Joe Scarborough reverses his stance on gun control

[chance1]

net gain zero. Thanks for playing.

I can only imagine the pain you're in

 

[chance1]

His opinion does matter. Scarborough is not some irrational, ranting right wing dingbat. He was in Congress and now hosts one of the smartest programs on television on MSNBC.

So his opinion may carry a lot of weight with viewers and even in government.

I recommend watching him.

If you were a gentleman you'd left this for me to post

Joe is a mensch

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli you call Feinstein's opinions crazy but this is truly ridiculous - don't regulate how easy it is for someone to get an assault rifle - regulate CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!!

Regulating fantasies is pointless, as Clinton's ban proved. Feinstein is a loon because she thinks aesthetics matter in this debate -- because that's all the "assault weapon" things is: cosmetics.

And the ability to get an assault rifle is already extremely tightly regulated: there are a set number of federal licenses for them, so the only way to get one is to convince someone with one of those licenses to sell his to you (lately they've been running over $100k a pop).

On the contrary, the tea party will be right on board with this - they think the rest of us are all crazy and will no doubt be reporting all of us to your new Gov gestapo in order to have our rights to firearms removed. Scratch that, we will all be reporting each other because I really don't think some suburban commando who's penis is in his holster is sane enough to have the fifty kabillion weapons he keeps in his den.

You really think the Tea Party will be on board with changing the NICS system so people like the Arizona shooter will get blocked from getting firearms? with setting up a mental health infrastructure to help people before they get that bad? They don't trust government anyway; why do you think they'll be thrilled at trusting colleges and such with identifying students who are dangerous?

And there is the real thing all you gun advocates like to ignore. Most gun owners DON'T buy guns because they feel threatened - that's just the fig leaf - they buy them to feel like Rambo. (I'll excuse actual hunters, who have a lot of crossovers anyway with the aforementioned) and there are not a few of them who would gleefully welcome and excuse to "defend their homes."

Get a new crystal ball -- very few gun owners want "to feel like Rambo". If that were the case, with a hundred million gun owners in the country then you should be praising the way things work because there are so few outbreaks of violence.

Don't bother trying to say otherwise - I got a .22 put in my hand at 8, it and my three shotguns hung on the wall in my bedroom from then until I graduated from college and moved to the big city - I know gun owners, I grew up with them, and the fact is that there are far far far far more casual and careless gun owners than there are careful and knowledgeable ones.

Yeah well the beer swilling slob who's drunk in his deer blind is a crazy person - I insist he be reported, he's not capable of even handling a 12 gauge, let alone an assault rifle - but i bet you he's got something similar, or has dreams of one.

The problem is not the crazy - the problem is the ease with which the crazy can get efficient weaponry.

There is nothing wrong with regulating firearms - in fact we ALREADY DO.

Every gun owner I've ever shot with has been careful and responsible. There's a fringe redneck element that aren't, who certainly aren't the majority.

Yes, people drinking and having a loaded gun should be reported -- it should count the same as drinking and driving. The rule with people I've shot with has always been that when the first beer has been consumed, everything is put away. Training for such people would make a good part of a new Militia Act.

What's wrong with regulating firearms is that the emphasis is far more on penalizing the law-abiding than on actually keeping the wrong people from getting guns. That's evident just from the way the NICS works: gun dealers faced with someone just shown to be a felon by an instant check has no authority to take that person into custody; he gets to walk even though he just committed a crime. It's plain from that that the people making the rules aren't really interested in catching bad guys, they're interested in laws that sound good and accomplish little.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think that Chuck Norris inhaled too much and too often and actually started to believe in the fantasy world he inhabits.

The only others out there that I can honestly say make Norris look like a baby la la when it comes to these issues are Ted Nugent and Hank Williams Jr.

LOL

Nugent's never been moderate in or on anything.

 

[JayHawk]

I can only imagine the pain you're in

i know right!!!

What's wrong with regulating firearms is that the emphasis is far more on penalizing the law-abiding than on actually keeping the wrong people from getting guns. That's evident just from the way the NICS works: gun dealers faced with someone just shown to be a felon by an instant check has no authority to take that person into custody; he gets to walk even though he just committed a crime. It's plain from that that the people making the rules aren't really interested in catching bad guys, they're interested in laws that sound good and accomplish little.

it would appear your argument suggest that in NICS there should be a button "applicant Present" and if they are attempting to get a weapon as a felon then it automatically dispatches officers to apprehend. Easy software feed to the 911 comms system.

However it would appear that Lanza snapped because his mother was committing him. So possibly the increased laws should also focus on protection measures for the public and prohibitions for those facing competency. However that would fly in the face of innocent until proven guilty.

Our rights are killing us. LOL

 

[Kulindahr]

This is loosely related to the thread's discussion of media and guns.

After the Newtown massacre made news, media magnate and Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch tweeted the following:



An Australian conservative politician, Malcolm Turnbull, who is a personal friend of Murdoch's, re-tweeted the message, and then his own reply:



Turnbull makes a great point. Fox News is in a powerful position to encourage change in the US. Their demographic directly correlates with gun ownership. A pipe dream, perhaps, but it would be wonderful to see some genuine balance and honesty about guns on Fox.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/turnbull-targets-murdoch-over-guns-20121217-2bii3.html

If Murdoch wants change he could give a billion to a foundation dedicated to identifying and helping mentally challenged people before they become dangerous. These shootings aren't really a problem with guns, they're a problem with failing people who are so disturbed they turn to destruction.

 

[JayHawk]

If Murdoch wants change he could give a billion to a foundation dedicated to identifying and helping mentally challenged people before they become dangerous. These shootings aren't really a problem with guns, they're a problem with failing people who are so disturbed they turn to destruction.

Right but if their access to weapons were restrcited then they would be a lot less lethal. Just think if Nancy Lanza was given a simple pamphlet from the courts when she started her petition to commit her son that told her often cases the insane go off when confronted with institutionalization so for your safety and the safety of the public at large you are required to ensure your personal firearms grant ye by the right hand of God be locked up and unavailable for your lunatic relative. Capisce?

 

[andysayshi]

Regulating fantasies is pointless, as Clinton's ban proved. Feinstein is a loon because she thinks aesthetics matter in this debate -- because that's all the "assault weapon" things is: cosmetics.

And the ability to get an assault rifle is already extremely tightly regulated: there are a set number of federal licenses for them, so the only way to get one is to convince someone with one of those licenses to sell his to you (lately they've been running over $100k a pop).

This is verifiably false. Any body who wants an assault rifle can buy one today, no questions asked, no background checks, no license confirmation required. Anybody.

Jeff Rossen of the Today Show did a story in February highlighting his own investigation. Within 12 hours of answering online advertisements Crossen managed to purchase eight guns. It was all perfectly legal.

He bought a tactical assault rifle with ammunition, a Glock-23 with hollow point bullets, a tactical shotgun, and a 50-caliber sniper rifle with a 5 mile range, capable of piercing armoured vehicles or shooting down a helicopter.

I repeat, neither Rossen nor the gun sellers broke the law, even though Rossen told several of the sellers that "he probably wouldn't pass a background check".

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg conducted his own investigation and had similar results. His buyers legally purchased various high powered weapons and handguns in 14 states, even after the buyers advised the sellers they could not pass a background check.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316...can-buy-guns-no-questions-asked/#.UNEKDY7bKf8

 

[Kulindahr]

it would appear your argument suggest that in NICS there should be a button "applicant Present" and if they are attempting to get a weapon as a felon then it automatically dispatches officers to apprehend. Easy software feed to the 911 comms system.

I'd deputize the dealers -- they already have to pass some hefty standards; go the rest of the way and make them authorized to make an arrest right there.

But the button would work, though not as well. One gun store I was at a lot during college had a "hot button" that dialed the cops with a recorded statement who it was, the location, and that a crime was in progress. I heard of it getting used once, when two felons came in together to see what they could buy.

However it would appear that Lanza snapped because his mother was committing him. So possibly the increased laws should also focus on protection measures for the public and prohibitions for those facing competency. However that would fly in the face of innocent until proven guilty.

If we take the path of Congress authority to organize and disciplining the militia, I think the standards of proof for being "guilty" can be less strict. I see no problem with public institutions like colleges having the authority to notify the NICS that they have determined someone to be dangerous to self and others, and have that person classified as not allowed to have a weapon until evaluation shows it to be incorrect.

Committing someone takes too long these days. The process should begin by merely dropping by an appropriate facility for an evaluation, and if the evaluation is bad, the person doesn't get to leave. When you have to hop from one place to another and when there's a "waiting period", that's asking for trouble.

 

[Kulindahr]

Right but if their access to weapons were restrcited then they would be a lot less lethal. Just think if Nancy Lanza was given a simple pamphlet from the courts when she started her petition to commit her son that told her often cases the insane go off when confronted with institutionalization so for your safety and the safety of the public at large you are required to ensure your personal firearms grant ye by the right hand of God be locked up and unavailable for your lunatic relative. Capisce?

That's a good idea, too. But it still baffles me that it takes so long to get someone dangerous taken to somewhere for help.

 

[TX-Beau]

Regulating fantasies is pointless, as Clinton's ban proved. Feinstein is a loon because she thinks aesthetics matter in this debate -- because that's all the "assault weapon" things is: cosmetics.
And the ability to get an assault rifle is already extremely tightly regulated: there are a set number of federal licenses for them, so the only way to get one is to convince someone with one of those licenses to sell his to you (lately they've been running over $100k a pop).

Well OBVIOUSLY something is wrong in Denmark. Pull your head out of the sand. Your opinions are more doctrinaire than either Clinton or Feinstein and you are the one less willing to look at reality.

You really think the Tea Party will be on board with changing the NICS system so people like the Arizona shooter will get blocked from getting firearms? with setting up a mental health infrastructure to help people before they get that bad? They don't trust government anyway; why do you think they'll be thrilled at trusting colleges and such with identifying students who are dangerous?

Right, they’d just try to put me in the loony bin, you too, those fuckers have no problem with huge government as long as it’s doing what they tell it to. This is your personal fantasy, such a thing is impossible to implement, it would violate a whole bunch of rights, just because you personally have a gun fetish and have this bizarre idea that your gun is going to protect you from the people you elect.

Get a new crystal ball -- very few gun owners want "to feel like Rambo". If that were the case, with a hundred million gun owners in the country then you should be praising the way things work because there are so few outbreaks of violence.
Every gun owner I've ever shot with has been careful and responsible. There's a fringe redneck element that aren't, who certainly aren't the majority.
Yes, people drinking and having a loaded gun should be reported -- it should count the same as drinking and driving. The rule with people I've shot with has always been that when the first beer has been consumed, everything is put away. Training for such people would make a good part of a new Militia Act.

Well bully fucking for you and the rarified company in which you travel. That insinuation that most gun owners are prudent people, careful and knowledgeable, and the suburban commando isn’t ubiquitous is just bullshit, not to mention the fantasy that people will just blow away criminals like life is a Rambo movie is fucking laughable, and I think it’s about time we called that for the shit that it is.

You want to think life is an RPG game, fine, but you don’t get to force that on the rest of us because it inspires in you some kind of vigilante fantasy.

What's wrong with regulating firearms is that the emphasis is far more on penalizing the law-abiding than on actually keeping the wrong people from getting guns. That's evident just from the way the NICS works: gun dealers faced with someone just shown to be a felon by an instant check has no authority to take that person into custody; he gets to walk even though he just committed a crime. It's plain from that that the people making the rules aren't really interested in catching bad guys, they're interested in laws that sound good and accomplish little.

What’s wrong with regulating firearms is that this crazy got them from your law abiding lightly regulated citizen, and then he blew her away and a bunch of children as well.

You can ignore and dance and obfuscate and toss verbiage but the fact remains – WE HAVE A COMPELLING INTEREST TO REGULATE FIREARMS!

It's plain that the people insisting on weak rules aren't really interested in catching bad guys, they're interested in platitudes that sound good and accomplish little.

 

[andysayshi]

That's a good idea, too. But it still baffles me that it takes so long to get someone dangerous taken to somewhere for help.

It's all about money. Mental health institutions are struggling to survive in the US because of poor funding.

The issue is complicated because of the risk of litigation. If someone is incarcerated and then successfully sues the institution or doctors who authorised it, the settlements are usually in the millions. For institutions who can barely pay their electric bills, they take the cautious route to admitting people against their will.

Mental health is a very, very costly business. Far more expensive than regulating guns.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is verifiably false. Any body who wants an assault rifle can buy one today, no questions asked, no background checks, no license confirmation required. Anybody.

Jeff Rossen of the Today Show did a story in February highlighting his own investigation. Within 12 hours of answering online advertisements Crossen managed to purchase eight guns. It was all perfectly legal.

He bought a tactical assault rifle with ammunition, a Glock-23 with hollow point bullets, a tactical shotgun, and a 50-caliber sniper rifle with a 5 mile range, capable of piercing armoured vehicles or shooting down a helicopter.

I repeat, neither Rossen nor the gun sellers broke the law, even though Rossen told several of the sellers that "he probably wouldn't pass a background check".

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg conducted his own investigation and had similar results. His buyers legally purchased various high powered weapons and handguns in 14 states, even after the buyers advised the sellers they could not pass a background check.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316...can-buy-guns-no-questions-asked/#.UNEKDY7bKf8

If you really think that, I invite you to try buying one. The experience in prison should be enlightening.

Definition:

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

Source Link (added by moderator): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Assault rifles were covered in the Firearms Act of 1934, as restricted weapons which had to be registered with the government. The restrictions were changed somewhat in 1968 to fix a constitutional hole, and as of 1986 with the Firearms Owners' Protections Act all transfers of assault rifles between citizens was banned except for such weapons already in the hands of citizens.


As for Rossen, anyone who thinks there's such a thing as a "semiautomatic assault rifle" has severely impaired credibility, because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

And his experiment: this is why the NRA strongly recommends that all sellers make use of the NICS to do background checks. It's something they fought hard in Congress to make possible, because the original NICS system was accessible only to FFL holders. Now, thanks to the NRA, if I want to sell one of my firearms, I can ask for ID and make a call to the NICS; I can even download the forms the FFL folks use, to make the NICS process easier.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well OBVIOUSLY something is wrong in Denmark. Pull your head out of the sand. Your opinions are more doctrinaire than either Clinton or Feinstein and you are the one less willing to look at reality.

I love the way you call factual information "opinions", and refer to ignorance as a matter of looking at reality.

Right, they’d just try to put me in the loony bin, you too, those fuckers have no problem with huge government as long as it’s doing what they tell it to. This is your personal fantasy, such a thing is impossible to implement, it would violate a whole bunch of rights, just because you personally have a gun fetish and have this bizarre idea that your gun is going to protect you from the people you elect.

Now you sound like a Tea Partite: you don't want to care for your fellow citizens or take steps for public safety because you're afraid they'll come after you. Heck, by the argument I could call for ending the whole Homeland Security thing, shutting down the FBI, etc.

Well bully fucking for you and the rarified company in which you travel. That insinuation that most gun owners are prudent people, careful and knowledgeable, and the suburban commando isn’t ubiquitous is just bullshit, not to mention the fantasy that people will just blow away criminals like life is a Rambo movie is fucking laughable, and I think it’s about time we called that for the shit that it is.

Life is proof that you're wrong: yesterday, ninety million gun owners didn't go out to act like Rambo. Last year, ninety million gun owners didn't go out to act like Rambo.

You want to think life is an RPG game, fine, but you don’t get to force that on the rest of us because it inspires in you some kind of vigilante fantasy.

Your penchant for making shit up about people instead of reading their posts is disturbing.

What’s wrong with regulating firearms is that this crazy got them from your law abiding lightly regulated citizen, and then he blew her away and a bunch of children as well.

You can ignore and dance and obfuscate and toss verbiage but the fact remains – WE HAVE A COMPELLING INTEREST TO REGULATE FIREARMS!

It's plain that the people insisting on weak rules aren't really interested in catching bad guys, they're interested in platitudes that sound good and accomplish little.

Except that all the regulation anyone proposes is feel-good crap that lets politicians claim they've "done something", but which in reality accomplish nothing at all -- like banning things that look scary.

I'll ignore the lie you ended with.

 

[andysayshi]

You're arguing semantics and labels, but they do not change the facts.

Both Rossen's and Bloomberg's investigations PROVE that almost anybody in the US can buy a military-grade gun without a background check in a matter of hours. The laws and systems you keep describing are either not working, being ignored, or not being adequately enforced. I visited my brother's wife's family in Texas in 2005, who had about ten various guns in their home, and they laughed when I asked them about regulation. Nobody in their house had ever submitted to a background check, and all their guns were purchased legally.

What's more, the NRA have worked tirelessly for more than a decade to remove even MORE regulations than the ones you claim are working. All the (clearly toothless) regulations you've mentioned in this thread would be removed by the NRA in an instant if they were capable of it.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's all about money. Mental health institutions are struggling to survive in the US because of poor funding.

The issue is complicated because of the risk of litigation. If someone is incarcerated and then successfully sues the institution or doctors who authorised it, the settlements are usually in the millions. For institutions who can barely pay their electric bills, they take the cautious route to admitting people against their will.

Mental health is a very, very costly business. Far more expensive than regulating guns.

The sort of system we need isn't that expensive. Most of it could be manned by trained people without the spendy title of "psych"-something. Most of the time commitment isn't even involved: mere drop-in centers and houses of refuge such as I've described would accomplish a lot. Besides that, 72-hour holds can be quite effective.

But that's beside the point of what the NRA lobbyist bitch got killed in Florida after the Arizona shooting: a simple tweak of the instant check system so people already found to be dangerous by a public institution could be flagged for refusal. That's one where the NRA needs to back down.

On top of all that, we owe it to people with mental disabilities to help them anyway. These days, not a small number deliberately commit crimes because it's the only way they have to get into a safe place with meds supplied: jail. Dismissing what we ought to be doing anyway because it would cost more than a plan aimed primarily at penalizing law-abiding citizens is disgusting.

 

[Rolyo85]

I maintain that the 2nd Amendment either needs further amending, or a new Supreme Court ruling that narrows it down to what it actually says, instead of broadening Otto the meaningless "hey, let's have a cowboy state!"

 

[andysayshi]

Life is proof that you're wrong: yesterday, ninety million gun owners didn't go out to act like Rambo.

Perhaps, but one did on Friday.

Last year, ninety million gun owners didn't go out to act like Rambo.

Actually, there's about 10,000 dead Americans who would argue that point. There were obviously a few "Rambos" on the loose last year.

We don't regulate cars or drivers or builders or industries because of the law abiding majority. We regulate them because of the dangerous few.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're arguing semantics and labels, but they do not change the facts.

Both Rossen's and Bloomberg's investigations PROVE that almost anybody in the US can buy a military-grade gun without a background check in a matter of hours. The laws and systems you keep describing are either not working, being ignored, or not being adequately enforced. I visited my brother's wife's family in Texas in 2005, who had about ten various guns in their home, and they laughed when I asked them about regulation. Nobody in their house had ever submitted to a background check, and all their guns were purchased legally.

What's more, the NRA have worked tirelessly for more than a decade to remove even MORE regulations than the ones you claim are working. All the (clearly toothless) regulations you've mentioned in this thread would be removed by the NRA in an instant if they were capable of it.

You cite the "investigations" of a scofflaw formally rebuked by the US Dept. of Justice for interfering with ongoing operations, and rebuked by the government of several states for interfering with their jurisdictions?

Anyone who was caught selling his licensed assault rifle would be caught within the year, because they have to report annually. Every last legal assault rifle in the country is known to the feds and is listed by model and serial number; if I understand the rules correctly, they have ballistic data on those weapons as well, and any bullet fired from one and found at a crime scene would be identified promptly. The holders of those licenses are a privileged elite who don't sell to just anyone; in fact selling means transferring the license. The cheapest of those guns is going to run you around $10k, BTW.

There hasn't been an assault rifle used in a crime in the US for decades -- so the regulations are hardly "toothless".

 

[Rolyo85]

We don't regulate cars or drivers or builders or industries because of the law abiding majority. We regulate them because of the dangerous few.

It's what bothers me about the pro-gun no-restriction approach. It seems to be saying "well, the constitution says it's a right, so that's that. Dead kids don't change anything." A sort of hypocritical helplessness. "It's not that I think there should be no regulation, it's the constitution!"