Willie Brown: Democrats hand Trump a gift on guns.

[cawacko]

Willie Brown's weekly column. For those passionate about guns what say you on his take?




Democrats hand Trump a gift on guns. He may not be smart enough to take it


I cannot believe Democrats are falling for the false issue of background checks for gun buyers.

Not only will universal background checks not solve the gun violence problem, but touting them as the answer to mass shootings could play right into President Trump’s hands and rob Democrats of a key election year issue.

Universal background checks sound great — they’re intended to keep guns away from felons and people with mental health problems. But the alleged killer in El Paso, Texas, would have passed. So would the Las Vegas sniper. So would most of the other mass killers of recent years.

Background checks for buying ammunition, restrictions on the size of guns’ magazines, and a host of other efforts that settle for a comfortable midde ground on firearms violence are also meaningless.

The real answer to mass shootings is an out-and-out nationwide ban on buying — and possessing — assault rifles.

To paraphrase former President Bill Clinton: It’s the guns, stupid.

We passed an assault weapons sales ban in California in 1989, and we did it nationally with Sen. Dianne Feinstein leading the charge in 1994. The problem is that we let the national ban lapse, and neither Democrats nor Republicans have the courage to vote it back in.

The push by Democrats for universal background checks not only falls short as a solution, it is also bad politics.

If Trump ever gets half a spine and puts his weight behind background checks, he would not only take one of the biggest issues Democrats have in the election off the table, he would also force the party to support his efforts.

The only thing keeping Trump from making the background-checks play is his fear that any move toward gun control will cost him with the National Rifle Association and eat away at his already meager 40% approval rating.

If he were smart, he’d see he might actually pick up a few votes by appearing to be reasonable on guns. The Democrats are giving him the chance.


https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...t-14374342.php

[Gonzomin]

Universal background checks is a slippery slope to real reform. Gun buyers should go through at least as a rigorous process as automobiles. They should have to attend classes to learn how to handle weapons safely. They should have to be licensed. They should have to purchase liability insurance. They should have to renew the license on regular intervals. The license should be expensive to help defray the costs of police work.

[cawacko]

Universal background checks is a slippery slope to real reform. Gun buyers should go through at least as a rigorous process as automobiles. They should have to attend classes to learn how to handle weapons safely. They should have to be licensed. They should have to purchase liability insurance. They should have to renew the license on regular intervals. The license should be expensive to help defray the costs of police work.

What does any of that have to do with mass shootings (or assault rifles)? You think someone who wants to shoot up a school is thinking "i'd do this now but I have to get licenced first and then go to Geico so I can get insurance"?

[USFREEDOM911]

Willie Brown's weekly column. For those passionate about guns what say you on his take?




Democrats hand Trump a gift on guns. He may not be smart enough to take it


I cannot believe Democrats are falling for the false issue of background checks for gun buyers.

Not only will universal background checks not solve the gun violence problem, but touting them as the answer to mass shootings could play right into President Trump’s hands and rob Democrats of a key election year issue.

Universal background checks sound great — they’re intended to keep guns away from felons and people with mental health problems. But the alleged killer in El Paso, Texas, would have passed. So would the Las Vegas sniper. So would most of the other mass killers of recent years.

Background checks for buying ammunition, restrictions on the size of guns’ magazines, and a host of other efforts that settle for a comfortable midde ground on firearms violence are also meaningless.

The real answer to mass shootings is an out-and-out nationwide ban on buying — and possessing — assault rifles.

To paraphrase former President Bill Clinton: It’s the guns, stupid.

We passed an assault weapons sales ban in California in 1989, and we did it nationally with Sen. Dianne Feinstein leading the charge in 1994. The problem is that we let the national ban lapse, and neither Democrats nor Republicans have the courage to vote it back in.

The push by Democrats for universal background checks not only falls short as a solution, it is also bad politics.

If Trump ever gets half a spine and puts his weight behind background checks, he would not only take one of the biggest issues Democrats have in the election off the table, he would also force the party to support his efforts.

The only thing keeping Trump from making the background-checks play is his fear that any move toward gun control will cost him with the National Rifle Association and eat away at his already meager 40% approval rating.

If he were smart, he’d see he might actually pick up a few votes by appearing to be reasonable on guns. The Democrats are giving him the chance.


https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...t-14374342.php

And once it's Federally passed and proven to be ineffective, how is it then rescinded?

[USFREEDOM911]

Universal background checks is a slippery slope to real reform. Gun buyers should go through at least as a rigorous process as automobiles. They should have to attend classes to learn how to handle weapons safely. They should have to be licensed. They should have to purchase liability insurance. They should have to renew the license on regular intervals. The license should be expensive to help defray the costs of police work.

Should we do the same for those wanting to be "parents" or anyone that is going to be caring for them, in any manner, seeing as how there have been numerous children killed by them.

Just wanted to point out that with all the things you've mentioned, regarding cars, it doesn't seem to be working; because more people are killed by cars, then guns.

Does this mean that you're for increasing the cost of car licenses or drivers licenses, to help defray the cost of police work??

[cawacko]

I see you posting Archives and know you're a gun regulation person. Why say you on Brown's take here?