Biden meets with gun-safety, victims groups

World Jan. 10, 2013 - 06:54AM JST ( 3 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

3 Comments

-1

TheQuestionJan. 10, 2013 - 03:06PM JST

President Barack Obama wants Biden to deliver policy proposals by the end of the month. Obama has vowed to move swiftly on the package, which is expected to include legislative proposals and executive action.

Some of those steps could be taken through executive action, without the approval of Congress.

I hate executive action. Clinton started the trend of using executive orders as a regular part of the Presidency (for the past 100 years a president may have used 2-5 but it really only took off when Clinton came to power) and it snowballed ever since. Bush made sweeping, horrid, and unjustifiable use of this action and Obama picked up where Bush left off using them whenever he darn well pleases. That power was meant only to be used in times of war when immediate action was needed if the nation was on the brink of catastrophe. Over the last century the purpose has been warped and I find any use of it to be deceitful and instantly suspicious.

Now that that's over...

Obama wants Congress to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons, close loopholes that allow gun buyers to skirt background checks and restrict high-capacity magazines. Other recommendations to the Biden group include making gun-trafficking a felony, getting the Justice Department to prosecute people caught lying on gun background-check forms and ordering federal agencies to send data to the National Gun Background Check Database.

For starters, it may be a tired old line but banning 'military-style assault weapons' will do absolutely nothing. 'Assault weapons' is an aesthetic term used to describe a weapon that has been mounted with an attachment rail or bayonet lugs and has no relevance to the feeding system, ammunition type, or magazine size. All that would do is make me pay 30 more dollars to have a laser site screwed into the stock rather than mounted on the rail of my gun.

Next, the background check system, in its current form, is really slow and riddled with errors. My local gun store owner has to deal with incorrectly denied checks on a daily basis because of improperly linked criminal offenses (that may take months to clear up). I was once subjected to this myself, I have an exceedingly common name in the US and the system was convinced I was one of the dozens of other people of the same name that had a felony DUI on his record. So until the system is completely re-tooled I would not advocate expanding its reach into other government databases that may be suffering their own problems.

Bans based on magazine capacity are have loose definitions, poor understanding of the mechanics, and are easily circumvented. Shotguns can hold 8 shells, I know sport shooters that have modified tubes that hold 16. A magazine is easy to modify or, if need be, fabricate and unless the magazine was used in a crime its unlikely anybody would ever be the wiser just by looking at it. I have two sets of magazines for my personal weapon, one holds 7 rounds the other holds 15, but the two magazines have the same dimensions. The 'extended' magazine merely stacks the rounds differently to maximize the number of rounds held the the same space. The only way you'd be able to tell would be physically opening the magazine.

I would support a law making gun trafficking a felony but only if the law is written in such a way as it only targets those selling to those with the intent of unlawful use. The burden of proof should be on prosecutors to prove ill intent so as to prevent excessive pressure on lawful gun sellers that are deceived by fake ID's or other such deception.

Lying on background check forms is also extraordinarily vague and wraps into the problem with the background check database system. The system is not flawed in that it doesn't have enough information, it is flawed in that it is poorly organized and has rampant errors throughout its system.

Thats my take on it at least.

Gun-rights lawmakers and outside groups have insisted that any policy response also include an examination of mental health policies and the impact of violent movies and video games.

This is just stupid deflection on the part of the gun lobby. If your going to stand for the 2nd Amendment you should stand for the 1st Amendment as well which includes the right to speech and expression under which video games and movies operate. The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the rights guaranteed in the 1st after all. Don't pass the buck, argue your case, I usually do just fine without throwing my other rights under the bus.
1

Kuya 808Jan. 11, 2013 - 06:07AM JST

According to some sources an estimated 2.5 million crimes are prevented annually by ordinary citizens using a gun. Some people would dispute those numbers, but the verified incidents reported by local, state and federal law enforcement agencies tend to support the notion that armed citizens play a significant role in preventing a large number of potentially dangerous and/or deadly outcomes.

While it is justifiably important to hear the point of view of the victims of gun violence it is equally important to hear the voices of those who have protected themselves and/or their families by exercising their legal right to posses and bear arms. Not the voice of the NRA; but the voices of ordinary law abiding citizens that might not be alive today if they had been denied the right to protect themselves.

In the politicized and media sensationalized environment of the current gun debate it is easy to overlook the fact that the overwhelming majority of American gun owners are just regular people who keep and bear arms in a responsible manner. And for a large number of them their right to bear arms has made the difference between life or death, in a positive way. Let's hear what they have to say.
1

OssanAmericaJan. 11, 2013 - 07:20AM JST

Biden: “I want to make it clear that we are not going to get caught up in the notion that unless we can do everything we’re going to do nothing,” Biden said. “It’s critically important that we act.”

Question: Act to do what?

Biden: "We don't know yet".

Most of us call this a knee-jerk reaction. The gun issue, the public safety issue is too big and important a problem to be dealing with in this manner.