to do with shaping the interpretation of gun laws. But any amendments that speak directly and unambiguously to the second (and are presumably not unconstitutional) will need to be provided by congress. Then it is the job of the courts to interpret - not invalidate unless the law is blatantly unconstitutional.

And I must voice a rare disagreement with Paul Krugman. I think that he is a bit out of touch with the times. There are in fact many democrats who voted for president Obama and other democrats who own semi-automatic firearms and are NOT "rural whites who ain’t gonna vote Democratic in any case". The democratic party DOES need them. And there have been plenty of democratic gun owners who have been busy trying to convince rural white gun law voters to vote democratic. DO NOT write them off. These are the people who will be able to speak intelligently about gun control and suggest reform measures that make sense and have a chance at being effective while remaining constitutionally valid.

According to polls, things like licensing and registration for handgun ownership are not only supported by comfortable majorities of Americans, but even by most gun owners. Krugman doesn't say forget about all gun owners, just forget about the second amendment absolutists who think they need a home arsenal to fight off the forces of tyranny.

Licensing and registration as well as background checks, storage requirements, training and legal responsibility should be considered as well. I think that it is way past time to work on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment.

Either as a matter of politics or a matter of policy.

alert the authorities that there is probably another gun in the hands of a criminal.

That said - the circumstances of the theft should be investigated and if it is determined that the owner (ex-owner) was negligent in storing, securing and locking up the weapon I'd say a hefty fine is in order.

Just sayin'

I think that it is way past time to work on the "well regulated" part of the second amendment.

And they do not mind regulations but they do not want the guns taken away.

According to polls, even most gun owners would support licensing and registration for handguns.

As yet the community of gun owners have proven they are incapable or unwilling to keep their weapons secure from people who would kill. Without that, a national gun ban would be the only right & reasonable solution we're left with.

a gun and shot a hole in the ceiling. He was one embarrassed gun owner. And all the rest of us gave him a hard time.

Pistols and assault weapons are banned. There's still plenty of sport weapons -- hunting, shooting clay pigeons, target practice, etc.

From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

After Hungerford, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 criminalised most semi-automatic long-barrelled weapons; it was generally supported by the Labour opposition although some Labour backbenchers thought it inadequate.[12] After the second incident, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 criminalised private possession of most handguns having a calibre over .22; the Snowdrop Campaign continued to press for a wider ban, and in 1997 the incoming Labour government introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, which extended this to most handguns with a calibre of .22 (there are exceptions for some antique handguns and black-powder revolvers.)

should quit voting for people who make tyranny possible.

It appears that the shooter stole the guns from his mother.

But it would cut down on gun violence overall, by helping to keep guns out of irresponsible/criminal hands.

And, arguably, it may have prevented Columbine, where the guns were purchased with no background check at a gun show from a private seller. Depending on what the licensing procedure was, it may have prevented the Gabby Giffords shooting -- for example, if you had to pass a mental health screening. Etc.

I'm just about to give up to universal registration.

I think it's coming.

But I don't think it will do any good to prevent shootings like this.

All it will do is allow the government to figure out who owned the gun after the fact a little faster.

where the guns were purchased with no background check at a gun show from a private seller.

Well, this is true, if we require background checks for all firearm sales, that that closes that loophole. I was assuming that we were registering only law-abiding folks, which is all the registry system will ever contain.

for example, if you had to pass a mental health screening. Etc.

Now that is a different issue. Mental health screenings might go a long way to keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people.

However, I am wondering about a few things:

1) can the modern psychiatry field reliably screen out people we don't want owning firearms?
2) how will we set up a system to indemnify psychiatrists who screen people who go on to commit crimes?

Almost all crime guns in the US start out at FFLs. Somehow they get to the criminal market. Registration would reduce that flow.

For example, straw purchases would become much more risky -- your name would be in a registry next to a gun that you bought for someone. Right now, the laws against straw purchasing are very difficult to prosecute. Basically, you have to prove that a person had the intention of transferring the gun to someone else when they filled out the form. With a registry, all that changes -- simply transferring a gun without transferring the registration would be a crime.

And serially buying guns from FFLs and diverting them to the criminal market would become virtually impossible. It would give authorities much more tools to prosecute trafficking rings. And so on.

I also think that just having to go through a licensing process will discourage some irresponsible gun owners. What if you had to go through a process like getting a CCW just in order to own a handgun? Remember, the girl who bought some of the Columbine guns said she wouldn't have done it if she had to go through a background check. Not that she would have failed the check, but just the scrutiny was enough to dissuade her from doing something that she knew, at some level, was wrong.

Registration will cut down on criminals with guns by insuring that every gun owner has no criminal or mental health background.

But I don't think it will do much to stop crimes like Sandy Hook.

We know we cannot stop them all and many of the arguments I've heard about how to have prevented this last one really don't seem like they would have worked except a complete ban in this country which is not going to happen unfortunately.

But we have to make it tougher to get guns and more accountable for those who have them. Reasonable gun safety, testing, and licensing seems a good first step.

The Constitution may guarantee the right to BEAR arms, but it says nothing about the right to SELL guns.

Congress should pass a law banning the sale of assault weapons, handguns, and their ammunition, and then follow up with a buy-back program with increasingly higher purchase prices -- making it an offer even the most ardent gun lovers can't refuse.

so it isn't the voters that need to be defeated--it is of course corporations and lobbyists as with most other issues.

will never vote for a Democrat.

What is needed is a financial counterweight to the NRA to equalize the camaign contributions.

eom

"their unfettered gun rights," or a civilized society.

Even the Wild West had tougher gun laws.

When I was a young adult, I bought a handgun following an attempted breakin in our apartment - thwarted by my 220 pound father-in-law. I hated it. After awhile I sold it and have never had one since. I favor sensible, and strong, gun regulation at least. A total ban sounds pretty good, but will never happen.

Now to my point: it takes both a gun and a person. In addition to strong effective gun regulations, we must stop teaching gun violence.

Computer games are used to teach math and other subjects. Videos are used to illustrate how to do math and other skills. Children learn how to do math from watching videos and playing computer games. Are we to believe that violent computer games, videos, and movies do not teach violence? Are we to believe that children decide to learn math from computer games, but turn off learning when the game involves shooting people? Are we to believe that children and young adults with mental health problems make this type of distinction? In other words, are we fools and idots? Will we continue to brainlessly accept the marketing spin of video, movie, and computer game profiteers when they assure us that violent games and videos do not affect behavior?

Oh, you say the people involved have a right to earn a living? Our Constitution is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not life, liberty, and the pursuit of money. Violence training materials are certainly as big a public nuisance as organized crime. Stop violence education now!

Possession of movies, videos, and computer games that teach, illustrate, or depict gun violence should be banned. Possession of such should be totally illegal including existing products. In 1933, and for forty years thereafter, personal possession of gold was banned, and citizens were required to trade it in, especially gold coins. We can certainly do the same with violence training materials.

Part of my reasoning for supporting stricter gun control is a desire to inject into our gun-glorifying culture a note of responsibility. As it stands, our culture looks on guns the way that Hollywood depicts them in John Wayne movies. They are heavily romanticized as a man's best friend and the best tool for resolving problems in a hostile world. Our national discourse on guns focusses exclusively on Americans' perceived "right" to own and use guns; never on the responsibilities that necessarily accompany the exercise of rights. I firmly believe that the appalling rates of gun deaths in this country reflect not only the ready availability of firearms, but the culture which exalts them as a sacred cow of our national identity.

Most of the pro-gun crowd is of the same political leaning as the GOP. Old white guys.

And that demographic is fading.

Poor baby.

And a way of life I have known for 30 years, having never harmed anyone.

It is sad. Not as sad as 18 children getting blown away, but it is sad.

It's the first time I've had the impression that you were anything other than an extreme right-wing troll. Generational history can bring a huge sense of loss when changes happen. I appreciate getting a sense of humanity from people whose politics I deplore.

But it's twenty children last I heard, not eighteen, who died the other day, thanks to people who did whatever they could to make sure guns and bullets are readily available.

I don't expect everyone to follow everything anyone ever posts, but you may like this post of mine also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117292262

Proved rather readily the progressive Bloggo world hysteria/hyperbole re: "liberals and independents are being brainwashed into voting against Obama due to FAUX News!!!" was complete, silly nonsense of the worst kind.

The voting blocs who re-elected Obama and put democratic women into the Senate aren't dumb enough to be influenced by reich wing media. The fact pepple in Bloggo world think they are is insulting.

The people who ARE dumb enough, "relgious" white people in the south, were NEVER going to vote for Obama in the first place, or any non Caucasian candidate.

I think the larger point critical thinkers like Krugman and others need to make is "democrats" are using THE FEAR of losing votes they were never going to get anyway-- as an excuse for getting nothing done on the numerous critical issues facing our nation right now. the hideous gun violence/death issue is just one example.

it's wayyyyy past time for democrats in congress to grow a spine and start leading our nation out of the cesspool.

maybe the Mayan End-of-the-World-As-We-Know-It scenario is spot on.


P.S. Humor is how I deal with unimaginable tragedy.

that I have twelve guns, have had them all my adult life, take them to the range regularly and feel passionately about my right to own them and buy them unhindered? That, further, I voted for Obama twice and worked on his first campaign.

Statements like, "The gun fanatics and second amendment absolutists are not people who can be reasoned with, any more than racists and teabaggers. In fact, for the most part, they are the same people, and they are going to vote Republican," drive me further and further from the Democratic party and from liberal activism.

I did not work on Obama's second campaign because I found too many people who exhibited this kind of radical and intolerant thinking. People do not fall into the nice neat uncomplicated stereotypes you want them to.

if you are a single issue voter, hung up on your self important gun ownership, attempting to make it more important than the lives of 20 children, you are a selfish jerk who doesn't belong in my party.

Enjoy your guns. For. Now.

But there is no doubt that gun laws need to be tighter -- at the least, we need licensing and registration for handguns, and probably also for semi-auto rifles. We have a gun violence epidemic, and it is time we did something about it.

If you agree with reasonable gun control laws, great. If not, well, as Krugman points out, there aren't that many of you who are actually going to vote Democratic in any case, and with changing demographics, the numbers are becoming smaller. I'm not interested in sacrificing gun control to court your vote any more than I am interested in sacrificing on, say, clean energy policy simply because it might offend a few potential Democrats who think climate change is a conspiracy against capitalism.

Look in the mirror. Because you're the personification of it.

Sick. Just plain sick.

spot on.

So I agree with him, but the problem with any law changes at the federal level is the House of wingnut representatives currently.

are realizing that we've reached the point of madness.

Some Are Turning In Their Guns Following Connecticut Shooting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022002850

&U&G&M&A&N

You'd attract a lot more sane Repukes than you would lose in Dem gun nuts, AND it would be something worth fighting for.

WE DON'T FUCKING NEED YOU

Consider the changed and changing demographics.

KnR