Gun control

sun_tzu said:
Obama to announce gun restrictions
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politics/obama-to-announce-new-executive-action-on-guns/index.html
Cue "they want to take our guns" from the right wing nut jobs
Click to expand...
He's not proposing anything new, actually they should have that law long time ago which is not stopping a crazy bastard to buy a gun and commit a mass murder but would stop a lot of small criminals to buy guns on gun shows. They need besides the background check a waiting time like 30 days plus a few more steps for more security.
 
Nothing meaningful will happen with gun control without action from Congress, the Supreme Court, and state governments. This is a band-aid that will fall off sooner or later.
 
Sorry still learning about US Politics.

So I understand The President can't do anything without getting it passed in Congress first?
This is difficult because the Republicans have a majority (and thereby will not let anything they don't like pass)?
That's why a President who doesn't have control of the Congress is referred to as a 'lame duck'?
How does the House of Representatives get involved in this?

Also, I am guessing, considering The President got Obamacare passed, there was a time when the Democrats did indeed control Congress (can they pass any legislation then)?
If so, guessing The President didn't do anything about gun-control when the Democrats had control of Congress (i.e. missed opportunity), or am I getting this wrong?
 
Member 5225 said:
Sorry still learning about US Politics.

So I understand The President can't do anything without getting it passed in Congress first?
This is difficult because the Republicans have a majority (and thereby will not let anything they don't like pass)?
That's why a President who doesn't have control of the Congress is referred to as a 'lame duck'?
How does the House of Representatives get involved in this?

Also, I am guessing, considering The President got Obamacare passed, there was a time when the Democrats did indeed control Congress (can they pass any legislation then)?
If so, guessing The President didn't do anything about gun-control when the Democrats had control of Congress (i.e. missed opportunity), or am I getting this wrong?
Click to expand...

The US congress does not work like the one in UK. There is no whip to force party members to vote one way. Even a lot of democrats are NRA stooges. Obama as it is had to water down his Obamacare bill to get it passed.
 
Member 5225 said:
Sorry still learning about US Politics.

So I understand The President can't do anything without getting it passed in Congress first?
This is difficult because the Republicans have a majority (and thereby will not let anything they don't like pass)?
That's why a President who doesn't have control of the Congress is referred to as a 'lame duck'?
How does the House of Representatives get involved in this?

Also, I am guessing, considering The President got Obamacare passed, there was a time when the Democrats did indeed control Congress (can they pass any legislation then)?
If so, guessing The President didn't do anything about gun-control when the Democrats had control of Congress (i.e. missed opportunity), or am I getting this wrong?
Click to expand...
House of Representatives = lower house of Congress (Senate being the upper house). Democrats did have a majority in the House when Obama came in and 60 Democrats (or indies that were basically Democrats) in the Senate for a very short time, enabling them to avoid their bills being filibustered and allowing them to put Obamacare through by the skin of its teeth. There are also a few Democrat congressmen who are more conservative on gun control due to their locations. But it's a fair point that more could've been done when the opportunity was there.
 
Member 5225 said:
Sorry still learning about US Politics.

So I understand The President can't do anything without getting it passed in Congress first?
This is difficult because the Republicans have a majority (and thereby will not let anything they don't like pass)?
That's why a President who doesn't have control of the Congress is referred to as a 'lame duck'?
How does the House of Representatives get involved in this?

Also, I am guessing, considering The President got Obamacare passed, there was a time when the Democrats did indeed control Congress (can they pass any legislation then)?
If so, guessing The President didn't do anything about gun-control when the Democrats had control of Congress (i.e. missed opportunity), or am I getting this wrong?
Click to expand...

He can issue an Executive Order, but those are limited in scope. The way the Constitution is set up, certain powerful acts have been delegated to Congress, such as the ability to levy taxes, declare war, and so on.
Yep.
Yep.
Congress consists of the Senate (each state gets equal say of 2 senators) and House of Representatives (number of reps based on census population). House of Reps initiates funding and revenue bills. Currently there is a Republican majority in the House.

Yes. However the composition of Congress shifted after Obamacare was passed, during midterm elections.
Unlike most issues, the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution, and it is entrenched into a majority of the population, including some Democrats. Significant restrictions on this right would require a majority in both houses which were confident enough to restrict gun control without forfeiting their re-elections down the road.
 
Ubik said:
House of Representatives = lower house of Congress (Senate being the upper house). Democrats did have a majority in the House when Obama came in and 60 Democrats (or indies that were basically Democrats) in the Senate for a very short time, enabling them to avoid their bills being filibustered and allowing them to put Obamacare through by the skin of its teeth. There are also a few Democrat congressmen who are more conservative on gun control due to their locations. But it's a fair point that more could've been done when the opportunity was there.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, thank you.
 
adexkola said:
He can issue an Executive Order, but those are limited in scope. The way the Constitution is set up, certain powerful acts have been delegated to Congress, such as the ability to levy taxes, declare war, and so on.
Yep.
Yep.
Congress consists of the Senate (each state gets equal say of 2 senators) and House of Representatives (number of reps based on census population). House of Reps initiates funding and revenue bills. Currently there is a Republican majority in the House.

Yes. However the composition of Congress shifted after Obamacare was passed, during midterm elections.
Unlike most issues, the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution, and it is entrenched into a majority of the population, including some Democrats. Significant restrictions on this right would require a majority in both houses which were confident enough to restrict gun control without forfeiting their re-elections down the road.
Click to expand...
very helpful too, thank you.
 
For the American folks, do you think sweeping and long lasting gun control measures can be enacted without a legal challenge to the Second Amendment? I think it's the real elephant in the room in this debate. America seems to be the only country where the 'Constitution' is so revered and invoked so often in political discourse. To strip the gun lobby of their legal defense, I think a challenge on the interpretation of the 2nd, or a debate over the importance of the Constitution as a whole is needed. It'd take decades to achieve, but wouldn't you rather that than the piecemeal approach at the moment, tempered with politicians' empty promises?
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
For the American folks, do you think sweeping and long lasting gun control measures can be enacted without a legal challenge to the Second Amendment? I think it's the real elephant in the room in this debate. America seems to be the only country where the 'Constitution' is so revered and invoked so often in political discourse. To strip the gun lobby of their legal defense, I think a challenge on the interpretation of the 2nd, or a debate over the importance of the Constitution as a whole is needed. It'd take decades to achieve, but wouldn't you rather that than the piecemeal approach at the moment, tempered with politicians' empty promises?
Click to expand...

the recent Supreme Court decision pretty much says it is a State issue. If States want to ban certain types of guns they can.
 
Red Dreams said:
the recent Supreme Court decision pretty much says it is a State issue. If States want to ban certain types of guns they can.
Click to expand...

What about a universal weapon ban? Buy back schemes? Will any of that be achieved by the States?

I read an article not long ago detailing America's history with guns and the length that the NRA backed gun lobbyists have gone to interpret the 2nd to how they want it. Can see only a similar process reverting their work as the solution. There's hope. America banned guns before it was cool.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
What about a universal weapon ban? Buy back schemes? Will any of that be achieved by the States?

I read an article not long ago detailing America's history with guns and the length that the NRA backed gun lobbyists have gone to interpret the 2nd to how they want it. Can see only a similar process reverting their work as the solution. There's hope. America banned guns before it was cool.
Click to expand...

States have a lot of power. If positive changes come, it will happen from State level.
 
Hopefully Obama's emotional plea will finally convince the, television addicted, US population just how insane their gun laws are.
 
Rams said:
Hopefully Obama's emotional plea will finally convince the, television addicted, US population just how insane their gun laws are.
Click to expand...
They are already accusing him of crocodile tears.
 
Rams said:
Hopefully Obama's emotional plea will finally convince the, television addicted, US population just how insane their gun laws are.
Click to expand...

Some Republican reaction...







End of the day, the plea won't have done a great deal. Most are firmly in one camp (Obama being one of the worst President's in history acting like a dictator, using crocodile tears with mace on his fingertips touching his face and trying to demolish the sacred second amendment before his term is over) or another (Obama did well for the country but could have done better if not for stuff like stricter gun laws being blocked) and can't see anything changing because of his plea.
 
I'd love to see an pro-gun control lobby really take off. Obama/Bernie Sanders style during their campaigns. Everyone chipping in $ and then going all out on the media. Its going to take tens of millions of people to do it.
 
What you guys fail to see about gun deaths, most are from gangs between them and American people won't give 2 fecking flies about that, then this country is violent so in some places people need a weapon for protection
 
barros said:
What you guys fail to see about gun deaths, most are from gangs between them and American people won't give 2 fecking flies about that, then this country is violent so in some places people need a weapon for protection
Click to expand...
I don't give a feck about the gangs either. I just don't like seeing innocents get shot dead all the time, that's what people want to change. (Coincidentally stricter gun rules would probably also mean fewer gang related shootings)
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
How would that work?
Click to expand...
I'm mainly guessing that illegal guns would be more expensive/harder to come by and as a result fewer would have access to them. Obviously those results wouldn't come here and now as everyone and their dog have a gun at the moment.
 
Maagge said:
I'm mainly guessing that illegal guns would be more expensive/harder to come by and as a result fewer would have access to them. Obviously those results wouldn't come here and now as everyone and their dog have a gun at the moment.
Click to expand...

They're already pretty expensive and, as you say, there are loads out there. One thing I've noticed is that there are two sources of illegal guns that people never consider: those lost or stolen from military/law enforcement and guns composed of parts that are smuggled from manufacturing facilities. It is very difficult for standard gun control measures to have any noticeable effect on these sources.

One thing that could be more effective is controlled access to ammunition. Here in Canada you need a firearms licence to purchase ammo. After 20 years of strict gun control measures, its black market price is staggering, with some estimates putting it at up to $10 or $20 per round for centre fire handgun rounds. But, as you say, with anything gun related in the US, there's just so much already out there it seems impossible for controls to have any impact.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
One thing that could be more effective is controlled access to ammunition. Here in Canada you need a firearms licence to purchase ammo. After 20 years of strict gun control measures, its black market price is staggering, with some estimates putting it at up to $10 or $20 per round for centre fire handgun rounds. But, as you say, with anything gun related in the US, there's just so much already out there it seems impossible for controls to have any impact.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of this Chris Rock bit



Also this thread has pretty much turned into the Cafe's favourite stand up routine.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
They're already pretty expensive and, as you say, there are loads out there. One thing I've noticed is that there are two sources of illegal guns that people never consider: those lost or stolen from military/law enforcement and guns composed of parts that are smuggled from manufacturing facilities. It is very difficult for standard gun control measures to have any noticeable effect on these sources.
Click to expand...
There would be millions more too since there is no record of who has guns and what guns they have. I think rather than just give guns to the government, most people would sell them to people that would then resell them on the black market to the criminals.

Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
One thing that could be more effective is controlled access to ammunition. Here in Canada you need a firearms licence to purchase ammo. After 20 years of strict gun control measures, its black market price is staggering, with some estimates putting it at up to $10 or $20 per round for centre fire handgun rounds. But, as you say, with anything gun related in the US, there's just so much already out there it seems impossible for controls to have any impact.
Click to expand...
Holy crap! I think .40 costs me about .13¢ a piece. $10-$20 is crazy.
 
No amount of gun control legislation will work in the U.S until they totally ban guns (unlikely) and make it illegal to own one (not going to happen). People who do street crime with guns have harder time getting a hot meal than getting hold of a gun, and that will not change with more background checks. You also have mass shooters, who are able to get hold of guns legally, either by themselves, or their parents.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
They're already pretty expensive and, as you say, there are loads out there. One thing I've noticed is that there are two sources of illegal guns that people never consider: those lost or stolen from military/law enforcement and guns composed of parts that are smuggled from manufacturing facilities. It is very difficult for standard gun control measures to have any noticeable effect on these sources.

One thing that could be more effective is controlled access to ammunition. Here in Canada you need a firearms licence to purchase ammo. After 20 years of strict gun control measures, its black market price is staggering, with some estimates putting it at up to $10 or $20 per round for centre fire handgun rounds. But, as you say, with anything gun related in the US, there's just so much already out there it seems impossible for controls to have any impact.
Click to expand...
How much is pretty expensive? Make black market guns prohibitively expensive, like the black market ammo, and don't you have a perfect scenario?
 
senorgregster said:
How much is pretty expensive? Make black market guns prohibitively expensive, like the black market ammo, and don't you have a perfect scenario?
Click to expand...

Depends what you're looking for, really. Sometime gang types want an AK to bprotect a stash house, sometimes they want a concealable pistol. Other factors to consider are reliability, availability of ammo (eg. Soviet era Tokarev pistols that fire a surplus 7.62X25 round might be cheap but ammo could be hard to source) and image. Black market guns range from probably $300 for an old clunker revolver to a few thousand for a quality AR. Keep in mind there is a premium over MSRP as these guns cannot be obtained through normal channels. I think there's an episode of a show called Drugs Inc. that discusses this, I'll try to find it later.
 
Pimpmofo said:
Holy crap! I think .40 costs me about .13¢ a piece. $10-$20 is crazy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Toronto police issued a formal letter to local gun clubs a couple of years back warning members about a recent trend of people being robbed for ammunition. Without a licence it is impossible to source ammo up here. Last time I bought .45 ACP it was about a buck a round but it was the good stuff, you can find plenty at sixty cents a round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.