Associated Press
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
As Rachel noted on the show last night, nearly all the coverage of President Obama's proposals on preventing gun violence came with the same caveat: new gun laws can't pass Congress, so no one should get their hopes up.
Anyone who watches Washington can understand a certain degree of skepticism, but there's also reason to question the prevailing assumptions. For one thing, the White House is pushing a comprehensive set of proposals, but there's no reason to assume there will be one, overarching, all-encompassing bill that will get an up or down vote.
On the contrary, we're likely to see a whole bunch of bills, each with their own set of odds. An assault weapons ban may face a steeper climb, but that doesn't mean we won't see new regulations of high-capacity magazines. Strengthening existing penalties for gun trafficking may be a heavier lift than confirming a new ATF director.
And if we were to create a four-square graph, with "meaningful" on the y axis and "likely to pass" on the x axis, I think a universal background check belongs in the upper right-hand corner.
Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, dismissed an assault weapons ban as ineffective. "But in terms of background checks, in terms of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and people who have serious mental health difficulties, we want to do that, and we would take a close look at that," he told C-Span.
And who's Bob Goodlatte? He's the congressman who said five days after the Sandy Hook massacre that he'd defeat any new gun control measures that come up in this Congress.
The Washington Post's Sean Sullivan added, "Compared to an assault weapons ban, there is far greater overall consensus around the issue of strengthening background checks by requiring them in firearm sales at gun shows and in other private transactions, to end the so-called 'gun show loophole.'"
The point is, it seems hard to imagine Congress approving literally every proposal presented by Obama and crafted by Vice President Biden's task force, but there's no reason to see this as an all-or-nothing proposition -- some worthwhile measures may not pass, others might.
And as the legislative phase of the debate begins in earnest, the background-check proposal appears to be at the very top of the to-do list, for the reasons Greg Sargent explained this morning:
Every member of Congress, Democrat and Republican, needs to be asked this question: Do you believe people should be able to buy guns in America without undergoing a background check designed to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from getting their hands on lethal weapons that can ultimately be used in crimes and mass killings?
In one sense, this is arguably the most important question at the heart of the gun debate.... Obama's package of proposals designed to beef up the background check system is in many ways more important than the assault weapons ban. A universal background check is the top priority of many gun control advocates. And the politics of background checks are considerably more favorable to Obama and Democrats then much coverage suggests.
Worse, the focus on the assault weapons ban is allowing members of Congress to dodge the very difficult political question of whether they favor fixing the background check system. For instance, Senator Lindsey Graham's statement comes out against the proposed ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, but doesn't say word boo about the universal background check, even though that is the lead proposal Obama unveiled.
I don't doubt the background-check provisions will face plenty of conservative criticism, but it's worth emphasizing that new Time/CNN and New York Times/CBS News polls show overwhelming public support for this proposal -- including the strong backing of self-identified Republicans.
Opponents of universal background checks will exist, but they'll be on the fringes of the American mainstream.
Leave a Comment:
Gutless turd Democrats giving the store away again.
Mike: How about some specifics? Where exactly did Obama cede any ground here?
Huh? What in the world are you commenting on?
Mike doesn't know what he's commenting on.
Mike is a troll; ignore him
Several friends are highly gun-literate, and they say the assault weapons ban is pointless. I tend to agree. You can make a rifle that looks like a hunting rifle with the same capacities and function.
I'm behind everything but that, because it stirs up the yahoos for no good reason.
Thomas: Are your friends more "gun-literate" than General McChrystal or General Powell? Are they more "gun literate" than Police Chiefs? Do "yahoos" frighten you? Ask your friends what weapon, specifically, they would use if killing the most humans in the shortest time frame was the goal. This will test their honesty...
Ezra Klein, over at Wonkblog, thinks that, actually, having the assault weapon ban in the mix is fine, if the yahoos in Congress can come out against it, thereby enabling them to vote for some or all of the other proposed measures.
The assault weapon ban is central to the reduction of gun violence. If you cede this point, it is like saying, that the mythical NRA prowess can never be defeated. It's like saying the Yankees are going to win the pennant every year so don't even try to defeat them. It's like saying Barack Obama could not win reelection in 2012. When there is an upset in sports, Chris Berman says, "That is why they play the game!"
This is a watershed moment in America. Everything says that the assault weapon can be banned if the American public demands it. Each of us must be active in working to get America to demand that they be banned. Why can't those who refuse to vote in favor of a ban be threatened with defeat in 2014?
I suspect that an "assault weapon" ban is a bargaining chip- and a big one, at that.
Last time we had one,- passed by Clinton- a number of Democrats went down in the next election, and manufacturers made cosmetic changes to get around the ban.
I can "assault" you with a broomstick- (ask Abner Louima)- but it is the magazine capacity that makes any semi- automatic pistol or rifle a killing machine.
All states have hunting laws that restrict magazine capacity, usually three or five rounds. So 'ten in the mag and one up the spout' is more than enough for the testosterone-challenged.
I would like to think that the Sandy Hook massacre changed people's minds, and I am sure it did change people who are compassionate and reasonable. It obviously changed the president's mind. I am at least hopeful, now, that some sane gun safety laws can get passed, but having said that, I flipped to Fox propaganda last night and Hannity the manatee was lying about how Obama wants to be a king and take away people' rights. Rand Paul was nodding in agreement about how horrible a dictator the president has become.
I guess it will depend a lot on which channel you watch as to whether you are "fer" it or agin' it. I watch MSNBC and am for strict gun safety laws. I do have a feeling that Boehner's caucus will ax it.
It is insane to believe that anyone but the military needs assault rifles; they are designed for the military and should never have been in civilian hands in the first place. Now that they are, how to get rid of them? A ban won't rid us of the thousands that are already owned.
India, Sandy Hook didn't change Obama's mind. He has been against assault weapons for a long time. The difference is that now Congress is willing to act.
You say that you watched Hannity. Hannity is the epitome of the un-American, un-patriotic right extremists in America. And he is richly rewarded for his lying tirades. What is really sad is that so many in America get only the right wing programs like Fox News. Even MSNBC is not an option for many. Censorship is rampant in America.
Each of us must carry the battle to everyone we know and take the issue on a person to person basis. We can't wait for the ad campaigns, we must engage even the gun advocates and persuade them to agree to the changes Obama wants.
jimes,
I couldn't agree more and will contact everyone I can and sign petitions.
When I say I flipped to it, I mean for about two minutes. I never watch those creeps. They are true anti-American terrorists. I am sorry to hear that so many can only get Fox's lies and propaganda.
Do you really think congress (GOP) is ready to act? I hope so, but am a "glass half empty" type personality, esp. about the GOP!
Day, I agree with you. I believe that the magazine capacity is the key issue and assault weapons could be used as a bargaining chip.
This muli-bill, piece by piece approach by Obama is brilliant. It allows deals to be made that will pass some of the pieces of legislation while recognizing others will be defeated. It also allows the grandstanders, Paul and Rubio, to beat their chests in public about a gun ban. But if stringent background checks accomplish the same thing as an assault weapons ban (in a more subtle and effective way), then it appears that Obama has hit upon a legislative strategy that may serve him well for later initiatives.
The one problem with any background check I can think of is that my crazy late brother would have gotten through any of them, since none of his acting out ever resulted in him getting into the records in any significant way, given that the system doesn't want to hear family members tell the truth about the crazy one in their midst (I remember a judge telling me that my testimony was "anecdotal hearsay from a non-expert" as he dismissed it, the one time there was a chance to get my brother the help he needed). And most families won't do that anyway, they're usually so deep in denial that anything bad is going on. Despite three moments (all of which I learned of post-facto) he never carried out his potential to harm others when off in la-la land (He was a paranoid schizophrenic with multiple personalities and a good dose of manic-depressive). In the end, the only one he killed with all his guns was himself.
I don't know how you deal with this situation. And from what I can see, Adam Lanza was similar - nothing in the record to set off any alarms. I think a majority of the Adam Lanzas are also people who don't have a record to be found.
Which is not to say I don't believe in background checks, I do. But this is a gaping hole that I don't know the solution to, and so far neither does anyone else.
Nothing in the record on Adam Lanza -- except that as a student so unable to attend school and who had to be watched like a hawk by his mother -- should have at least been a clue to that mother that she should secure guns away from him.
Her carelessness cost her her life, but more horrendously, it cost the lives of 26 other wonderful people who died because of her negligence.
jjim,
The mother of Adam Lanza had to know how sick he was, how out of control. At one point she hired a sitter for him and told the sitter that whatever she did, do not leave him alone. He was clearly dangerous and her having those guns proved just how careless she was and how dangerous he was. She actually was in such denial that she took him to the shooting range and showed him how to use these deadly weapons. I found that unbelievable!
This is how tragedies begin. We see it in domestic violence cases all the time. The abused woman calls 911, then won't press charges, believing he would not do it again.
The thing is, they always do it again.
A background check won't catch every violent headcase, but it will catch the guys whose ex-wives have restraining orders against them. A lot more people die from domestic violence than from mass shootings.
Part of acquiring a gun license, which would include a background check, could be a psychiatric examination. If the psychiatrist's license to practice would be in jeopardy if he blew a diagnosis, then we might have an efficient means of seeing to it that those people that TC mentions would likely be caught.
Meaningful gun control legislation? By "meaningful", I think we really mean "draconian".
It is a draconian proposal to only allow a woman to have the right of an abortion if she must look at an ultra sound. It is even more draconian to force her to be raped with a medical device if she wants an abortion in the first trimester as Governor Ultrasound tried to do in Virginia.
It is draconian to suspend habeas corpus rights. It is draconian to violate American's right to privacy and their 4th amendment rights to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures.
It is draconian to put anti-war protesters behind barbed wire fences, or arrest them for no legal reason, and leave them in a dirty bus depot for hours on end.
It is draconian to violate the rights of any person on US soil to be free from cruel and unusual punishments like torture. And no, it doesn't make it better by using a PC term to replace the word "torture".
It is draconian to put in place mandatory minimum sentences, to put people with drug addictions behind bars, to imprison more people than any other nation in the world, and to execute prisoners who were not able to afford proper legal council.
And it is just as draconian to enact "meaningful" limits on our 2nd amendment rights.
Not all the Founding Fathers were in favor of having a Bill of Rights. Hamilton was deeply opposed to it because he believed it would be used to place limits upon our rights. In Federalist #84 Hamilton noted:
Do not forget that this is a matter of rights. It is wrong to limit freedom of speech and of the press. It is wrong to limit privacy rights. It is wrong to limit our 5th amendment rights and force someone to testify against himself by torturing them. And it is wrong to limit your right to protect and defend your life.
"But in terms of background checks, in terms of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and people who have serious mental health difficulties, we want to do that, and we would take a close look at that"
Keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and those with serious mental health difficulties expands my right to life. Living in a society where a weapon is the only thing that protects and defends my life is, what's the word, let me see, ah yes, draconian.
Alva: I just got off the phone with The Strawman Awards people, they are interested in a dialog with you. I think you might be an honoree...
I agree with you. So, let's repeal the Patriot Act for starters.
And further, what is "a well regulated militia"? Recent readings have led
me to believe that it's a Militia specifically designed to put down slave
rebellions. The Bill of Rights was instituted for very specific reasons by
people who were afraid of the Federal government. In many cases slave owners
who were afraid the Feds would take away their slaves, not their guns.
Constitutional rights are not absolute and above any regulation. The SCOTUS has repeatedly stated that our constitutional rights cannot be abridged in any significant way with limited exceptions that are subject to the highest scrutiny by the court. Even the SCOTUS recognized that the right to bear arms does not include assault weapons and that states may regulate who can bear arms, e.g laws restricting sales to felons, minors and the mentally ill. Obama has not proposed anything that comes close to draconian which in this case would mean severely restricting the right so that it bans guns. Describing regulations as draconian does not make it so.
I just do not understand how universal background checks harm the rights of 'law abiding gun owners.' Can anyone tell me how???
It may mean one less gun sale for the manufacturers of these weapons. That is the propaganda they use. In fact, it is about profit, profit, profit. The NRA is all about profit, too. The outrageous murder rate in this country does not concern the heads of the NRA. Profit is the name of the game. They use the 2nd amendment to promote gun sales. The second amendment was never written for the purpose it is being used today. The writers had no reason to fear their government; they had just organized it and they WERE it! They wanted a well armed militia to protect the new government. IMO, that is like the national guard.
It's the same thing as the government listening to your phone conversations without a warrant. You can't be harmed because you are a law-abiding citizen, right? Wrong! A large number of law-abiding citizens would call this an erosion of their constitutional rights. It's a small matter this time but what are you giving up next?
I am law abiding and never felt for a second either threatened by this government, or had the feeling my rights were being taken away. The only threat I see to America is the T-Party mentality.
My phone conversations, limited as they are by hate of phones, would merely put the listeners to sleep. Unless they care that I cancel a doctor's appointment or want a pizza delivered.
I have my quirks, but I am not paranoid.
India, you are not paranoid mainly because DGoban and his kind have cornered the market and there just isn't enough paranoia to go around. They have a monopoly on the stuff and they aren't about to share it with anyone. They want it all for themselves.
Of all the banter about gun control, I have yet to hear any discussion on the one very important reason why a large number of people want to keep their guns: Deep Distrust of the Federal Government. Let's not forget Ruby Ridge and Waco. Corruption in government has been rampant, even more so now under President Obama. On his watch, we have seen more whistleblowers, employees who have the courage to stand up against corruption in his government, thrown in jail than in any past administrations. I know because I have seen and personally experienced the damaging effects of a government that covers up criminal misdeeds and abuse of power of its top officials. I am a registered owner of small guns and I find comfort in the thought that any government agent will think twice before entering my home without a warrant. From this perspective, I can understand why many law-abiding American citizens won't even think of registering their guns. Why aid the enemy by giving away the information? Let's have a discussion but first Mr. Obama needs to add the following to his 23-point list: 1. Make public all whistleblower complaints, with all the names and juicy details, 2. Prohibit the use of tax dollars for the legal defense of offending government officials, 3. Remove non-performing officials (example: VA Secretary Shinseki for failure to deliver on his pledge to reform the VA, i.e, 1Million VA claims backlog, Veteran suicides, multi-billion dollar fraud in VA procurement, and many more). Make this the 24th point - Rebuild trust in government, then maybe you'll get people to come to the table.
So once government performs all of its tasks prfectly, then and only then should we talk about getting gun violence under control? Once there are zero illegal crossings of the border, then and only then should we discuss immigration reform? Once 100% of Americans pay federal taxes then and only then can we discuss tax reform?
Those kind of demands make it hard to start discussions. Even if government performed perfectly while never collecting even a penny of taxes, the neo-confederates will never, never be willing to discuss gun control. Guess what? The neo-CSA is not a majority in this country and the discussion will go on without them.
I am not demanding perfection, Abijah. I just want the government to abide by the same laws that ordinary citizens abide by. There is genuine distrust and fear of this corrupt government out there. You can't have a meaningful discussion without addressing this fear, like you can't have a full discussion of immigration reform without discussing why people risk coming here illegally, or tax reform without discussing why people risk not paying their taxes in the first place. Do you think every gun owner, including the criminals will start registering their guns once a law is enacted? There is a law against illegal crossing of the border and law against tax cheats already. How come we don't have 100% compliance?
DGoban: Re-read the first and last sentense of 7.2. I might have to sue for whiplash, or charge you an oxymoron fee. Other than that, you were well on your way to some of todays best strawman arguments against guns.
Goban, the fact that you don't trust the government doesn't mean that the government is somehow corrupt. In this case it may mean that you need psychiatric help. Seeing ghoulies and ghosties behind every door doesn't mean that ghoulies and ghosties are going to get you, or that they even exist. And the concept that somehow a gun is going to protect you against the aforementioned ghoulies and ghosties is beyond irrational.
Lebowsky,
I really feel sorry for you, Dude. Your post or rather your response to a post in 2.1 tells me that you lack the logic or the reasoning power necessary to participate in any intelligent discussion. Heck, you can't even read! Do you have any original view for us to discuss? Let's hear it, otherwise go talk to a plant or something.
DGoban: Fret not my contradictory friend, I have a special place for folks like you. Got to be impressed by someone who starts with "I am not demanding perfection", then zings us with "How come we don't have 100% compliance" at the end. You have completed the strawman circle with that, so few of your brethren take the time to finish the job like you. Don't "feel sorry" for me, I get a kick out of posts like yours, even jaded people like me need belly laughs.
And BTW DGoban, I hear they are having a special midnight showing of Red Dawn down at the Nuart Theater on Saturday...
Alright 7th Grader Dude, let me help you out. If you read or able to comprehend my whole post, you would have known that I was responding to a person who thinks enacting a gun control/registration law is the magic solution concerning gun violence in this country. Are you still with me? This person used illegal crossing of our borders and tax cheats as examples to put emphasis on her point of view. We already have laws against such illegal activities right? Still there? So we already have these laws, "how come we do not have 100% compliance?" Are you understanding the concept now, Dude? Now I gather you too want a gun control/registration law? With this new gun control/registration law, do you have a reasonable expectation that 100% of all gun owners and sellers, including the criminals and black marketers will abide by the law? I don't think so. Let me know if you still not capable of reading this so that I can lower it down another grade level. Sorry but it's as far down as I can go, Dude.
DGoban: Your post is stand alone, so why lie about "responding" to someone else? It was simply another unhinged screed about government hate. The truth sure is elusive...
It's a sad day in America when so many people think that guns are more important than (already born) children. What kind of future lies in store for our children and grandchildren?
Does anyone else think old Alva is a troll?
Jane, Yes. Alva is a troll.
Alva Goldbook, I agree with you. Anything that will erode my constitutional rights in any manner or degree is draconian. A small matter this time but what will they want me to give up next?
I don't doubt it, you trolls have to stick together. Excuse me while I block your posts.
Jane,
There's an example of water seeking its own level!
Jane Shaner,
That's it? That's all you can contribute? Let's hear your views on the subject and let us see if you have any intelligent thing to say other than declaring others as trolls - whatever that means. Does that make you feel intelligent or are you just envious of others who can string together intelligent sentences? If you have anything to say, say something that makes sense, otherwise you don't deserve to be in any intelligent discussion. Please do go away if you can't stand the argument from the other side. It takes at least two to have a meaningful discussion otherwise why even log in and get yourself aggravated? Go talk to yourself someplace where you can't hear others laughing at your moronic mumblings.
Does the gun nut contingent also feel that the police action against OWS "eroded their constitutional rights" and was therefore "draconian?" If not, then that contingent cannot in good conscience bloviate about controls on who can buy weapons infringing on their rights.
I am concerned about the way the term "mentally ill" being carelessly linked to violence. There is enough stigma attached already. It makes people not get the professional help they need to alleviate their suffering.
There are people may be danger due to "insanity." It is a legal term and wholly appropriate to gun laws. * The term mentally ill has been replaced by mental disorder by professionals. Assessing someone diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia is a good idea. Binge eating disorder may make one fat but is totally unrelated to violence. There are many examples of this. There are other disorders that could be a problem but most people can not recognize the problem and don't know it exist.
Being obsessed with weapons should be one of the disorders that prevents a person from buying a weapon.
A chainsaw has been used to massacre a few people and fertilizer has been fashioned into a weapon that could kill a lot of people (remember Okie City?). It has been known that lumberjacks or some ordinary homeowners are so particular about their chainsaws to the point of obsession and that farmers, and again, ordinary home owners buy a lot of fertilizer too. Maybe you can start a list of disorders, huh DKM? Make sure you include your obsession about zombie talk.
"Opponents of universal background checks will exist, but they'll be on the fringes of the American mainstream."
Unfortunately the fringes of the American mainstream seems to be in control of our country. Their power is far beyond their numbers thanks to the primary and gerrymander collusion to give them control over so many members of Congress.
The reason it can't pass congress is because significant numbers of democrats believe gun ownership is as much of a right as healthcare, or legal abortion, or free speech, or a jury trial or what have you.
I had the former VP's former network on just now and they seem pretty sure that they have lined up Al Franken's support for gun legislation now, so that's a solid 40-41 Democrats they have lined up now to go with maybe 2 Republicans if that.I doubt gun control would have passed even when the Democrats had about an 80 seat majority in 2008-2009 and 60 votes in the Senate. Chuck Schumer went on a hunting trip of all things to secure Ben nelsons support for healthcare.
Hello Rachel Maddow! Let me first compliment you on your reporting and skillful diatribe. You may be the last honest staff member @ MSNBC (jk) (\*=*/). I watched this epsode, and what our US president Barack Obama said too. I'm an Independent and have voted red/blue/green, etc. over my voting career so I have no allegiances. I think our founders produced profound and honest documents that were built to last. There have also been vital amendments allowed to pass; as well as many that have come up short. Here in question recently the 2nd amendment has been in conflict w/the safety of our children. Personally I think things like food, shelter, purpose, and recognition are vital to us as citizens in order to really be guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I have two very important questions to ask:
The 2nd amendment provides the right of rebellion. It does so by allowing matching (or at least comprable) force of its adherents to their administrators. I. E. Government and citizenry which in our case constitute the governing body. This is the correct interpretation; it does not imply personal protection (what citizen policemen are for), or sporting activities. As such we are protected from the forced quartering of military troops. How can we regulate a ley militia that exists apart from the military?
My 2nd question involves corruption and our democratically elected governing officials relationship to their constituency. Responsibility in this issue is up to us if we are really in charge. The president Mr. Barack Obama, talked about getting tough on gun running by saying we should go after guns that are funneled into criminal hands, registering all new weapons, and regulating what guns/magazines can be produced. Executive privilege can only successfully invoked under the premise of keeping personal, confidential communication between the president and whomever as a way of defense of his right to privacy. Former presidents, and lesser political figures have been compelled to produce documentation of their communications during judicial hearings to root out corruption. How is president Barack Obama's exertion of executive privilege involving Attorney General Eric Holder in the fast & furious case legal if in fact he wasn't personally involved?/If he was?
P.S. Thank You Rachel Maddow! I'm glad to be apart of an intellectually honest discussion. Thanx again!