Obama To Enter Gun Control Debate

[lakhota]

David Axelrod: Obama Will Be Jumping Into Gun Control Debate

WASHINGTON -- Although President Obama avoided talking about the contentious issue of gun control in Tuesday's State of the Union address, his top advisers say he will soon be jumping into the debate.

In a discussion with a small group of bloggers and reporters on Wednesday at the White House, Senior Advisor David Axelrod said there was "no doubt" the President will address the gun issue at a later date.

"I don't know exactly how we're going to approach it," he said when asked by The Huffington Post whether Obama would be giving a speech on it, "but obviously these issues are out there and have been extenuated by the tragedy in Tucson. And so we will -- he will engage in that ... debate."

Axelrod added that the reason the president omitted gun control from his State of the Union address was that he wanted it to be "focused as much as possible on the economy."

More: www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/26/david-axelrod-obama-gun-control-debate_n_814596.html

[vonnie6200]

and because coming from Chicago - its a pretty shaky argument

[billisonboard]

If President Obama comes out for serious gun control will it just be a cynical ploy to stimulate the economy through increased gun sales?

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

"I don't know exactly how we're going to approach it,"


I do. Odumbo will approach it with the desire of a total ban on private firearm ownership.

[Tennesseer]

There was an article in the news the other day about the Mexican drug cartels buying their weapons in Arizona. Something needs to be done about that.

[ed1066]

There was an article in the news the other day about the Mexican drug cartels buying their weapons in Arizona. Something needs to be done about that.

Yes, stop letting (illegal) Mexicans into Arizona.

[Tennesseer]

Yes. Arizona gun shops should stop selling guns to illegal Mexicans.

[ed1066]

Better the illegal Mexican criminals aren't there in the first place, don't you agree?

[Tennesseer]

The guns were sold to U.S. citizens and legal residents and then smuggled over the border to Mexico.

www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/25/20110125arizona-gun-buys-for-cartels-fed-charges.html

[Deleted]

I won't even say it ................but I have no doubt that disarming the public is high on this administrations agenda.

[ugonow]

As this article quotes Arizona officials saying,the sales were harmless. It is another end around to their internationl gun ban-----news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_re_us/us_cartel_guns_2

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

There is no "gun control debate". Like the abortion debate, we can keep right on arguing over it, but the reality is that it's over.

48 states have some ability for citizens to carry concealed weapons, and 37 states have liberal concealed carry laws. Only IL and WI are not in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

Setting aside the legal right for individuals to bear arms and use them in defense of their property, the practical debate ended years ago. The states that enacted the most liberal concealed carry laws, and combined them with strong Castle Doctrine laws saw violent crime, and property crimes absolutely plummet. For all intents and purposes, the number of break ins / burglaries in Texas is hovering around zero. Coincidentally, you can be shot in the back as you're running away from a theft in Texas because Texans can defend property using deadly force. Florida has similar Castle Doctrine laws, and all the problems are concentrated in places dominated by liberal northeasterners and immigrants who do not excercise their rights because they aren't aware / do not have the same understanding of natural law due to years living under tyrants who have disarmed and brainwashed them.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The original idea behind the right to bear arms was that the citizenry was able to be as well armed as the government, so to me that includes 30 round clips, full automatic weapons, body armor, night vision, bazookas, explosives, and you name it. I don't see that the government has ANY say whatsoever over what a citizen may possess for self defense. The goal of an armed citizenry isn't hunting and stopping to odd burglar. It is for the government to fear the threat, and tread lightly when it comes to our rights as citizens.

I frankly think that we could eliminate the DHS, and myriad domestic "security" outfits and simply allow pilots and passengers to fly armed-- or leave it up to the airlines (it's their property) and let them compete in the marketplace. New Yorkers can fly Unarmed Air, and the rest of us can just shoot the bastards as they're trying to light their underwear on fire.

[fairlycrazy23]

Also , it was never envisioned by the founders that we would have such large standing army, and a well regulated militia would be an integral part of defending the nation

militia being all able body men, not some specific organized group or groups (such as national guard)
and well regulated being they could shoot straight.

[billisonboard]

Feb 8, 1974 22:56:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I don't see that the government has ANY say whatsoever over what a citizen may possess for self defense. ....

Up to
and
including
[glow=red,2,300]tactical nuclear[/glow]weapons

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sure. If a citizen or group of citizens thinks that's a fiscally effective way to defend themselves...(some things the market sort of takes care of itself...)

[fairlycrazy23]

Jan 27, 2011 10:59:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sure. If a citizen or group of citizens thinks that's a fiscally effective way to defend themselves...(some things the market sort of takes care of itself...)

Much as I like the free market, it can't control crazies.. So I believe that the state can make reasonable restrictions on citizens abilities to greatly harm his neighbors.

[floridayankee]

Jan 27, 2011 10:53:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 8, 1974 22:56:11 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I don't see that the government has ANY say whatsoever over what a citizen may possess for self defense. ....

Up to
and
including
[glow=red,2,300]tactical nuclear[/glow]weapons

Honestly, a tactical nuke would make a pretty shitty weapon for self defense.....I mean the blast radius...the fallout....
I can hear granny now as she's pulling out her tactical nuke.

"hehehe....this will teach that purse snatcher..."

Can we leave it there or do we also need to rule out nuclear subs as well before you inject any more drama in to the discussion?

[billisonboard]

Jan 27, 2011 11:26:09 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Jan 27, 2011 10:53:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Up to
and
including
[glow=red,2,300]tactical nuclear[/glow]weapons

Honestly, a tactical nuke would make a pretty shitty weapon for self defense.....I mean the blast radius...the fallout....
I can hear granny now as she's pulling out her tactical nuke.

"hehehe....this will teach that purse snatcher..."

Can we leave it there or do we also need to rule out nuclear subs as well before you inject any more drama in to the discussion?

Please go back to what I was responding to. palm... stated "The original idea behind the right to bear arms was that the citizenry was able to be as well armed as the government,...". This isn't self defense against a purse snatcher. Also note that palm.... did indicate that he supported the right of a citizen to have a nuclear weapon.

[rockon]

It would be a huge mistake for Obama to wade into this subject right now. It's a fight that will only hurt his re election campaign so I don't see him going there publicly now but I'm sure he has things going on behind the scenes and thats the scary part.

[ugonow]

The original idea behind the right to bear arms was that the citizenry was able to be as well armed as the government, so to me that includes 30 round clips, full automatic weapons, body armor, night vision, bazookas, explosives, and you name it. I don't see that the government has ANY say whatsoever over what a citizen may possess for self defense. The goal of an armed citizenry isn't hunting and stopping to odd burglar. It is for the government to fear the threat, and tread lightly when it comes to our rights as citizens.

I agree.That is what the constitution says . There is no constitutional right to have a gun for self protection..It was meant to arm a militia to take out a tyrant government. And the framers intent was not to pit the militia against the government using only 22's.It has been twisted by special interests to fit their agenda.

[floridayankee]

Jan 27, 2011 11:34:52 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 27, 2011 11:26:09 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Honestly, a tactical nuke would make a pretty shitty weapon for self defense.....I mean the blast radius...the fallout....
I can hear granny now as she's pulling out her tactical nuke.

"hehehe....this will teach that purse snatcher..."

Can we leave it there or do we also need to rule out nuclear subs as well before you inject any more drama in to the discussion?

Please go back to what I was responding to.

Ok...the text you quoted was "I don't see that the government has ANY say whatsoever over what a citizen may possess for self defense. ...."

Thus the reason for my response. My apologies for thinking you were being a bit over the top.

[billisonboard]

Jan 27, 2011 13:06:04 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Jan 27, 2011 11:34:52 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Please go back to what I was responding to.

Ok...the text you quoted was "I don't see that the government has ANY say whatsoever over what a citizen may possess for self defense. ...."

Thus the reason for my response. My apologies for thinking you were being a bit over the top.

[glow=red,2,300]How you could very possibly even consider for a split second that I would ever be even the slightest "bit over the top"? [/glow]

[ed1066]

I do hope though that keeping 30 round clips out of the hands of paranoid schizophrenics is!

That's a mental health issue, not a gun control issue...denying everyone the right to own them isn't going to do a thing to stop another wacko from killing someone.

[Angel!]

Jan 27, 2011 10:16:30 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

For all intents and purposes, the number of break ins / burglaries in Texas is hovering around zero.

Interesting since in 2006 TX had the 8th highest property crime rate in the country:

oregon.gov/CJC/IndexCrimeRates03.shtml

[lakhota]

Churches The Next Battleground In Post-Tucson Gun Rights Debate



WASHINGTON -- The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 18 others in Tucson nearly three weeks ago may have seemed like the sort of incident that would incite a push for stronger gun-control laws. But in certain parts of the country it's had just the opposite effect, inspiring increased sales of firearms and new legislative efforts to expand gun rights.

The most remarkable recent illustration of this trend could be Georgia, where a state-level campaign has begun invoking the Tucson shootings to advance legislation that would permit firearms in churches, synagogues, mosques and the like.

Earlier this week, Bobby Franklin, a Republican member of the Georgia State Assembly, filed House Bill 54. The legislation, according to an assembly official, literally crosses out language in the current law that lists "a place of worship" as an "unauthorized location" for a person to carry "a weapon or long gun." Other locations where firearms are prohibited, locations that Franklin's bill leaves untouched, include government buildings, courthouses, jails, and state mental health facilities.

More: www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/churches-gun-rights-battlefield_n_815081.html

[ChiTownVenture]

burglaries in Texas is hovering around zero.

I found this comment interesting so I did some research, according to the FBI www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_05.html 2009 crime statistics breaks down as follows;

These number are per/100,000 inhabitants
TX
Violent Crime - 490.9
Forced Rape 33.4
Robbery 153.5
Property Crime - 4015.5
Burglary - 969.4

IL
VC - 497.2
FR - 30.2
Rob - 177.6
PC - 2736.9
Burg - 603

AZ
VC - 408.3
FR - 32
Rob - 122.8
PC - 3556.5
Burg - 809.8

FL
VC - 612.5
FR - 29.7
Rob - 166.7
PC - 3840.8
Burg - 981.1

CA
VC - 472
FR - 23.6
Rob - 173.4
PC - 2731.5
Burg - 622.6

Just looking at Robbery and Burglary the numbers just don't support your comments.

I'm all for the right to own guns (including handguns) and I'm also for concealed permits, but lets be honest about the effects.

[kadee]

I have not looked at any figures except those posted in this thread. I have no expertise in this field at all. All I have is the power of observation in my little corner of the world.
I live in a small town in SW Ga. and hold a concealed, carry permit! Our local paper posts all the crimes committed in the community on a daily basis, even the "rich" get their names in there when they are arrested for DUI!

Most of our break-ins & property theft/damages result in 4 major things being stolen...
GUNS
Electronics
Jewelry
Copper

These are easily sold to either pawn shops, fences or scrap yards for quick cash to support the thief's drug habit.
The items most stolen after these above are...
tools
lawn equipment

So draw your own conclusions from these observations!