposals for President Barack Obama by Tuesday, Jan. 15.

The proposals are expected to include a renewed ban on so-called assault weapons, and beefed-up background checks. “The last area is the whole subject of the ability of any federal agency to do research on gun violence,” Biden said. “There was a big fight when I first got to the Senate that began in the late 60s through early 70s where the automobile industry was very reluctant to allow the Department of Transportation to acquire statistics on the type of accidents that occurred. They were not able to literally acquire information because the concern was it would lead to a call for some rational regulations.”

Biden said that when the government got the information, it imposed regulations to require automakers to build cars with steering wheels that collapse and that would withstand a greater amount of shock from a front-end collision. Then another matter came along, he said. “All of a sudden, when we found out passengers were being killed because they were being thrown through windshields or, if my memory serves me, skull fractures from being thrown into the crossbar, all of a sudden we started talking about, it made sense, why don’t we have airbags? They didn’t want to have airbags. Well guess what, you have airbags. We are saving lives,” Biden said.

The correlation, according to Biden, is that today there are legal barriers to the government getting information on guns. “Well, as you know, there are restrictions now on any agency in the government just gathering the information about what kind of weapons are used most to kill people,” Biden said. “How many weapons used are trafficked weapons? Are weapons used in gang warfare in our major cities -- are they legally purchased or are they purchased through straw men? We don’t have that information. And the irony is we are prohibited under laws and appropriations bills from acquiring it.”

MORE

 

[Big Black Dog]

Owe Bama is looking for a knee jerk, feel good solution that will never solve the problem of a nut case wanting to shoot somebody.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since the Newtown shooting, the debate over gun contril has escalated sharply; not surpisingly, many people have taken that position that we need more gun control laws because the current laws did not prevent said shooting.

Many ideas have been bandoed about, all of which many, if not all, of the following in commonn:
- The proposal would not have stopped the Newtown shooting
- The proposal will not stop another Newtown shooting
- The proposal will not pass thru Congress
- The proposal, if passed into law, infringes on the right to arms and therefore violates the Constitution

Put simpler, the proposals will serve no good purpose, has no real chance of being put in place, and will be struck by the court.

One of the most important things here is "no good purpose" -- it is impossible to argue that a gun contol law is a means to affect a compelling state interest, and is the least restrictive means to that end, when the law in question will have not have the desired effect on the interest in question. Now, the importance of this -should- be obvious, but it will surely be lost on most.

The only sound conclusion here is that the reactionaries who want more gun control simply, and midlessly, seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding and are using the blood of 20 schoolkids to push their agenda.

Aren't you the poster who says background checks are unconstitutional, or am I confusing you with someone else?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since the Newtown shooting, the debate over gun contril has escalated sharply; not surpisingly, many people have taken that position that we need more gun control laws because the current laws did not prevent said shooting.

Many ideas have been bandoed about, all of which many, if not all, of the following in commonn:
- The proposal would not have stopped the Newtown shooting
- The proposal will not stop another Newtown shooting
- The proposal will not pass thru Congress
- The proposal, if passed into law, infringes on the right to arms and therefore violates the Constitution

Put simpler, the proposals will serve no good purpose, has no real chance of being put in place, and will be struck by the court.

One of the most important things here is "no good purpose" -- it is impossible to argue that a gun contol law is a means to affect a compelling state interest, and is the least restrictive means to that end, when the law in question will have not have the desired effect on the interest in question. Now, the importance of this -should- be obvious, but it will surely be lost on most.

The only sound conclusion here is that the reactionaries who want more gun control simply, and midlessly, seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding and are using the blood of 20 schoolkids to push their agenda.

Aren't you the poster who says background checks are unconstitutional, or am I confusing you with someone else?

Like every other thinking person that understands the concept of prior restraint, I do indeed argue that background checks are unconstitutional.

Did you have a point?