In light of Friday's tragic violence, the Sunday shows focused heavily on the massacre in Newton, Conn., and the larger implications of the tragedy. Of particular interest was the number of Democratic officials willing to do what they were reluctant to do after other recent mass shootings: propose legislative remedies.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she would, on the first day of the new Congress, propose reinstating the assaults weapons ban and prohibit high-capacity magazines. David Gregory told the senator, "What makes you think it can pass that? We've had tragedies before and nothing happens."
Feinstein replied, "It can be done," noting the long odds that were overcome in 1994 when the assault-weapons ban first became law. Of course, in 1994, there was a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and Democratic White House -- and the conditions are hardly identical today.
Regardless, Feinstein was hardly the only Democratic Sunday show guest eyeing legislative changes.
On CBS's "Face the Nation," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) added:
"I think we can get something done. I think we have to do things that protect the second amendment rights of legitimate gun owners, but three things that we should focus on: We don`t know the details yet, so you can`t say that any of them would have stopped this incident, but you can say they are parts of the pattern.
"One is to ban assault weapons, to try and reinstate the assault weapons ban. The second is to limit the size of clips to maybe no more than 10 bullets per clip. And the third would be to make it harder for mentally unstable people to get guns."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and offered a similar take.
"We need to sit down and have a quiet, calm reflection on the Second Amendment. Are there guns that really shouldn't be sold across America? Military assault weapons such as the one involved in this horrific incident in Connecticut?
"Are there high ammunition clips, high capacity ammunition clips that have no value, whatsoever when it comes to sporting and hunting and even self-defense? The person could buy body armor, take that body armor and use it to protect themselves as they kill innocent people.
"Can we have a thoughtful, calm, reflection on these things? And do it in the context of our Second Amendment? I think we need to."
There's been quite a bit of debate over the last few days about whether the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School represent a political tipping point. After other recent mass shootings, there's a usual pattern -- shock followed by grieving followed by a return to normalcy -- that necessarily discourages political shifts, but the question is whether the events in Newtown were so horrific, they will break the pattern and overcome the political, cultural, and societal stagnation that pushes against change.
Time will tell, of course, whether this incident really is different from the others, but for what it's worth, these Democratic lawmakers' comments were not at all common after Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek.
Leave a Comment:
Can we please do this now.
I hope TRMS is able to pull together a story on state legislation, and not just focus on Federal.
Consider how the Supreme court affirmed the right to an abortion, but in Mississippi, state legislators have used onerous regulation to deter the providing of abortions. In 2008, Scotus affirmed the right to own a firearm. Ok fine- just as we may own a car, we also must annually re-register the car.
Consider a tight regulatory regime:
There are some states with necessary Dem super majorities. Would CA, WA, HI, MA or NY possibly implement them? Are there any states or groups considering legislation pressing such aggressive regulation of guns? Bloomberg targeted Joe Baca for supporting NRA legislation. Is he prepared to fund a PAC that tagets state legislators in deep blue states who oppose such aggressive regulatory regimes?
If SCOTUS challenges such regimes, is this not a good thing? I'd like to see the dance Scalia does that bars such regulation but allows MS to effectively deny abortions. It seems to me the constitution envisions regulation with the phrase "well regulated militia". It is not infringing on a citizen's right to own firearms to require that the guns electronically transmits their presence.
Good ideas, John.
John,
I agree that there should be stricter laws about people who can carry their guns, but I believe that some of your points are a little too much. There are 2 things that are really needed to make sure this doesn't happen again. A much more through backround check, and making the purchase of military grade assault guns illegal. The transmitter idea that you had is what I thought was too much. Like, why stop with guns? Give anyone that has a criminal history a tranmitter so that police know who to look for.
No. Our society has gone too far in its tolerance of unregulated guns, and your proposals would do nothing for most of the recent massacres..
If you feel differently, just take another look at the photos of the dead children.
I find it very rude of you to tell me to look at the photos of deceased children. I am a firm believer in our second amendment right, but I also know that there SHOULD be more limitations on it. I'm sorry ,that as a licensed carrier, I don't want big brother breathing down my neck. I bought my gun legally, and I carry it legally. I shouldn't have everyone in the area know that I am carrying. (unless confronted by an officer and by law I am suppose to tell them that I am carrying.)
Why do you think everyone would know? The signal is no different than a computer wifi signal. As far as anyone knows, the signal is being put out by a cell phone. However, when an authenticated law enforcement device, queries the transmitter, it gives up it's registration number.
After the law enforcement officer determines that you are in possession of a legally owned gun, then you are on your way. How is this some sort of infringement on your 2nd amendment rights to own the gun. They ask you for your identity card, it matches the database record of owner for the gun and you are on your way.
It's tough that your feelings are hurt. The children were hurt more.
It's tough you feel your rights were infringed on by police knowing you have a gun with you. The children's rights were infringed on more.
I understand your feelings. Understand the feelings of the children and their families.
The fact that SOMEONE can detect that you have a firearm is what I'm talking about. Are you telling me that NO BODY except the police will b able to detect that signal? That NO ONE else will have that technology. I don't buy that. With technology now-a-days it would be very easy to hack the system. And do you expect that everybody that owns a gun would have to get a transmitter installed into it? What about the people who already own their weapons? If I buy a gun and carry it legally, it should be none of the polices business where I go and etc.. It's called invasion of privacy. And I understand that the children were hurt more, their rights infringed on more, and their feelings, but I shouldn't have to have some on my rights taken away when I did things legally.
You can own your gun, and no one is taking it from you. Honestly, get some perspective. You have to register your car every year and are required to display your tags- not just for police but everyone to see.
As for safety of technology, paranoids will never be convinced. Assuming you are not in this category, maybe you think cash machines, and cell phone networks can be easily "hacked" with "technology now-a-days"? Just try it sometime. This is not like an open system like the internet with known protocols. Having a hope of defeating modern encryption and authentication protocols are far beyond the level of petty criminals. Just to figure out what algorithm was used would require reverse engineering an IC. And even that really gets you nowhere, because there are plenty of encryption protocols that provide you no advantage if you know which one is used. So you are simply speaking out of ignorance of technology. Sure, I'll admit there is no such thing as an unpick-able lock but I don't think you grasp the immensity of the math involved. They can be broken but you would need supercomputers to hack into such a transmitters- hardly worth the cost or effort. Even if they could detect the presence of the weapon, is that such a bad thing? Folks prominently place faux security system signs that say "Protected by Smith and Wesson". The transmitter if detected would remove all doubt. But the fact is that it would take the kind of computing resources that intelligence agencies have to defeat the authentication.
So even your doubts of the technology make no sense.
We are left with the notion that you think that it would have been an invasion of the Connecticut shooter's privacy for the school to have a sensors that would have alerted police that several firearms had appeared on the grounds of a school.
I would say your exaggerated sense of privacy is not proportionate to legitimate public safety concerns.
Being as I graduated from a technical high school, I know I'm not technology illiterate. Having friends from computer science courses, I know how easy it is to hack a system. I'm not a paranoid person. I'm just stating that if I am walking around with my weapon, it should be no one elses business except my own. If I am just walking around, there shouldn't be a cop asking to see my permit when I did nothing wrong. Kinda defeats the purpose of a concealed carry permit.
Sorry- if you are walking around near a school with your Mac-10, society has a public safety interest in your intentions.
It is very much our business, and protecting your interests in privacy is outweighed by protecting the public's interest in continuing with their breathing.
I suggested you were uninformed about cryptography and authentication protocols. Many people who are world class developers are ignorant of how tough it is to break these.
You communist scum have no idea what the constitution means. There's no evidence that a rifle was used in Ct. Even if it were, you have no right to Americans guns. Our guns are not just to defend against the criminal, but against a tyrannical government. You liberals are disgusting and are godless, evil people. Once obama is done with the useful idiots, you will also find yourselves in bondage.
Interesting that NONE of the Republican senators would accept Dancin' Dave's invitation to his Sunday Disco Party. Not even McCain!
I do indeed look forward to the "debate" over the assault weapon ban. Louis Gohmert has already weighed in: Equip every school principal with an assault weapon. The mind reels. . .
Yep, that's the typical conservative answer to mass shootings: put more guns out there. It's nuts.
Chris Hayes had an interesting segment on his show Saturday. The Second Amendment was ruled upon by the Supreme Court in 2008. While the court found that the amendment does protect an individual's right to own a gun, it did not give the widespread right so often quoted by the 'arm everyone over 6 years of age' proponents.
This was from the majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia (yes, that Justice Scalia!):
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited: "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/supreme-court-and-the-second-amendment
Why isn't this publicized more? Instead we hear claims that the Second Amendment gives us unqualified rights to possess and carry arms anywhere we'd like.
As for the legality of assault rifles pertaining to the Second Amendment, that's also been through a number of circuits, although not the Supreme Court itself. The courts have all handed down decisions that the Second Amendment does not protect those ownership rights.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/08/09/just-because-you-the-machine-gun-doesnt-mean-its-legal/
Could we at least make buying a gun as difficult as . . . say . . . voting?
Dont take me wrong here, because I am in favor of some restrictions on the sale of guns in order to make our country safer....BUT...if we were to follow the Democratic lead and make buying guns as difficult as voting, everyone would be able to go get one without any ID and they would be able to get the gun the same day they went to purchase it.
just saying...
I think what skippy meant to say was...
Could conservatives at least propose that buying a gun be, at least, as difficult as they want it to be to vote? (That may be awkwardly written but I hope you get the idea :-)
Once again...you mean to actually show an ID in order to buy one? and to wait for a period of time before getting the gun?
just saying...
This is the kind of gun control we should have. A person can keep a small hand gun at home for protection. A hunter can own a shotgun. If you have a verifiable threat against your life, and can pass a Mental Health exam, you can carry a gun. Nothing else is needed. No one needs to own a military grade weapon.
How would you know that your life was going to be in danger? People don't leave the house knowing 'Someone is going to attempt to hold me up'. I agree that you need to pass a Mental Health exam and that no one should carry a military assault weapon, but thats it.
The bill will ban new imports of certain weapons and magazines. Doesn't do much for the currently held firearms in the country. I question the practical long term effect it may have. Where is the bill for mental health screening and access at a local level?
I maintain this is as much a mental health issue as a gun issue.
is as much a mental health issue as a gun issue.
As much? More- how many of these killers are certified as 'healthy' during the pre-trial examinations?
Why do we keep having a "debate, quiet talk" regarding gun ownership? My question is how many more massacres will WE tolerate before WE say enough? Give me a number 20 more, 100 more - how many more people must lose their lives because some angry belligerent @sshole decides that he wants either: a) suicide by cop or b) feels that he's gonna go out in a blaze of glory and take a few people with him?
And WE have the nerve to call ourselves "civilized", the nerve!
I'm waiting for the wingnuts to say this was all a conspiracy to get their guns - that the same people who "conspired" on the Fast and Furious plot conspired to kill the people at Newtown. Wait for it in 5...4...3...
Part and parcel of this larger discussion on assault weapons must also include the full re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act that is currently being held hostage by the House of Representatives.
The United States has a problem with violence -- guns just make it easier to perpetrate it.
No more assault weapons! No more oversized magazines! This must be done NOW! No more slaughters of innocent people, no matter their age!
When the assault weapon ban is brought up this time, make sure to define "assault weapon" operationally instead of just listing currently manufactured makes and models like they did last time. It was really truly stupid.
Typical. Fire-baggers are putting all the onus on democrats who were reluctant to propose legislative remedies after previous mass shootings, and none of the blame on any of our N.R.A. loving elected officials, who are FIGHTING against any stricter gun control laws. Because it’s just sooo likely that if the democrats had only introduced bills after the previous mass shootings, congress who gets sooo much done already, would have quickly passed such a bill, before any more mass shootings took place! Get real.
Even if democrats had introduced legislative remedies immediately after the previous mass shootings, last week’s mass shooting still would have happened, because congress still would have still been fighting over any such legislative remedy any democrat proposed! A fight over tougher gun laws, would have lasted longer, and been a lot nastier than the year long fight to pass the ACA. A lot of people in congress love their guns, more than their own children!
Just remember who is also to blame for the lack of action on stricter gun laws, when Diane Feinstein’s legislative remedy doesn’t get past a G.O.P. filibuster, and no democratic bills on gun laws are even given a chance, in the G.O.P. controlled house. I have hardly heard any talk from the left about getting rid the gun nuts in congress, so that some day congress will have the votes to pass stricter gun laws.
And, I don’t believe Sen. Joe Manchin is suddenly is supportive of tougher gun laws. He’s just talking. If Joe Manchin was up for re-election in 2014, like other democratic senators from red states, he wouldn’t be pretending to support any kind gun control. He’ll probably get angry phone calls from the N.R.A., and backtrack, later.
Kiss my A**, Feinstein. Lowlife, communist scum. This is how it starts! First, one right's taken away...then another....then another, until they're all gone. e'll wake up one day and be living in a total socialist, communistic nation.
It's been proven that guns prevent murders. What is wrong with people?? Idiotic Cowards!
Thanks for the demonstration that what is needed for gun ownership is an IQ test.
Which you and the rest of the gun nuts would fail.
Go back to Wacko World, and continue your wanking there. I'm sure even your tiny little pee-pee can accomplish something if you stroke it with your gun barrel.
To DieOnMyFeet, what is the proof that guns prevent murders? Every time an incident such as this occurs, the debate is picked up again, Ban guns, ban high capacity magazines, ban this, do that, then nothing happens. Then someone shoots up aMcDonalds, or a school, then we shout all over again. On this subject, I have to say, guns can be useful, and fun. If you hunt, or like to sport shoot or something like that, they can be useful and fun when the user is trained and properly liscensed. An assualt rifle is another matter entirely. many people have these under the guise of self-protection. They heavily modify them and some peopel think they should be able to have any weapon and do whatever they want with them. These are the selfish people who don't care about others. No different than a person who heavily modifies their personal car stereo so that it blasts 10,000 watts of music and shakes the windows of neighborhood homes. Or Mods a motorcycle to do crazy stunts up and down the highway in traffic. (I love cars and bikes.) But I also know that I have a responsibility to society not to abuse my right to do certain things. Some gun owners are very responsible and use their weapons as they are intended. Some, though feel they have the right to do whatever they want with them no matter what the resulting actions are. If you are a reasonable person, you should be able to see that some of these weapons never should be allowed on the streets and that certain people, should never be allowed to posses, or use a firearm.
Gee, what ELSE happened in 1994 that might give us pause before we start popping off about gun control?
When 20 Republican Senators propose something, call me.
Until then, this is just so much ammo the GOP will use to win NM, NV, MT, and CO.
Bloodbaths are a problem THEY caused. We won't fix it without their help. Trying, in their eyes, is just as bad as success. Don't walk into this trap, Democrats. It's sickening, but that isn't enough to change the equations in play.
The last gun ban was in effect from 1994 to 2004. Columbine happened during that time, did the ban stop it? No it did not. What most people on this page are missing here is that all of these acts were caused by evil. There are already good measures in most states including background checks and waiting periods, safety classes, renewals. (yes, already way above the same level of requirements for voting) but do the mass murders follow these restrictions you claim will solve everything, no JohnMesserly they do not. You claim equal consideration JohnMesserly? Abortion is legal and killing thousands of kids every year. Where is the outrage there? How about requiring a waiting period for abortions? Any problem on your end? How about tagging women who have had abortions and list them out on a public list so that any potential spouse or boyfriend knows that if the wanted to share a baby with the women that there is a Risk to his child. Any problem on your end? How about giving a father veto rights over an abortion because he would be heartbroken because the rights for him to protect his children are being ignored. Any problem on your end? Yes I'm sure JohnMesserly you don't have an issue with any of those. The 2nd amendment states that both a well regulated militia, (comma)and the right for the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. It does not state you have to be part of a militia to own a gun. One of the factors contributing to the 2nd amendment was that our founders wanted the people to be armed as a deterrent from a government infringing too much onto the people. The same reason our fathers left England which just as a refresher included to many taxes and not being able to worship as they wanted. Sounds a little too familiar if you ask me. JohnMersly, did you actually read what you wrote? Only being allowed to carry a gun if you have a verifiable threat against your life. What the heck do you call someone showing up in the same place as you intent on killing everyone he can? I’d really like to hear what politically correct name you give that person. Ha, Really? According to your logic you would kindly ask your friendly gunman to stop shooting you for 7 days so you can go get your gun license and prove that the bad guy with a gun is intent on killing you. I'm sorry John Lay but you are just way off in left field...way way off! How about starting out with respecting life from the beginning, how about better supporting the family (yes the traditional one with a man and a women) so that Kids grow up in a loving environment where children are not deprived of knowing the strengths of both a Mother and a Father and wait for it….Having a family who worships and has God in their lives.
And lastly,
It's tough if your feelings are hurt about my abortion comments. The Children who are aborted are hurt more. You want consistency? God Bless all of our innocent children, those who are killed by anyone in any circumstance anywhere?
h
Sorry to have to tell you this, John, but the government has no way of knowing about all the guns out here. There are many antiques and war relics out there that were never registered and therefore untraceable. My own father brought back many relics from WWII and none were registered in any way. (I understand that today's soldiers are no longer allowed to bring back "souvenirs") In addition, guns sales by private individuals are not traced, not to mention the illegal ones out there owned by criminals. I would bet that the number of UN-registered firearms perhaps equals or exceeds the number of registered ones. People who own traceable firearms would register those for tracing, etc, but by no means would that disarm much of anyone. And obviously, criminals would ignore such a requirement. As far as enforcement goes, the number of licensed hunters in WI ALONE outnumber the number of active-duty personnel in the Army. Just food for thought.