President Biden Calls for “Commonsense Gun Law Reforms”: Read It For Yourself

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

14 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    Just won the election and already looking to lose the next one.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      Oddly, though, conservative voters support those measures in most cases by a wide majority. Which just goes to show, I guess, that politics is a mind killer.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Stillwater says:

        AWBs and high cap bans don’t have conservative support. A sensible universal background checks (where a person could run a check from their phone on the guy buying their gun, rather than trying to find an FFL and paying whatever cost the FFL feels like charging for the trouble) would get a lot of support, but just forcing everyone to use the system as is will make it a lot harder to garner support.

        The whole gun maker immunity thing is idiotic (weapons of war, WTF is he talking about?). It’s either a nearly impossible case to bring, or we let people sue distilleries and car makers.Report

        • InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          I’d be totally fine with modernizing the background check system. I don’t know what he means by ‘weapons of war’ that aren’t already NFA weapons, and as best as I can tell irrelevant to the issues in play.Report

      • InMD in reply to Stillwater says:

        I think it’s more that support is a mile wide, an inch deep, and erodes with the specifics. I mean, support for universal healthcare is also high even among conservatives. What happens to it when you say you can no longer chose your own doctor? What would happen if you said you will now have to get it from something that looks like a VA hospital?

        Not that there aren’t answers to those issues, just that there are limits to what can be deduced.Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    I certainly hope he uses the same law enforcement to enforce these laws as that which refused to go into the building during the shooting itself!

    (Though I’d settle for the one we were protesting all last summer that still hasn’t been reformed yet.)Report

  3. InMD says:

    Funny, we have a bunch of these where I live and I don’t think there’s one less dead person because of them. It’s almost like the ability to legally buy a firearm has nothing to do with people already prohibited from having them shooting each other with rusty old black market pistols over who is allowed to sell drugs on a particular corner.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

      I clicked the link (as I do) thinking there was more to the statement than the OP… mildly surprised that the statement is the entirety. I suspect this will become more of a feature of future Presidents… aspirational guidance. And, that might actually be better fwiw.

      But, to the aspirations themselves:

      1. including requiring background checks on all gun sales
      2. banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
      3. eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.

      1&2 we’ve hashed, re-hashed, fried and re-fried…

      3? Big if true… but I have no idea what it means. Every gun is potentially a weapon of war. I suppose if that’s the intent… stripping ‘immunity’ won’t necessarily make them liable under ordinary jurisprudence. I mean, each gun I’ve bought has a manual with all the same warnings that my farm equipment has – with the same sort of warning stickmen pictures.

      We’re leaving common sense behind at this point.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Marchmaine says:

        One could argue that gun sellers “Manly men” flavor of advertising appeals to a dangerous customer base, but like I mention above, if marketing that appeals to customers who may misuse the product is something we don’t want 1A protections for, we’ll be exposing game and movie studios, distilleries, and car makers to liability as well.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          I suppose it is the first step of thinking the smoking playbook will work.

          Ultimately it’s a cultural issue… I’d start with Hollywood making guns/violence un-cool first. Like they did with Smoking (while smoking behind the scenes because smoking is cool *and* sexy).Report

  4. JoeSal says:

    “Due to guns leading to murders, common sense reform requires we will no longer be deploying the national guard to D.C.”
    – thanks for playingReport

  5. North says:

    It’s a messaging sop to the left that isn’t gonna go anywhere. It’d never pass filibuster and the Dems certainly aren’t going to spend capital/time on a doomed gun control push. Maybe I’ll revise if there’s another string of shooting sprees but I’m dubious even then.Report

  6. Real question; how much did DC’s strict gun laws matter in the Capitol rioters’ not bering armed?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      If I had to guess, I’d say “diddly squat”.

      I mean, I’m looking at the naked shaman guy and not coming to the conclusion that he was thinking “better not bring my forty-four, the laws wouldn’t be kind!”

      He was planning on his righteousness carrying the day.Report