Associated Press
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) appeared on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday and was asked about gun policy. The Republican senator has boasted of her "A" rating from the National Rifle Association, so it was easy to assume that Ayotte would simply reject any and all changes to the status quo.
But the New Hampshire senator, at least at a superficial level, suggested she has an open mind in some areas of the larger policy debate.
"My background before serving in the Senate, I was a homicide prosecutor. So I do come at it from a perspective that taking away the rights of law abiding citizens was not going to stop a deranged individual or a criminal.
"That said, should we look at improving our background check system? I'm willing to listen to what proposals come forward on that."
Though that's hardly an iron-clad commitment, in this environment, "willing to listen" is a major step away from "no."
Indeed, it hasn't generated much attention, but a variety of cracks have quietly appeared in the GOP's wall of opposition to any restrictions on firearm ownership. On Friday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reiterated his opposition to an assault weapons ban, but said he's open to an expanded FBI database to prevent illegal gun sales and possible limits on high-capacity magazines.
Grassley's comments came a day after Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) also said he's "willing to listen to the possibility" of restricting high-capacity clips and "revisions of the so-called gun show loophole." Gingrey, it's worth emphasizing, isn't exactly a GOP moderate.
To be sure, we're very far from the point at which a large number of Republican lawmakers announce their support new gun laws, and several key GOP officials have said they'll oppose literally every proposal that gun-control advocates recommend.
But one month after the massacre in Newtown, the number of Republicans "willing to listen" to new ideas is growing -- and in the process, the politics surrounding this issue are changing.
Leave a Comment:
"willing to listen" translation: "Water down and render meaningless"
Republicans are always "willing to listen" until the talking points are assigned.
Oh, once her Benghazi buddies (McCain and Graham) corner her, she will change her "mind" about it.
And, please, you really think anything on Fox News is reality based??? Uh, no.
Fox News Sunday is actually a very good show. I watch it most weeks as part of my Sunday morning political roundup. It is probably the only program on that network that even begins to live up to their motto of "Fair and Balanced", in that it's not completely unfair and totally unbalanced.
How many days till that vote on the filibuster rule?
Good point -- they really do have an incentive to act reasonable until the Senate has been suckered into maintaining the status quo.
Too damn many and I'm still not convinced Reid has the spine for it
What ever happened to the days when the NRA was more about gun safety and ownership responsibility than anything else? Now it's just a bunch of gun nut zealots at the top.
Watched Iron man last night, how this rich bastard all at once seen the light and now no longer wanted to make weapons for a killing machine. But instead of no longer wanting to make weapons for murder, he decided to make an iron suit where he could go fight those that use the weapons he makes. Now really how dumb is that, when in the end you just keep making more deadly weapons that kill, destroy, and maim. And to actually think this rich bastard had an intelligent brain, when all he could think about to do is make more ways to murder is ridiculous. I am sure these rich bastards who have all these killing machine factories that make these deadly weapons are really concerned about people in life situations as they get those huge profits, give me a break. Look at Romney, what did he watch Iron man too, thinking he could make his underground garage so he can play his fantasyland Iron man.
The majority of the public wants something, even gun owners, so I think we will at least get some movement on background checks. I just hope it's not so watered down that it's ineffective.
Even the staunchest/craziest Republican can put a finger in the wind to see which way it will blow in two-four-six years.
I have very little faith that anything of substance will be done .
My right to go to a movie or a mall or to send kids to school without worrying if they will become the next killing field doesn't seem to matter.
This is about catering to those with gun lust, the unhinged minority overriding common sense.
They will be happy when it looks like a war zone with everyone with a semiautomatic over their shoulder
I don't want the government to seize anyone's guns. I want everyone to voluntarily put them down. We will never be able to have a conversation as long as we are engaged in an arms race with each other.
One of the biggest things that Biden could do is hold a public hearing. Bring in a couple of professional and military shooters. then fire various weapons at targets and military body armour; rifles - bolt action, semiautomatic and burst firing(3shots), the ammunition- full metal jacket, hollow point; targets- single person vs multiple LIVE. Then show the results.
The time it takes to use a bolt action rifle vs a semiautomatic with various size clips would be telling. The damage caused by full metal jackets vs hollow point on body armour vs no armour would be even more telling. Further the use of hollow point against body armour would also end the nonsense about going against a tyrannical government as they would be shown to be very ineffective.
This would change minds as no one would have to defend the indefensible once its seen for real.
I always wonder why law enforcement does not have more input on this matter. They are the one's that more often than anyone else would benefit from strict background checks and closing of gun show loopholes. They are the one's that could be facing firepower every single day of their working life and one would think that they would want to reduce the chances of that happening...
Eileenjj, Because one of the reason's Law enforcement may have problem's is their hand's are tied. Read about this, TIAHRT Amendment, also the Rehberg-Boren Amendment. My conclusion is the NRA claim's 2nd Amendment Right's to incite Fear into the base, But just exactly who is Protected under these? And How are these Infringing on someone purchasing? To give an example of what is wrong, Google this and read the various link's, Badger Gun's. It is about a shop in Milwaukee, Since closed, But makes us wonder of what exactly the NRA is all about.
Sargent GW,
Thanks for the information. I checked the amendments and also the story about Badger Guns and it really is depressing! Those who are enshrined to protect the public are prohibited from doing their job and also increasing their risks because of lack of sensible laws? Our country needs its head examined!!
(By the way, I lived a few decades in other countries where the chance of getting shot was almost zero...even for law enforcement).
Why does no one identify the real people that oppose any reasonable gun legislation? Why do they say the gun lobby? It's the gun manufacturers that created the NRA and other fake "grass roots" orgs. They do the financing. All to protect sales. Nothing more. The gun manufacturers manufactured the 2nd amenment issue. They don't care about the constitution since they have no regard for the first amendment, so that's not the reason. it's sales! Pure and simple. Greed.
It's not fair that those proposing gun controls and assault weapons bans pay a political price but the gun manufacturers don't because they are hidden behing the term " Gun Lobby" and "Gun Rights Groups". Name them by name to even the fight.
Why does no one name the real people behind the fierce resistance to any reasonable gun legislation. They are refered to as the gun lobby or gun rights groups. It is the gun manufacturers that created the NRA and other fake grass roots gun rights orgs. They do the financing and direct the conversation. They created the fake 2nd amendment issue. They stoke fear and buy politicians. All in the name of protecting sales. It's greed pure and simple and nothing more.
An assault weapons ban would mean less sales of assault weapons. Background checks would elliminate buyers that are their very best customers since they are the ones that buy legally and sell to criminals and criminal organizations here abroad.
When discussing those that are putting up the big fight against any legislation at all, call them the gun manufacturers. Name them by name so that they too pay a political price for their views.
Sorry for the repeat. I did not see my original post.
This isn't even slightly bias.