Thursday, December 20, 2012


The murder of twenty children in Connecticut last week has bitten deeply, the depths of the problem are shown by this video from a 2008 Democratic Primary debate.  Bunnies can skip the middle, it's pretty much what is on the table today, but the beginning is the problem and the last minute or so the diagnosis.


Jeffrey Davis said...

It's just psychosis.

If you're passionate about gun ownership it's a good rule of thumb that you're too crazy to own one.

Anonymous said...

That was 2008 (four years ago).

Just after he first got elected, Obama stated his intention of
"making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

"On February 25, 2009 newly sworn-in Attorney General Eric Holder repeated the Obama administration's desire to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban."

For the first two years of Obama's presidency, the Democrats held a majority in both houses of Congress.

But not a single bill to re-instate the ban on assault weapons was even introduced during that time or since, for that matter, until just this week, after Sandy Hook.

Why not?

It's one thing to fail to get a bill passed because of an actual filibuster (not a mere threat of a filibuster, but an actual one), but it is something else entirely to not even make an attempt.

The latter is simply inexcusable -- though making excuses is precisely what lots of Democrats do for our Democratic leaders.

Excuses -- about AWB and about climate change mitigation -- do no one any good.


Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

Eli, given that assault weapons were already banned in Connecticut, what do you think should be done?

I would like your opinion, and if it's banning guns, that's fine. I've been thinking about this and I just don't know what action can be taken. If all guns are banned, there is still going to a be ton of them on the street.

And I hope everyone can agree that anybody who harms themself or someone else should be involuntarily committed to a mental health institute, and it should be a national law. Also, when buying a gun, you must inform the store if you have a child or close relative that lives in a certain vicinity, if they have a mental disability. This way, we can have some liability if the gunsmith decides to make the sale anyway.

Gaz said...

"This way, we can have some liability if the gunsmith decides to make the sale anyway."

Good idea, Lumpus.

The parents of those little kids who were massacred would be so thrilled to know they could sue some gun store owner somewhere.

They could build really fancy gravestones with the money.

Gaz said...

And Jeffrey Davis, you make a good point.

Guns are a bit like SUVs - the problem is that they're so often owned by the kind of people who want to own them.

J Bowers said...

An estimated 40% of gun sales are private sales and don't require background checks. It's how the Columbine shooters got their hands on firearms.

Lumpus, the Bushmaster was legal in CT because it's a semi-automatic.

Will those calling for California style regulation to be made national also include the requirement for private sale background checks, with repercussions for the seller should the firearm be used for illegal activity? Will they pressure their legislators to introduce such legislation in their state? Will they also withdraw any and all support for any legislator who refuses to push for such legislation, and inform them of their intent?

What's the point of California legislation when a hop, skip and a jump across the border into Nevada gets you a nice semi-automatic for use back home?

Gator said...

J. Bowers. If a CA resident buys a rifle in NV and brings it back to CA without going through the CA required procedures, that resident is committing a felony. So law-abiding Californians don't do that. Semi-automatics are legal in CA anyway to a large degree -- the same weapon used in CT would be legal in CA if it had a bullet button on the magazine release.

CA law is good in requiring waiting periods and background checks, but it does not prohibit semiautomatic rifles or handguns.

J Bowers said...

Gator, CA requires full background checks for private sales, Nevada doesn't. I thought I was obvious about that. The bit about buying in NV and taking it to CA without submission for checks being a felony is cute, but as I pointed out it's how the Columbine shooters got their shooters. They were planning a large scale felony anyway, right? The girl who bought the guns for the Columbine arseholes has stated that if NV had had a requirement for private sales to go through the same process as federally licensed sellers then she wouldn't have done the deed. Instead she was able to go to a gun market, no questions asked.