Obama Suggests US Needs Ban On Semiautomatic, Automatic Weapons

[Teddy B 17,252]

As soon as the supreme court rules that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to those weapons or an amendment to the constitution is ratified. I'm thinking 2035 or maybe a little later.

That's much more optomistic than I was thinking. I might just be around for that.

[Karee 4,191]

That's much more optomistic than I was thinking. I might just be around for that.

Hopefully it happens sooner than that. The problem is what to do with the 300+ million firearms (legal and illegal) in circulation after they make the weapons illegal. Somehow I doubt the criminals are going to go down to the local cop shop and just hand over their weapons.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Hopefully it happens sooner than that. The problem is what to do with the 300+ million firearms (legal and illegal) in circulation after they make the weapons illegal. Somehow I doubt the criminals are going to go down to the local cop shop and just hand over their weapons.

I also doubt that people who paid $600+ for a gun are just going to turn them in by the millions, or for $100 in a buy back program. Not to mention how many more will be sold as the talk of a ban always leads to increased sales. I see a long, difficult road for moving in that direction.

[Karee 4,191]

I also doubt that people who paid $600+ for a gun are just going to turn them in by the millions, or for $100 in a buy back program. Not to mention how many more will be sold as the talk of a ban always leads to increased sales. I see a long, difficult road for moving in that direction.

That too. The whole gun debate is pretty much white noise. They probably could've done something about it back in 1910 or something like that.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

As soon as the supreme court rules that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to those weapons or an amendment to the constitution is ratified. I'm thinking 2035 or maybe a little later.

and we put the UN in charge of our sovereignty

[spookyturtle 9,466]

That too. The whole gun debate is pretty much white noise. They probably could've done something about it back in 1910 or something like that.

If they wanted to do something like they did in Australia, they needed to have done it decades ago. I just don't see it happening that anyone who currently and legally owns a semi automatic will suddenly be guilty of a crime if they don't hand over their guns. I also don't see the government forcibly disarming the country. Part of the reason for the Second Amendment was to prevent this type of thing from happening. If they somehow get to the point and ban sales of semi automatics, etc, there will be many millions more sold before that happens. It's never going to happen under Obama's watch no matter how much he talks. I'm still waiting for the first politician to stand up and say I want to ban guns and see if he gets elected. It would be political suicide. They can try to ban anything they want, but if you have a 500 year supply in circulation, global warming will end human life before the US is gun free.

I'm not arguing from a pro gun point of view. I'm just being realistic.

[Karee 4,191]

If they wanted to do something like they did in Australia, they needed to have done it decades ago. I just don't see it happening that anyone who currently and legally owns a semi automatic will suddenly be guilty of a crime if they don't hand over their guns. I also don't see the government forcibly disarming the country. Part of the reason for the Second Amendment was to prevent this type of thing from happening. If they somehow get to the point and ban sales of semi automatics, etc, there will be many millions more sold before that happens. It's never going to happen under Obama's watch no matter how much he talks. I'm still waiting for the first politician to stand up and say I want to ban guns and see if he gets elected. It would be political suicide. They can try to ban anything they want, but if you have a 500 year supply in circulation, global warming will end human life before the US is gun free.

I'm not arguing from a pro gun point of view. I'm just being realistic.

I personally don't see the point in everyone having a device in their possession that's primary purpose is to kill in 2014. However it's part of the bill of rights, and if people have a problem with it, they need to start there.

The other problem with the amount of guns in this country is that the bad guys have them as well. It would pretty damn stupid to ask law abiding folks to give up their legal weapons, when everyone knows that the criminals have no intention of doing the same.

[Pooky 3,844]

If they wanted to do something like they did in Australia, they needed to have done it decades ago. I just don't see it happening that anyone who currently and legally owns a semi automatic will suddenly be guilty of a crime if they don't hand over their guns. I also don't see the government forcibly disarming the country. Part of the reason for the Second Amendment was to prevent this type of thing from happening. If they somehow get to the point and ban sales of semi automatics, etc, there will be many millions more sold before that happens. It's never going to happen under Obama's watch no matter how much he talks. I'm still waiting for the first politician to stand up and say I want to ban guns and see if he gets elected. It would be political suicide. They can try to ban anything they want, but if you have a 500 year supply in circulation, global warming will end human life before the US is gun free.

I'm not arguing from a pro gun point of view. I'm just being realistic.

I'm as anti-gun as it gets round here. But one thing baffles me. Much of the legislation that gets proposed would place restrictions on types and capacity of weapons, both new and existing. All of which affects legal gun owners, who are responsible for a minimal amount of gun violence.

In turn, that begs the question why?

Why try soting what is almost a non-problem? Why not get serious about the people and guns involved in the vast majority of gun violence?

While I would love to see it, America will never be a gun-free country. Trying to restrict legal gun owners six ways to Sunday is just entrenching guns further into everyday life here, and is doing next-to-nothing to reduce gun deaths in this country.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I personally don't see the point in everyone having a device in their possession that's primary purpose is to kill in 2014. However it's part of the bill of rights, and if people have a problem with it, they need to start there.

The other problem with the amount of guns in this country is that the bad guys have them as well. It would pretty damn stupid to ask law abiding folks to give up their legal weapons, when everyone knows that the criminals have no intention of doing the same.

We know that criminals aren't going to turn in their guns and I doubt that the majority of legal owners would turn theirs in either. What would the gov. try to do, voluntary turn in or confiscation? I wouldn't be surprised of the stupidity if they asked legal gun owners to turn in their weapons. They are probably stupid enough to ask criminals to do the same and then be surprised when they don't.

The real question is, what can be done that is effective in reducing gun deaths and crime in this country? I personally see a ban making the problem worse. I bet most people would go into cardiac arrest if they saw figures on how many guns and how much ammo has been sold since Obama became President. He's sold a lot of guns.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I'm as anti-gun as it gets round here. But one thing baffles me. Much of the legislation that gets proposed would place restrictions on types and capacity of weapons, both new and existing. All of which affects legal gun owners, who are responsible for a minimal amount of gun violence.

In turn, that begs the question why?

Why try soting what is almost a non-problem? Why not get serious about the people and guns involved in the vast majority of gun violence?

While I would love to see it, America will never be a gun-free country. Trying to restrict legal gun owners six ways to Sunday is just entrenching guns further into everyday life here, and is doing next-to-nothing to reduce gun deaths in this country.

No your not

and

and I am pro-gun and I am saying the same exact thing you are saying, meanwhile the loon toons try to keep banning assault weapons, which would solve nothing

Edited June 16, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[Karee 4,191]

I'm as anti-gun as it gets round here. But one thing baffles me. Much of the legislation that gets proposed would place restrictions on types and capacity of weapons, both new and existing. All of which affects legal gun owners, who are responsible for a minimal amount of gun violence.

In turn, that begs the question why?

Why try soting what is almost a non-problem? Why not get serious about the people and guns involved in the vast majority of gun violence?

While I would love to see it, America will never be a gun-free country. Trying to restrict legal gun owners six ways to Sunday is just entrenching guns further into everyday life here, and is doing next-to-nothing to reduce gun deaths in this country.

It's easy to place the blame on the guns. It's a simplistic approach and most Americans fall for it. When some nut goes crazy and kills a bunch of people, everyone starts looking at the weapon used rather than why this person was a nut that didn't get the mental health attention the needed. I was watching something on TV the other night about how the county jail systems have become the de facto mental health institutions in the U.S.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'm as anti-gun as it gets round here. But one thing baffles me. Much of the legislation that gets proposed would place restrictions on types and capacity of weapons, both new and existing. All of which affects legal gun owners, who are responsible for a minimal amount of gun violence.

In turn, that begs the question why?

Why try soting what is almost a non-problem? Why not get serious about the people and guns involved in the vast majority of gun violence?

While I would love to see it, America will never be a gun-free country. Trying to restrict legal gun owners six ways to Sunday is just entrenching guns further into everyday life here, and is doing next-to-nothing to reduce gun deaths in this country.

Exactly. I see it as a knee jerk reaction. Ban assault rifles that killed 225 people last year, even though more were killed with baseball bats and the like. As a responsible gun owner, I don't believe that banning certain guns will do squat. Every anti-gun person here doesn't propose banning handguns, yet that is what is involved in 95% of gun deaths. But get rid of those nasty looking assault rifles.

I still think there are plenty of laws on the books. How about enforcing them for a start? How about mental health issues? It will take decades to do this, but gun deaths are already down from the heydays of the 90's. More people, more guns, less deaths. Let's continue that. Let's do the background checks. Let's require safety classes. I think there is a way to preserve the Second Amendment and make a dent in the murder rate.

It's easy to place the blame on the guns. It's a simplistic approach and most Americans fall for it. When some nut goes crazy and kills a bunch of people, everyone starts looking at the weapon used rather than why this person was a nut that didn't get the mental health attention the needed. I was watching something on TV the other night about how the county jail systems have become the de facto mental health institutions in the U.S.

Another excellent point.

I forgot, Ban poodles!!!!!

[Karee 4,191]

Exactly. I see it as a knee jerk reaction. Ban assault rifles that killed 225 people last year, even though more were killed with baseball bats and the like. As a responsible gun owner, I don't believe that banning certain guns will do squat. Every anti-gun person here doesn't propose banning handguns, yet that is what is involved in 95% of gun deaths. But get rid of those nasty looking assault rifles.

I still think there are plenty of laws on the books. How about enforcing them for a start? How about mental health issues? It will take decades to do this, but gun deaths are already down from the heydays of the 90's. More people, more guns, less deaths. Let's continue that. Let's do the background checks. Let's require safety classes. I think there is a way to preserve the Second Amendment and make a dent in the murder rate.

Another excellent point.

I forgot, Ban poodles!!!!!

As for the background checks, when convicted felons try to purchase a firearm and are denied, that is breaking the law. However, they are almost NEVER prosecuted for it.

Most people trying to buy a gun illegally are never prosecuted, U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte says

Before Congress enacts any new gun control laws, the nation’s law enforcement officers and courts should better enforce the regulations they have on the books now, according to U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

In a meeting with the Telegraph editorial board, New Hampshire’s junior senator took aim last month at the national background check system, which does not go far enough prosecuting those who illegally try to obtain weapons, she said.

"Of approximately 80,000 in 2012 that were denied (a gun) because of a background check … only 44 people were prosecuted for that," Ayotte said during the February 19 meeting.

"That surprised me," she said. "I want to look further at what we’re doing in terms of enforcement."

If Ayotte’s numbers are right, the nation’s .055 prosecution rate doesn’t make for a very good shooting percentage. So, we decided to run the numbers ourselves.

But first, some background.

According to federal figures, most applicants who are denied a firearm through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System are rejected because of a prior criminal conviction, restraining order or another past issue.

In almost every case, these people can be prosecuted. Here’s why:

Firearms dealers, who provide the federal application form, are instructed to immediately turn away applicants if they acknowledge a past conviction or other prior issue, even before they conduct the FBI check.

Applications that are submitted to the FBI and later rejected are typically denied because the applicant failed to acknowledge their record on the initial form, which can qualify as a federal crime for providing false information.

In rare cases, an applicant might initially succeed in obtaining a firearm, despite a criminal record. But once the background check returns showing their past convictions, they could face charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Now, on to the numbers.

Reached for comment, Ayotte’s staff pointed us in the direction of U.S. Attorney Timothy Heaphy.

Earlier this winter, Heaphy, who represents the western district of Virginia, presented those numbers to members of the Senate judiciary committee during a Feb. 12 hearing on gun violence.

In his testimony, Heaphy cited research published recently by the U.S. Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Regional Justice Information Service, a Missouri-based group that provides research for the justice department, among other public safety and governmental agencies.

The information service’s research supports Ayotte, and Heaphy’s numbers, showing 80,191 applications denied, along with 44 active prosecutions.

But, these numbers are based on 2010 data, not 2012, as Ayotte and Heaphy claimed, and reflect only a portion of the total national figures, according to Ronald Frandsen, grants administrator for the information service.

.

The 80,191 figure, reported in a February study titled "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2010," includes only those applications denied by state and local permitting agencies, Frandsen said.

Under the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, gun shop owners and other licensed authorities in many states -- 21 to be exact, including New Hampshire -- conduct at least a portion of the background checks themselves through the FBI’s background check system.

Agencies in these states conducted about 4.37 million checks in 2010, leading to the 80,191 denials, according to Frandsen’s report.

But, those 29 states that do not conduct the checks themselves defer instead to the FBI to do so. In 2010, the FBI conducted about 6.04 million checks, 72,659 of which were denied, Frandsen noted in the study.

That places the total number of denied checks conducted in 2010 at 152,850 -- about 1.5 percent of the checks conducted.

Now on to the prosecutions count.

A separate report, "Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010," published by Frandsen in August, counts 62 charges filed across the country by U.S. Attorneys in 2010, most for falsifying when buying firearms (22) and possession of firearms by a convicted felon (11). Of those 62 charges, 18 were dropped that year, leaving 44 cases intact, according to Frandsen’s report.

That number equals Ayotte’s claim. But, once again, it tells only part of the story.

The 44 charges, 13 of which were still pending at the end of 2011, reflect only those cases brought by federal prosecutors and does not consider charges filed by state or local police agencies, Frandsen noted.

In his research, Frandsen tracks those local cases reported voluntarily by states. In 2010, four states -- Colorado, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia -- reported 1,520 arrests. That count does not include any arrests made that year in the remaining 17 states that conduct at least some background checks themselves.

"You’d have to say (the total number of arrests) would be higher," Frandsen said. "There’s no question."

Our ruling:

On the numbers, Ayotte is on track. In one year, more than 80,000 background checks were denied at the state and local level and federal authorities pursued 44 charges in court, as the senator claimed. However, the report she cited is based on 2010 numbers, not 2012, but that’s small potatoes.

More to the point, Ayotte confuses state and federal numbers in her statement, using state rejections (80,000) and federal prosecutions (44). Looking at state enforcement alone, just four states had more than 1,500 arrests. While those are arrests, not prosecutions, it stands to reason the number of state prosecutions is vastly higher than the figure Ayotte cited.

That ratio is not nearly as dramatic as Ayotte suggested, but her larger point remains valid: the majority of failed background checks do not lead to criminal charges or prosecutions. With this in mind, we rate her claim Mostly True.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

[spookyturtle 9,466]

As for the background checks, when convicted felons try to purchase a firearm and are denied, that is breaking the law. However, they are almost NEVER prosecuted for it.

It would be interesting to see the true numbers for total arrested and prosecuted. But it seems like it will still be a small percentage of the those who were denied. So if we actually enforced our current laws it would have to have a positive effect. Next work on the loopholes. That would be a good start, and an easy one too.

[Pooky 3,844]

It would be interesting to see the true numbers for total arrested and prosecuted. But it seems like it will still be a small percentage of the those who were denied. So if we actually enforced our current laws it would have to have a positive effect. Next work on the loopholes. That would be a good start, and an easy one too.

In how many other areas of government policy does this question resonate?