Tweet
The National Rifle Association will assert that President Barack Obama’s attempt to enact new gun control laws will result in the “confiscation” of people’s firearms in a new web video scheduled to run in five states and the District of Columbia. The video will go online around the time Obama begins delivering his State of the Union address, in which he is expected to mention his effort to reduce gun violence through legislative means.
The crux of the controversy is a DOJ memo that recommends mandatory gun buybacks.
A Justice Department spokeswoman told CNN that she couldn’t immediately authenticate the document, but did confirm that Greg Ridgeway, whose name appears on it, is currently deputy director of the National Institute of Justice, which is the DOJ’s research arm.
“This internal Justice Department memo says ‘an assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence,’ ” NRA’s chief lobbyist Chris Cox says in the video that was provided to CNN before it aired online. “Unlikely, that is, unless it comes with something else. Obama’s experts say that a gun ban, like the one being debated right now in Congress, will not work without mandatory ‘gun buybacks and not exemptions.’ ”
Cox continued, “Mandatory gun buybacks. That’s government confiscation of legal firearms owned by honest citizens.”
While President Obama did prominently feature gun control in his State of the Union address, there was no mention whatsoever of confiscations or mandatory buybacks. Nor would such a proposal leave the House alive.
So the angle for the NRA seems to be to poison the well early hoping that memories of Sandy Hook fade and the country moves on to other issues with politicians scared off by an irate and active NRA base fueled by videos like this. It might work, it has so far.
32 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Gun confiscations may be the only way to stop the mass killings of school children at schools.
I recommend that people stop sending their children to school. Perhaps we need for the nation to hire millions of individual tutors, to teach in homes.
The NRA, like so many lobbying and advocacy groups across the spectrum, need to use the fear factor to motivate their adherents to open their wallets. Why the media gives them exposure and the resulting sheen of credibility or relevance only points to their own laziness and corruption. Infotainment/propaganda will doom us all.
Well, since there’s probably somewhere around 20 million or more (I’m probably estimating low) of these firearms in private ownership and a whole three people have used them in a spree shooting in the past five years (probably longer than that), what exactly do you have to justify this push against them besides the memory of Sandy Hook? “Assault weapons” barely account for 1%-2% of firearms used in the commission of a crime. The facts don’t support the moral panic.
Can’t we just erect twenty foot high walls around the schools with sniper towers to stop potential shooters?
Albeit, your idea about the tutors is not without merit. /s
Agreed. The NRA is an incredibly powerful and effective propaganda machine for the right wing nutjobs and gun nuts.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen DSWright:
I don’t think that the old terrorize, “delay and forget” strategy will work this time because finally Obama is usin’ “the people” and the grassroots organization that he originally stole from Howard Dean to force votes in both chambers. On issues that have overwhelming (60%+) support the only way the minority can kill legislation is to keep issues from comin’ to the floor. I think we are seein’ a new “bi-partisan” game plan to whip Democrats in the Senate and force Boehner to bring the bills to the floor to either pass with a Republican minority or lose the Speakership in 2014.
I’m a typical Norwegian and don’t make predictions for fear that the inevitable will hear it and reverse itself…but if I’m right, this political strategy will define the next 18 months on ALL the issues ObamaRahma pitched last night.
KEEP THE FAITH BUT PASS THE AMMUNITION,THERE IS NO COMPROMISIN’ WITH FASCISTS!!
But most especially for the multi-billion-dollar weapons industry.
I’ll give you a fact. When guns are absent so are gun deaths.
Pardon the pun, but the NRA and gun industry have made a “killing” off the Obama presidency. What gun control laws have been passed under Obama?? The right to conceal carry in National Parks and AMTRAK?? The gun control is just out of control in this country. I’d love to hear from someone who has had the experience of having their gun taken away in the last 4 years? anyone?? I remember well during the last assault weapon ban, a cousin of mine right after turning 18 went to a gun show and purchached an AR15 semi automatic assault rifle in 1996. You could after all purchase assault weapons during the assault weapons ban if they were made prior to 1994. A month later, a month before his high school graduation he was dead by accidentally shooting himself with the semi automatic he purchased during the ban.
Whatever. It’s a full on clown show by everyone of alleged importance in this nation at this present time regarding every single issue that exists.
Granted. Now how are we going to make guns absent from a country that has over 300 million of them? Because unless you have some magic up your sleeve, the only way it’s going to happen is exactly the way everybody is saying the NRA’s just selling fear about. It’s the only way this pipe dream of a gun-free utopia is going to happen. This is where they’ve got you boxed into a corner and you don’t seem to realize it.
My issue is that the NRA is simply a marketing firm for the gun industry. Period, full stop. That’s it. No one ever takes guns away….no one took guns away during the assault weapons ban as I pointed out. No one is taking guns away in the future. They’re conducting false marketing.
By scaring the gun nuts into thinking Obama is gonna take away their guns, sales of guns and ammo have skyrocketed. Last year, local TV station said theri sales shot up twice during Obama’s first term to record highs, BOTH in reponse to NRA propaganda.
But listen to this. The month after Obamas’ re-election he said, “Our gun sales have doubled BUT our ammo sales have increased four fold. We used to sell about 3,000 rounds of ammo a month. Now we are selling 3,000 round a week. Sometimes more. Look at these shelves. Right now we are almost out of everything, every caliber.”
Betcha their sales skyrocket again after last night.
I don’t understand why President Obama is pushing the passage of a law that his own experts say won’t help to solve gun violence???
This struck me yesterday also… you probably all saw that the violence against women act passed the senate. The law has been in effect since 1994.
Did it stop violence against women? No.
Wasn’t violence against women against the law before 1994? Yes.
Since it didn’t pass last year (the house blocked it) is it legal to commit violence against women now? No, but you’d think it was when reading the news.
I wonder what the law actually says? and how it helps in any real way. . .
Kind of like when congress passed the Lily Leadbetter fair pay act. Did that really solve the problem of unequal pay for women? No, it doesn’t even address unequal pay, but they sure think they solved it, until next year, when it’ll be another “fair pay act” that does nothing to solve the problem.
It’s all about political grandstanding!
Why can’t congress study issues, and come up with real solutions to problems, and then act on those issue they can actually solve?
.
This bill was introduced in the Minnesota legislature this year regarding most common semi-automatic rifles.
Relevant parts:
Registered assault weapons may not be purchased or transferred, except for transfer to the appropriate law enforcement agency for the purpose of surrendering the weapon for destruction.
Persons acquiring an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession shall, within 120 days of acquiring title, do one of the following:
(1) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction; or
(2) modify the weapon to render it permanently inoperable.
The bottom line is that the bill mandates confiscation or destruction of most common semiautomatic rifles over time.
It would certainly reduce the veracity of NRA’s “information” campaign if bills like this were not introduced.
.
Obanma and the democrats want to APPEAR to be doing something while, in reality, doing nothing.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/04/1536671/what-we-can-learn-from-minneapolis-progressive-approach-to-reducing-gun-violence/?mobile=nc
Focusing on guns is shallow and one dimensional. The Minneapolis plan focused on social and cultural conditions that inflame individuals into violence, including government jobs programs, city sponsored mentoring, and efforts to more fully integrate people into meaningful places in society.
This plan actually worked, and reinforces FDRs approach to solving problems of social/economic exclusion. There is a place for the government to step in and do things where private enterprise has not. In the long run we are more prosperous, peaceful, and safer when we do, at far less financial cost than dealing with it at the police and prison level.
This is Obamas and the DLC Dems most tragic failure. They have bought into the “Ladders Of Opportunity, By Your Bootstraps” canard. Climbing that ladder when it’s moved to SlaveLaborStan somewhere across the deep blue sea just doesn’t work.
Meantime, real poverty, violence, desperation and rage will fester while the drunken herd in Congress fiddles with gun clips and pistol grips.. and whoever else they can get their hands on.
In America there are:
51,438 gun retailers
36,536 grocery stores
14,098 McDonald’s
There are more than 129,817 federally licensed firearms dealers and
143,839 gasoline stations.
This country’s priorities define insanity.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/guns-in-america-a-statistical-look/
. . . gun confiscation. I’m not seeing a down side here.
The NRA is the defacto marketing rep for gun manufacturers.
They prolly have campaigns such as:
February is for Firearms …. March is Machine Guns… April is for Assualt Rifles ….
No, they’re actually way worse than that. They’re also a mouthpiece for the Right’s “culture war” bullshit, which is one of many reasons why I’m not a member. But I am a firearms owner and while I do not support the NRA with membership dollars, I do still vote. I’m not alone. The NRA doesn’t represent every single firearms owner in the US, but that doesn’t mean that any of us who aren’t NRA members are just going to go along with legislation that they oppose simply because they oppose it.
Now, as Abdul Abulbul Amir pointed out at #14, yeah, they are actually talking about confiscation and the ones who aren’t are talking ridiculous scenarios that could only be accomplished by confiscation even if they’re not coming right out and saying the word “confiscation”. They’re also saying that the reason the first AWB didn’t reduce violent crime with guns is not because it affected firearms that weren’t used in such crimes but rather because it didn’t go far enough. It probably doesn’t help that the current one does indeed have language in it that does indeed aside federal funding for buybacks. The NRA isn’t losing credibility at this point because their crazytalk is being verified by crazytalk coming from the other direction.
It doesn’t matter that most of these proposals are doomed to failure. What does matter is that after years of nothing happening regarding firearms rights, now all of their dire predictions are seemingly being verified by this push against firearms that are used for ill intent by a handful of people. The Left went for exactly what the NRA was predicting in the aftermath of Aurora and Sandy Hook. They said another AWB would materialize. It has. They said Obama would use the families of the victims to stump for it. He has. Up until this point, the NRA had nothing. Forget that, they had less than nothing because they were dealing with a president that hadn’t done anything but relax firearm restrictions during his entire time in office. If the conversation after Aurora and Sandy Hook had focused on just background checks, better communication between local officials and mental health professionals and some sort of comprehensive, nationwide initiative on firearm safety and safe storage laws, the NRA would still have nothing to rile their base up. The panic buying would have died off months ago and there wouldn’t be 10 or 20 million or more of those evil assault weapons in circulation in addition to the ones all ready privately owned.
As if this wasn’t bad enough, the legislation is being written by people who demonstrably know jack and shit about firearms outside of “THEY KILL CHILDREN!!1!”. Feinstein’s bill actually has a provision in it that bans any firearm capable of having a godsdamn ROCKET LAUNCHER mounted on it, ffs. This is not a thing. This has never been a thing, just like we’ve never had an epidemic of bayonettings or grenade launcherings. The NRA doesn’t even need to try at this point. All they have to do is point at the ridiculously arbitrary and slapdash laws being proposed and anyone who’s a firearms owner, NRA member or not, can instantly see the ludicrous nature of the proposals. In that instant, you lose credibility and they gain it. You say “nobody is going to take your guns away”, but the NRA can just quietly point at six or seven different proposals that say either the exact opposite or near enough that it doesn’t matter. In that instant, their “false marketing” becomes truth and you look like either an incurious dupe or a straight-up liar. And in the process, it’s tainting everything that could be done that would actually reduce gun violence. As magilla pointed out at #16, there are methods all ready proven to reduce gun violence that don’t involve bans or regulations, methods that would be nearly impossible for the NRA leadership or the Right to oppose without looking like a bunch of sociopaths. There are methods all ready proven to reduce accidental injuries and deaths with firearms that would be impossible for the NRA to oppose without looking like liars regarding their emphasis on safe and responsible ownership. This is what should be focused on, not this half-assed attempt to outdo the Right at the moral panic/demonization game.
You’re talking about proposals, not laws. What I posted in 9 is the 100 percent truth. I had a cousin who had just turned 18 went and bought an assault weapon during the assault weapon ban at a gun show. You can argue lots of things about safety, background checks reduing death. Whatever. The facts are if he was playing with a hammer instead of his brand new assault weapon, he’s likely still alive today. I’m likely very biased on this issue because of that happening. Whatever, interpret how you want to interpret, until someone actually comes and takes guns away from people it’s false marketing. Handguns and assault rifles are designed to kill people. It’s their purpose. YOu can make them as safe as you want to make them, their purpose remains the same. I honestly don’t get it…why anyone needs to own anything other than a humting rifle, but that’s just me I guess. My cousin never died from his hunting rifles or his animal traps he always used, but less than a month after he purchased his God damn assault rifle he’s dead. I honestly don’t get the uproar over an AWB that in all honesty will never come when you can still buy a handgun to shoot with. I know for a fact people were buying assault weapons during the last ban. Maybe the NRA can advertise that fact.
Yes, they are proposals. Saying there’s no grounds for concern because it is only a proposal is like telling someone that a high voltage sign is no cause for concern because they are not at this moment burnt to a crisp. You can keep saying “Nobody is coming for your guns.” but when the NRA points to pending legislation the subtext becomes “Yet. But we plan on it and we’re going to do our damnedest to make it happen.”. The fact that any AWB is doomed to failure doesn’t make it any better because pass or fail, it’s pissing away political capital that would be better spent on measures that are proven to save lives instead of some moral crusade that will serve no purpose but to rally and entrench the worst elements of the NRA.
Why on earth would an AWB even concern you? I repeat that I don’t get it. Could you not go buy a handgun? Explain to me why an AWB ban would concern any gun owner. You said you’re a gun owner. What need does a handgun not fulfill??
Thank you TellMeWhy and Magilla. We aren’t asking what will lead to less deaths, There is a history of war and warlike crusades. The war against Booze, then Communism, drugs and now gun crime. Education cut smoking and cut meth or speed, Only the bass smoking in the company cafeteria wouldn’t lesson cancer. Stopping children from smoking makes them dream of being adults. What to tell gun owners to lessen gun crime. One thing could be said that an expected unlocked gun on the premises encourages thoughts of theft. If cops had finger-locked holsters in domestic disputes they would be safer from attempted seizure of their gun. If the first officer near a car during a traffic stop had his gun in the holster there would be less panic to shoot him before he shot them.
The cops in Britain not wanting guns are not crazy for expecting that the thieves would want them to prevent a cop from shooting them first,
http://my.firedoglake.com/richardkanepa/2013/02/13/ceasefire-vs-gun-control-same-rules-for-all-think-if-the-brass-could-smoke-in-the-cafeteria-but-not-the-others/
Why would it concern me? Because I own one of the firearms on the list. Even if I didn’t, that would be like asking me why DOMA doesn’t concern me because I’m straight. I don’t have to be directly affected by something to see a problem with it.
Since you asked, I will tell you exactly why a handgun wouldn’t be a substitute for what I own. A handgun is almost never going to be as accurate as a long gun (rifle or in this case shotgun). With this shotgun I can use inexpensive ammunition for self-defense that does not run the risk of stray shots going through walls and endangering others where handgun ammunition with similar characteristics is far more expensive. The felt recoil produced by my shotgun is lower than a conventional pump shotgun, making it useable by anyone in my household from my 6’5″ 350-pound son to my 5′ 105-pound roommate. Also unlike a conventional pump shotgun, the safety lever on mine completely prevents it from chambering a live round and can also be used to lock the bolt back, giving a clear visual indicator that it is unloaded. Outside of self-defense, it can be used for recreational target shooting or hunting with the appropriate ammunition.
Now the thing is, I’m sure I can give page after page of reasons why I own what I own and it still won’t change this idea that what I or anyone else owns should be governed solely by the opinions and emotions of someone else when there is not an equal or greater amount of fact to back up why I should not be able to own it. I’ll still have people saying to me that I can make do with whatever other substitution that they in their self-imposed lack of knowledge of firearms think I should be allowed, if they believe I should be allowed anything at all. You know what I say to that? I say I’ve heard people tell me that abortion murders babies. I’ve heard people tell me that marriage equality will destroy the institution of the family. I’ve heard people tell me that we need to relax about warrantless wiretaps and no-knock warrants and drone strikes and the war on terror and I’ve heard all their emotional outrage and their dire warnings of the doom of Western civilization. Nowhere in any of it did I hear anything but visceral anger, ignorance and self-righteousness. I didn’t listen to any of it then. I’m not going to be swayed by it now just because it’s coming from my side of the political fence. I am not going to buy the rationale for collectively punishing the many for the actions of a few because it comes from Firedoglake instead of BigDeadBreitbart. I am not going to listen to “BUT IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!” because it’s being shouted by people who voted for Obama instead of Romney. If you don’t get that, I’m afraid there’s really no better way I can explain it.
I don’t vote for anyone as they’re all criminal. So I’m not really shouting. IN the end Newtown meant virtually nothing to me as it’s simply another case of people thinking violence solves all problems. I was no more saddened by those kids than any Yemeni, Afghani or Pakistani kid who was on the wrong end of Obama’s big stick. It sickened me to have Obama faking his care about those children when he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about them or any kids other than his own. In the end I guess you could call my cousin simply a Darwin award winner for being so stupid and unsafe with his firearm and there is certainly a valid argument for that point. I simply think it was just sad and a needless thing that happened.
You have made solid reasoned arguemnts I believe and I can’t argue too much with any of it. For me I feel safer and feel I am protecting my family more by not having firearms in my home. And then have to accept that is just me. Thanks for your reasoned discussion here. I appreciate it. You made a good point about the “choice” thing. I am certainly free to not own firearms as I don’t. And I believe most deaths are by non assault weapons even though I have personal experience with that type of tragedy. I think you won this debate despite my best efforts!!
I’m sorry I could not stay with this thread. I hope you check back.
I offered you a fact. It is not subject to debate. It needs no qualification. It is undeniable.
That said, I will be the very first to admit that removing all firearms from the U.S. is not realistic. I have never claimed it to be nor have I ever advocated that as a solution. That does not in any way alter the fact that I offered you.
There are responsible gun owners in my family. I have made a decision, after a stint with the U.S. military, that I did not want a gun in my house.
I am a liberal. I have been a liberal all of my 40 voting years. The only position I have ever held is that we as a society must have a rational, reasonable discussion about the mass slaughter of our citizens and what we can do about it. This position is not conditional. It has not changed for decades. It does not change with a vote I may or may not make. It does not change with which political party holds the White House. It does not change as a result of what fucking websight I visit.
If you want to be a part of the discussion please do. But do your self a favor and cut the shit. You are not a victim. People shot fucking dead by the thousands every fucking year are the victims. Cut your self righteous pontificating and know-it-all bullshit and make a meaningfull contribution to the discussion. Not the pathetic, old, feable, unhelpful NRA talking points you seem enthralled with.
.
I don’t want to win really. I just pass along the info that I can. I do appreciate that you’re receptive and I absolutely 100% agree that it has to be a personal choice. If you’re not comfortable owning a firearm for ANY reason, do not get one. You are making the right decisions for you and yours and I cannot look down on that, no one should. Screw the “warrior ethos” talk, all the worship of those who bear arms and the denigration of those who don’t. I’m not a “sheepdog”. I’m not a “warrior”. Neither am I a “killer” or “paranoid”. I’m just a person and my decision to own a gun doesn’t make me any more “fit” or stronger than anyone else just like it doesn’t make me any worse than anyone else. It means I make a different decision and take a different (but still serious) responsibility on myself than others might.
I am sorry for your loss and there really is nothing I can say that would ever ease that. That he was irresponsible or not doesn’t change the outcome. All we can do is work to prevent it from happening to others. Education is SO very important and I will readily admit that far too many people do not grasp what a heavy responsibility owning a firearm is and how solidly committed one must be to safety at all times.
A big part of changing that would be to make the safety education the NRA claims to be for a mandatory part of firearms ownership. They want to hold the Swiss up as a sterling example of an armed society? Fine. Let’s adopt the same standards they have for ownership and storage instead of just “pass your background check, wait (maybe), get a gun, we don’t care how you store it”. It can still be done without the conscription part. It should be done.
I thank you for your reasoned discussion as well.
Well then, pardon my language, but if it’s not realistic and it’s not a solution then what the precise fuck does it have to do with anything outside of you giving us all a fantastic yet unrequested example of a tautology?
And let me be clear about something here: I neither desire nor need your permission to participate in the discussion and I am similarly not bound to follow your guidelines on how I may participate. I will do so as I choose within the boundaries kindly set for me by the site administrators unless and until they tell me otherwise. You know why? Because this is their house and I am just a guest here. So are you. You might want to consider how well your own behavior fits in with those guidelines.
So if you have something besides profanity and personal attacks, let’s talk. Or you can keep acting like you’re in a bar and you’re the baddest mofo in it and see how far that gets you.
Great comments and responses Mertvaya, I tried to make some of the same points on another diary and was less successful. There is a vocal group out there who don’t tnink anyone has a right to possess firearms and their agenda definately fuels the backlash on the Right and from many moderates.
Even if their agenda is pure it comes across as self-rightous and patrionizing. Some don’t take criticism well as you have seen.
Ideological purity never goes anywhere that’s good. Neither does abandoning facts and reasoned discussion in favor of aggression and demonization. If someone chooses not to own a firearm because they personally don’t like the idea, don’t trust themselves with the responsibility or have living situations that would be incompatible or potentially dangerous with firearms, I find no fault with that decision whatsoever. Making that decision is sound, informed and just plain common sense. When someone thinks that they should be in a position to make that decision for everyone else across the board, regardless of circumstance and with nothing but raw emotionalism and stereotypes to back it up, that I’ve got a problem with.