[ghporter]

Originally Posted by cgc 

...or because the government and legal systems either don't allow parents to parent as they see fit or the governments try to parent via legislation.

That is far less of an issue than adults' lack of ability to actively parent. It is true that many parents fear being reported to protective services because Little Jimmy winds up with some bruises when he falls down, or because they resort to a swat on his butt to get his attention, but (as a licensed health care professional, this is how it works) medical and protective service people are trained to see the differences between kids being clumsy, and parents using mild corporal punishment, and actual abuse.

In fact, the people who have the least skills in parenting are most likely to use inappropriate "management" techniques or worse. We learn to regulate our emotions and to control our behavior through our parents setting and enforcing rules and limits, so people who grew up with minimal or ineffective parenting wind up with little skill in this area, and they are often the ones who lash out and injure children because they can't handle frustration, putting others' needs first, or generally acting like an adult.

On the other hand, good pediatricians open a dialog with parents starting about the time a kid starts getting ready to walk. About this time, children are pulling up to stand at a table or next to a chair, and they tumble a lot, so parents fall all over themselves explaining where these bruises or scrapes come from. This is where the doctor explains that abusive injuries are easy to differentiate from "kids falling down because they're learning to walk" and so on. I pass this on from personal experience, by the way, since our son learned to walk in a house made entirely of concrete and masonry blocks; of course he got bruised and scuffed up, and of course we were petrified that we'd be in trouble.

Fast forward to professional school and a solid week of classes on legal responsibilities of health care professionals for observing, intervening and reporting... It really is pretty easy to see a difference between what kids do to themselves and what others do to them.

Finally, as part of my final project in grad school, i did an in-depth study on this very subject. I had thought I was going to wind up working on teaching low income parents about nutrition and how to "sell" healthy meals with less snacking to their kids. Instead, I found that, in this particular setting, the parents of the kids I was working with had no clue how to lead, guide or direct their children, and that this lack of parenting skills went back at least 3 generations. One learns parenting by being parented, so when your parents aren't available because they both work very long hours out of the home, they can't actively parent. Since we learn parenting by being parented, this essentially ensures the children will not be effective parents. In less disadvantaged populations this is seen, but while not as extreme, the parents involved are still ineffective in directing their kids, leading by example, or setting and enforcing limits and rules.

[Waragainstsleep]

And of course a common consequence of poor parenting is teenage parents so the problem is spreading quickly. Given that, how else can any government (who will certainly be held liable to pick up the pieces long term) legislate against the proliferation of poor parenting without trying to lead/influence/enforce citizens to parent in certain ways?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And of course a common consequence of poor parenting is teenage parents so the problem is spreading quickly. Given that, how else can any government (who will certainly be held liable to pick up the pieces long term) legislate against the proliferation of poor parenting without trying to lead/influence/enforce citizens to parent in certain ways?

By not encouraging parents and children growing up from being conditioned to expect handouts from the government to survive.
By not encouraging parents to offload their parental duties to the government when it comes to things such as gun safety.
By not fostering a culture of dependence on the government to parent for them.
By allowing communities to choose their own ideologies instead of forcing one on them for handouts.
By not over stepping their bounds as stewards of the constitution (and seeking to usurp its authority).

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

By not encouraging parents and children growing up from being conditioned to expect handouts from the government to survive.

This is almost specific enough to be irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

By not encouraging parents to offload their parental duties to the government when it comes to things such as gun safety.

What does the government do for the children of gun owners?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

By not fostering a culture of dependence on the government to parent for them.

This is about as far from as solution as you could get. Its actually a part of the problem. Freedom to parent poorly (or not at all) is the problem, not fostering a dependence on the government to do it for you means you have to do it yourself which you already were when you decided not to bother.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

By allowing communities to choose their own ideologies instead of forcing one on them for handouts.

Now you are just repeating yourself with a combo of your previous irrelevant and silly answers.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

By not over stepping their bounds as stewards of the constitution (and seeking to usurp its authority).

And again you highlight the a big part of the problem. People aren't responsible enough with their guns so the government should do something about it but heaven forbid the government should do anything about it.

[The Final Dakar]

Obama administration announces new policies that will do jack shit.

Administration announces new gun control measures, targets military surplus imports | Fox News

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

This is not the source of illegal weapons.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

It sounds absurd, but it doesn't strike me as anything close to a real problem ATM.

But the NRA said that neither measure would reduce crime, since neither the re-importation of firearms nor the corporate gun registration is known to be a source of weapons for criminals.

...and they'd be absolutely right, from what I can tell.

[ghporter]

The rule about banning reimportation would affect bringing back M1 Garand rifles... Wow, talk about "high-use criminal weapons..." The Administration is also shouting about a study that says a lot of people are buying firearms online "to avoid background checks." LEGALLY, if one buys a firearm online, it MUST go through a licensed dealer, who is legally required to do a background check, get the buyer to fill out the lengthy ATF form, etc. There is NO way to legally evade those background checks by buying online. So either there is a problem with Federal Firearms License holders breaking the law (unlikely in almost all cases) or there is a whole lot of nothing to this argument. I'm going to have to go with the latter here.

Finally, the thing about "background checks for corporate and other non-individual purchasers" is attractive on its face, but when you see what's actually going on with corporate firearms purchases, it loses its attraction. First off, a corporate purchaser of a firearm must provide the documentation of that corporation (incorporation documents, evidence of current status, corporate officers, etc.) with EVERY purchase. The same is true of every other non-individual purchaser: the documentation establishing the non-individual entity (partnership, trust, etc.) goes in with every purchase. It's a general hassle to set up a corporation, costing quite a bit in legal fees, application fees, etc., just to get around a background check... Like the "horror of automatic weapons in private hands!!11!!," this is a cloak for "looking good without actually making any difference," much like the 1986 ban on new machine guns.

[pooka]

The trust issue goes further than that. NONE of these proposed changes have anything to do with criminal activities. The NFA trust "loophole" is commonly used to bypass dick-head local law enforcement that arbitrarily decide that they can defy county/state/federal law. I mean, you still have to lube your rear and allow the ATF to rummage around for roughly 6 months or so, give up your 4th amendment right, but hey, this will do... wait... jack SHIT. God, I don't even subscribe to anyone's lame-ass newsletter and this shit is without a doubt just stupid.

I'm thinking of moving to New Orleans or Chicago once this goes into effect. Now that MS-13 members can no longer circumvent federal law by transferring ownership of their AK47s to a trust, the street will undoubtedly be safe.

[Chongo]

This tends to be the weapon of choice for MS13 members.