Getty Images
There was never any question about whether the Senate would have a debate for reducing gun violence. Bills have already passed committee; bipartisan talks have been underway for weeks on various provisions; and Democratic leaders have said all along that a bill was headed to the floor.
The question, rather, was over what the legislation would include and exclude.
We learned this week, for example, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intended to advance a bill without an assault-weapons ban, and there was some talk in recent days that a provision on universal background checks, despite extraordinary public support, might get scuttled, too. Last night, however, Reid made a statement that brought the debate into sharper focus.
"Later tonight, I will start the process of bringing a bill to reduce gun violence to the Senate floor. This bill will include the provisions on background checks, school safety and gun trafficking reported by the Judiciary Committee. I hope negotiations will continue over the upcoming break to reach a bipartisan compromise on background checks, and I am hopeful that they will succeed. If a compromise is reached, I am open to including it in the base bill. But I want to be clear: in order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks.
"The bill I advance tonight will serve as the basis for opening debate. Once debate begins, I will ensure that a ban on assault weapons, limits to high-capacity magazines, and mental health provisions receive votes, along with other amendments. In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for all of these provisions to receive votes, and I will ensure that they do."
This is all rather important. It tells us, for example, that Reid considers background checks a non-negotiable necessity. What is the Majority Leader prepared to fight for? This is. Reid's statement also makes clear that other controversial measures, including an assault-weapons ban, are not dead, and may yet be added to the base bill as amendments.
It remains true that there's been no progress in the bipartisan talks on background checks, but Congress is breaking for two weeks, and negotiations will continue. For now, a Democratic provision on background checks is in the base bill, but it's serving as a placeholder and can be replaced if even one Republican accepts a compromise.
Expect lobbying efforts over the next two weeks to be fairly intense. Reid's statement last night laid down the markers for this debate and made clear to activists on both sides of the fight what's at stake.
Leave a Comment:
I suspect, but cannot prove to the satisfaction of, say "shooter', that this Senatorial Kabuki is, in disguise, a so-called "stimulus Package."
Gun sales have gone through the roof since the Kenyan usurper snuck into the White House.
Gun ownership has steadily fallen over the years, so that today just some 30 odd percent of "Real Murricans" own guns. Multiple guns. And the manufacturers need to sell ever more guns, so their spokesman with the unlikely name of Wayne LaPierre ( curiously similar to a cartoon skunk called Pepe LaPew) has steadily beaten the drum over "confiscation".
So, with the help of Leader Reid, that threat continues. Rush out, patriotic Second Amendment defenders, and buy another gun. Buy two, and bury one in the back yard.
"The more you buy, the more you save!"
-NATO and Hillary Clinton
Day: Reid has promised a vote on each provision, what more do you expect?
I think it is funny that this article comes after the article that accusses Republicans of taking a stand on one policy and then walking it back...That is exactly what the Democrats are doing on their so called gun control principles! IMHO
Apples and oranges, RobDon. What Gov. Kasich said was in the context of his personal and political position, that civil unions were, and then were not, acceptable. When it comes to the business of proposing legislation, many factors come into play, namely discerning (a) what is likely to pass, (b) what is possible to pass and (c) what is certainly going to scuttle the whole endeavor. If you don't see the difference, that says a lot about your ability to process information.
Seems like trolls are trying to deflect the fact that the Republicans want no legislation on gun control at all and are tying everything they can to keep legislation from ever taking place. IMHO.
Harry Reid can't be trusted anymore. I don't believe a word he says. He's lost all credibility after the filibuster fiasco.
JL, you make a very valid point. I would also observe though that there is no line between the two. For instance, do you think so people vote for legislation which they personal oppose (if the truth be known) because it is politically advantageous and they look for political reason to blame for things they would rather not vote for...
So, as much apples and oranges that this might be, it is still part of a much larger fruit salad (bad pun, sorry).
I think James points to part of this with his comment on the filibuster. Where does Reid and the Democrats stand on filibuster reform? It is similar to what happened in Massachusetts, like many politicians, they favor one thing when they are in charge and another when the other party has the power.
In the end, it is ALL (for the most part) politics.
(And to my friend Donna, many Republicans would rather see the enforcement of existing gun laws before new ones are passed.)
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent directorfor 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.
Perhaps if the GOP would actually STOP putting road-blocks up so that the "existing enforcement of gun laws" can take place....and those are the same people who don't want anything done now...oh the irony...
Excellent post and argument, Donna. I give you a B+ with points deducted for the 2001 federal statistics link and the possibly accurate but clearly bias fixgunchecks link. Other than that, great post with sourced information and relevant information. That said, you are probably irritated that I noticed and commented.
Donna, a source for your claims would be nice.
That's right, how can what she wrote be factual when she doesn't even have a single "youtube" link?
It amazes me that the GOP can continue to oppose portions of the bill that have overwhelming public support. I understand that the NRA has a strangle-hold on most of them, but even in districts that are gerrymandered, surely some of those constiuents are for, at the very least, universal background checks. Not even taking conscience into consideration, how can they continue to oppose what their constiuents clearly want? Like the rock opera, Tommy, they seem to be deaf, dumb and blind.
No, not deaf, dumb or blind. They just dont have the balls to do whats right. They are more concerned about pandering to their base and protecting their job. Not one of them has the guts to say "I know this will probably result in my not being elected next time but Im going to vote for backgroud checks and a ban on assault weapons and large ammo clips because its the right thing to do".
Our motto " How much can you contribute to my campaign? "
The best government money can buy
JMK...What exactly about an "assault weapon" do you want banned? Is it the pistol grip? Is it the bayonet mount? is it the collapsible stock? is it the threaded barrel? Can you explain to me why any of those make a difference? Why are you afraid of those characteristics, yet you are not afraid of a weapon that fires the same ammunition, at the same rate and that inflicts the same damage? Why does the appearance of the weapon bother you?
I personally have no problem with background checks...they already are in place for the vast majority of sales. However, if the left is going to support this issue, how can they then turn around and say that asking someone to show an ID to vote is such a hardship? If I dont have an ID, i cant buy a gun.
Banning large ammo clips? I guess that depends on your definition of large. The NY law placing the limit at 7 is ridiculous. I could support something in the range of 15.
just saying...
"Why are you afraid of those characteristics, yet you are not afraid of a weapon that fires the same ammunition, at the same rate and that inflicts the same damage?"
- Could you provide us examples of exactly what weapons you are talking about? For instance exactly which weapon is identical to an AR-15 in every way except the appearance?
- Could you also tell us why a 15 round clip is realistic, but a 7 round clip is ridiculous?
- The right always whines about existing gun laws that aren't being enforced. Could you explain to us exactly why right wing special interest groups and their lobbyists have prevented for years the appointment of the head of the ATF, the very agency that is supposed to enforce those existing laws, and also why the ATF funding has been slashed to levels that essentially render it impotent?
Thanks!
Manufacturers have been known to make products to specifically dodge California regulations . This may be why an intrepid freedom loving American would be interested in the thought behind considering the need to have more destructive capability than it is possible for a human to be in control of . The firing of one bullet is a very big decision , seven or thirty not so much .
Citizen, stormfront won't be able to answer your questions.
Just saying...
I agree with JMK on this one. Our representatives in Washington (president, senators and congressmen) are elected to understand the business of running the country and the issues that affect its citizens. This is where "democracy" really doesn't apply; we're a "constitutional republic."
When faced with a debatable issue (protecting 2nd Amendment rights versus promoting public safety), each representative needs to understand the pros and cons and then vote in a manner that he feels is right. To put re-election at the top of his priorities is unconscionable.
I'm ashamed that the senators from my state, Jon Tester and Max Baucus, are two of the five Democrats in the Senate who will stand apart from their caucus. I think they've sold out.
RE: 2.4
Citizen, if you don't mind, I'll take a crack at this.
Any semi-auto that fires a .223 Rem caliber round is functionally identical to a civilian AR-15. The Remington rifle in the picture below functions EXACTLY the same as an AR-15, except the Remington hunting rifle here uses a different caliber.
http://www.imagecoast.com/images/alvagoldbook/gundumb.jpg
Because 7 round magazines aren't made. New York effectively just banned just about every single pistol that's made. You can more easily find 15 round magazines.
Gun laws are generally enforced. But if two people go into an ally, and one hands the other cash for a gun, a background check ain't gonna happen. Making background checks "universal" will not change this fact. Not unless you ban cash too.
Alva, that's what the gun-trafficking portion of the legislation addresses. The person who purchases the gun legally and then accepts cash from the person who wouldn't qualify is on the hook. This will be a crime going forward.
citizen, here is part of the answer to your questions. This is from the 1994 assault weapon ban on what constitutes an assault weapon:
Other than the grenade launcher, a gun with these features is still the same gun. None of the criteria makes the "regular weapon" any more or less deadly, powerful, assaulting?
Source: pdf of the law...
Why is it the teapubs want all kinds of restrictions and ID for voting, yet nothing for weapons, which their only purpose is to kill?
Phenner, first, the "right to bear arms" is gauranteed by the constitution so it carries a higher burden to override. Second, killing is not the only purpose of guns, they can be a deterant, protection, avenue for providing food, sporting, etc. Third, most are not against presenting an ID to purchase a gun they just don't want the government to have a database of gun owners. You should be able to show you are who you are when buying a gun OR when voting...don't you agree with that?
RE: 2.9
JL, We do need to strengthen our gun trafficking laws. But the bill to do this is separate from the universal back ground check proposal. To the best of my knowledge, the universal background check bill won't do anything to prevent gun trafficking.
In my home state of Virginia, gun trafficking is already a serious crime. It carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years behind bars.
But even gun trafficking laws will be about as effective stopping this as laws against murder are at preventing murder. If a criminal wants a gun, they will get one.
#2.9
Alva - nice try. I am quite familiar with weapons myself, actually own a few. The difference isn't whether a rifle that shoots the same caliber is 'functionally identical' to an AR-15, the difference is the amount of bullets it can hold. My Dodge is 'functionally identical' to a McLaren F-1 as they both have an internal combustion engine with wheels and use gas and brakes, etc., but the F-1 is not street legal for obvious reasons. So let's not try to obfuscate the real point of contention here, and that is magazine capacity.
Gun laws are generally enforced? How so? All I hear from the right is we need to simply enforce existing laws... so, are they confused? Are they are enforced, or are they not? You guys need to figure that one out.
As for your argument that background checks won't stop illegal transactions so why bother is ludicrous on its face. Of course criminals break the law, that's what makes them criminals. Are we to simply get rid of all laws because some people don't obey them? The end result of what you are advocating is anarchy. Furthermore, if background checks had been enforced as they should have been for years, just how many black market firearms would there be? You people always bring up the fact that criminals will always have access to guns, but you very conveniently ignore how the guns wound up on the streets in the first place. Right now a gang could go to Arizona and buy as many guns as they want to terrorize their community and kill indiscriminately, and you are against preventing that from happening.
I'll be glad to debate the merits of gun control, but please refrain from the hyperbolic and knee-jerk NRA talking points please.
RobDon: See my response to Alva above regarding the 'functionally identical' argument.
Also, guns are made for killing, nothing else. The deterrent or protection of which you speak is the realization that one could lose their life by being shot. If they were strictly to be used as a deterrent or protection, wouldn't a BB gun that looks like a rifle or a handgun suffice?
The safety of the public at large trumps a gun owners reluctance to be in some sort ownership database. And beyond that, it's pure paranoia to think that being on that list will make you a target of the 'government'. Sorry, that argument doesn't wash with serious people.
Finally, the right to bear arms is open to interpretation, your opinion on that matter is not absolute. There are just as many people out there that see it differently than you.
Citizen, we are close on somethings and real far apart on others...
Yes, the interpretation of "bear arms" is part of the debate. Each side should make their best case.
No, many serious people do take issue with the federal government having a database of gun ownership.
This statement is absurd:
That was NOT my argument. You can take any semi-automatic gun, put a different handle on it and a bayonet and suddenly it is an assualt weapon yet the bullet coming out is equivalent than before...that isn ot the case with your analogy. If you took the body of the McLaren F1 and put it on your Dodge, that would be better.
Lastly,
This IS true. That is why they ban toy guns that look like real guns.
BB and pellet guns are not toys.
As for my absurd statement, the point still stands. It's not about what a gun looks like, what caliber it shoots, etc. It's how many bullets does the magazine hold, and how easy is it to gain access to one. It's really rather simple.
RobDon'
People that don't want the government to have a database don't file taxes? People that don't want the government to have a database of what they buy don't use credit cards or checks? No, I don't agree with you. No one is trying to take away the right to bear arms, just put restrictions on what types of weapons can be purchased.
And these same people that supposedly are against a database for people buying arms are the same ones that want a mental health check before someone can buy a weapon? Sounds like a database in the making to me.
We also have a right to vote, yet restrictions and all kinds of ID are being promoted by the teapubs to the point that some people will not be able to vote. People saying you need ID to purchase anything are full of bull. I've never shown ID to get electric, oil, phone, cable, buying a new vehicle or when I pay my bills by check.
RE: 2.14
Citizen,
Wait, so if the only issue here is that a standard AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds, then why is your side bothering with an assault weapon ban? If the size of the magazine is what makes AR-15's so scary, then why not change the law to limit the size of AR-15 magazines. Wouldn't that solve the problem all by itself?
Conservatives are often confused. Yes, gun laws are generally enforced. They're simply ineffective, for the same reason that the drug war is ineffective in stopping drug consumption.
So, what's your strategy? Keep utilizing failed policies hoping that one day they will actually work? Look, if Bob has a gun and he wants to make money off that gun, he can just give it to his friend Joe, cash in hand. How do you really expect to stop this? Tweaking the laws on background checks won't fix this. Background checks simply don't work. It has nothing to do with anarchy. It has to do with the realization that a policy you support has completely and totally failed. There are 12,000 bodies in the last year proving 12,000 times that this policy has failed. It fails every single day. It does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Since that is the case, why continue this failed policy?
No, that's right. It's not that gun-control advocates simply don't understand the issue, it's that gun owners are all criminals, right? You're being absurd. Background checks were first established in 1993. A whole lot of guns were sold before then. A whole lot have been sold since. So much so, that we can tell precisely how effective background checks have been. Since 1993, only 1.8% of gun sales have been declined due to background checks. And the majority of those declines were mix ups and later resolved with the sale going through. Despite all this, year after year thousands upon thousands are getting gunned down. So what part of failed policy do you not understand?
How about just standing there and wetting yourself? Would that suffice? If guns are only used to kill people, then why do we let cops carry them? Maybe you should tell this woman that she should have had a BB gun instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ExC7fE1LaY
Reluctance? Reluctance?!? Or do you mean a wholesale violation of the privacy rights of 79 million Americans? Should there be a federal database on your buying habits?
The last time we violated people's rights in order to ensure public safety, we passed the Patriot Act. Need I say more?
I realize you don't like people having the right to protect themselves from harm and having the ability to protect their loved ones, but I'm going to do that no matter what the laws are. It's your choice to put me behind bars for doing so.
I don't know about your "point," but your first question in #2.4 was:
And I provided language from the 1993 assault ban law that showed how any semi-automatic gun becomes an assault weapon just by modifying the cosmetic appearance. The same gun with the same fire power and number of bullets is then considered an assault weapon.
Donna...as usual, you are wrong...
Here is a direct weblink to the Ruger website that shows 4 different versions of the same gun. The Ranch rifle Mini-14 is legal. The Tactical Weapon Mini -14 would be illegal under the "assault weapons" ban.
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html
As stated by someone else, the 7 shot clip is unrealistic because it is not currently made. This would put an undue burden on manufacturers to meet this new requirement.
The ATF budget is over $1 billion annually and there are over 5,000 employees. I doubt that is impotent. Regarding the director...why didn't the Democrats get him appointed during the first 2 years of Obama's first term when they had control of both the Senate and the House?
just saying...
As I suspected...Donna disappears...AGAIN...once she is shown to be wrong....AGAIN.
What a surprise...
just saying...
Stormfront,
You come back two days later to post such a lame response. It seems like Donna has a life and you don't.
Just saying...
And you STILL didn't answer Citizen's question.
Just saying...
If we lose, we paper each coward, and Town Hall them...
Politicians, News commentators, political analysts and gun advocates keep
saying that passing strong gun control laws is too hard. Do you want to know what is hard; burying your 6 year old because he went to school on what was supposed to be a typical school day, burying your spouse, parent or child because they went to see a movie one evening or burying your child, spouse or parent because they went to hear a politician speak. That is hard – passing gun control laws is easy.
The argument on the other side of this discussion is that guns make you safe and with all the guns that are owned here in the United States we should be the safest Nation on earth --- but we are not.
Thank you well said . It should be sent to every one of those a$$holes on Capitol hill
Lorr: well said. We all need to emphasize over and over that owning a gun does not make you safe. It makes your home more likely to be burglarized; it makes it more likely that you will be shot by your own gun; if you use it to "protect yourself" from someone who turns out not to have been a threat, you may end up in prison for the rest of your life.
The major reason for having a government is to keep the citizens safe from violence. That is why we have laws, police, a big army. It is our constitutions, both federal and state, that protect us. Our police and our armies/militias/Nation Guard that protect our constitutions.
I fully support background checks, assault weapons bans, etc., but we also need to stop denegrating government. Constantly calling for less government undermines support for good government in general. We need to be supporting the rule of law and not vigilante rule.
RE: 4.2
This is true, but it does make you safer. A Justice Dept. study found that for those who suffered a criminal attack and was not armed, or armed with something other than gun, they risked a 1 in 2 chance of suffering serious injury or death. For those who were armed with a gun, those risks dropped to 1 in 5.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
Only if you're dumb enough to let other people who know where you live that you own guns.
Only if you're dumb enough not to use a lock box.
This is why gun owners are told over and over again to know the laws in their state forwards and backwards. And of course, being behind bars beats being dead.
The police cannot get to you in time. When a lunatic is 10 seconds away from hurting you, the police being 20 minutes away does you no good. Besides, the Supreme Court has found that the police have zero responsibility to keep you safe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
Every creature on earth, be it a honey bee, or a squirrel, a lion, or a human being, every single creature must protect itself. If it doesn't, then they don't survive. It's a universal law of nature.
Just because us humans are on the top of the food chain doesn't mean we don't need to protect ourselves. And while I agree with you about the nature of government, specifically a democratic government, protecting yourself is not vigilante rule. Protecting yourself is as natural as eating and breathing.
bflynch in 4.2:
Absolutely!!! When I hear Lindsey Graham say that, with cuts to government spending, there'll be fewer police and citizens will need to protect themselves, my blood runs cold. This is not the Wild West, Sen. Graham. I can't remember when I've heard a politician make a more irresponsible statement.
Here alva goes again with his/her gun safety nonsense vs reality of crime. If a gun is locked or in a gun safe chances are you won't be able to defend yourself because of the lock. Now with practice you might be able to open a gun lock in fractions of a second, but when you are in the flight or fight mode your reactions are in control so you are not thinking about what you are doing but instead you are panicking and any task that requires thought is tossed out so by the time you find the key and fumble it into the lock the bad guy already has you by the neck, stabbed you or shot you. Anyone who has done 3rd shift cashier jobs can tell you that when a robbery happens it happens fast and at best you might remember what the guy looked like that robbed you. Here is the funny part, alva ignores that most businesses do not allow employees to have weapons, cashiers are told to give the robber what he wants and let him leave for police to track down and deal with because 9 times out of 10 the robber will not kill if you comply.
RE 4.5
Whom, every gun owner needs to review their own personal situation, and establish a defense system that works best for them. I, personally, don't use a lock box. The only time I lock up my guns is when my nephew stops by. I have no kids or roommates, so it's not a concern for me. But if I did, I would use a biometric safe from GunVault. It opens with a simple scan of your fingerprint.
The primary reason why cashiers are told to comply with criminals is because carrying a gun makes it nearly impossible for the business to get insurance on their employees. If anyone wants to gamble with the notion that a criminal won't hurt you if you comply, then you're foolishly risking your own life. Robbers quickly decide to leave once you defend yourself with a firearm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUff31LRPE4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6gcFPjdwiI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi7_uiAUEa4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6Ps1ZC1-Qw
However, if you comply with criminals, they just might try to kill you.
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Robber-Who-Shot-Woman-in-Face-Arrested-Miami-Police-188365501.html
Oh whine me a river with your lies alva the reason insurance companies refuse to insure businesses who allow weapons for the cashiers do so because the risk of getting shot and killed or badly injured are greater with a weapon then no weapon. That is the fact jack and no matter how many silly you tube vids you post change those facts. Guess what alva with the harsh sentencing laws this country has enacted over the last few decades criminals have also got more dangerous. Funny how you think 1 story about someone getting killed during a robbery proves your point, reality is it proves nothing except in the 1 robbery the gum man shot the person anyhow. Guess what alva, no 2 crimes happen the same way every time nor can we know what the robbery has on his mind while robbing you, 99% of the time when people do get shot in an armed robbery the criminal had intentions of shooting. Again alva you have provided nothing to back up your claim that guns keep you safe nor have you proven that locking your guns still allows you to protect yourself. All you did was post a bunch of nonsense that had nothing to do with my post, except in your twisted mind. Here is a clue alva, bad guys do not wear black hats nor do you realize you are in the middle of a crime until you find a gun pointed in your face, crimes are random acts and being random acts there is very little you can do to prevent yourself from being a victim, all it takes is letting your guard down for a fraction of a second.
***Return Congress to the People by Ending Gerrymandering***
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/return-congress-people-ending-gerrymandering/VjT5XvnN
Where were you and this petition when it was the Democrats who were doing the gerrymandering?
I personally despise gerrymandering by either side, but the hypocrisy from the left on this issue now that it is working against them is hilarious.
just saying...
Unfortunately, the drawing of Congressional districts is the responsibility of the individual state governments, not the federal government. I agree with your sentiments, but don't see how petitioning the federal government is going to help.
When all of the wise are finished
Sadly shaking their heads in despair of the facts
Then we can all safely agree there is nothing we can do
Not only because both sides do it
But that it is unfair to bring facts to a schoolyard tussle
Joan - Thank you for your concern... We are trying to raise overall awareness to a major issue undermining our democracy and have the President use his bully pulpit to push for a proposal to be placed on the 2014 Midterm Elections, in which each state will be casting their vote. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats of the Senate will be contested in 2014, although not fairly contested due to gerrymandering. We want a proposal to end gerrymandering placed on that ballot.
What a laughing stock this country has become. After the unspeakable slaughter of innocent children in CT., our 'elected leaders' can't even pass any sort of meaningful, common sense gun control measures that have the backing of the overwhelming majority of US citizens.
This cowardice is shameful.
I coach youth baseball, and I have to say your attitude would be poison in the dugout. Each provision has passed committee, and will go on to the floor. There will be a vote, and any fool willing to buck strong public opinion will inevitably suffer. I say keep your head up, contact your reps, and fight, fight hard...
Dude, this ain't baseball, and we aren't dealing with kids.
The poison is the cowardice. Notice Reid only brought this vote to the floor after days of being incessantly bashed for his spinelessness.
citizen: Dude has a point. We have to keep after our Senators and Congressmen to convince them that there is more danger to their re-election by not supporting good gun legislation then by supporting it. Because the gun lobby is so strong and well funded, we have to fight all the harder to out shout them.
I know that is a lot of trouble and even expensive.
Citizen: Baseball is metaphor rich, and completely applies here. Nothing has been lost, yet, but some on our side are upset about provisions being left out of the main bill. Everyone knows the AWB is going to be a tough pass, so the prudent thing to do is have a seperate vote on it. Reid has not broken any promise or backed down, each provision will get a vote. Yes, you and others have "bashed" him, but it has had zero effect. It's weird how so many here ascribe so much to Harry Reid, one minute he is "spineless", then the next minute he is a "dictator"... Gee, does it remind you of anything...
I think the Democrats will come to rue the day they ever tried to take away anyone's right to defend themselves. They won't get anything passed so long as the GOP controls the House. The only laws they can pass is on the federal level, which the courts will soon enough shoot down. And in the meantime, red states are expanding gun rights.
Yes, it's really hard to take away people's rights. As it should be.
Alva: You are in the minority of the American people, yet you talk like a teacher or cop giving a lecture. I think you will rue the day you told so many lies on these boards when the inevitable massacres keep coming. Somewhere beneath your disgusting gun fetish is a person, I believe. I could be wrong of course, because you always come up with dishonest excuses and ridiculous canards...
Lebowsky,
as usual, the only thing you've got for me is insults. You've become so bad that you're now trying to dehumanize me. I hope I don't have to remind you that this is a common tactic of demagogues.
Dude: I wish I shared your peachy keen outlook, but alas, I simply do not have it in me to expect anything but grandstanding and political pontificating, with the end result being nothing accomplished and more mass murders. You know, fool me once, etc.
Alva: Dude has a point. You have the most annoying and irritating presentation. It's as if you are some omniscient being that has a better understanding than all of us combined, and you are simply doing us a favor by sharing your enlightenment with us.
Remember this: Your opinions are just that, opinions. If you do make a claim that is supposedly factual, I'd suggest you provide some sort of empirical evidence to support your claims. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.
To Alva's 6.5 comment...how can you say "democrats will come to rue the day they ever tried to take away someone's right to defend themselves to"? How does registering a lethal weapon take away your right to defend yourself? How does reducing, not eliminating, the volume of bullets your weapon can discharge in a certain time period without reloading take away your right to defend yourself? How does requiring someone to be punished if they act as a go-between to undermine existing laws to make what is in reality an illegal gun purchse taking away someone's right to defend themselves? To think that only federal laws will be able to be passed, but then overturned by the courts, is in error since the Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions can legally be placed on weapons.
The measures that have been proposed and are likely to pass do NOT take away anyone's right to defend themselves. Any one who is qualified to purchase a gun can still buy nearly every weapon ever made (unless the assault weapons ban is passed; then, a person could buy only 2200 weapons) whether these laws are passed or not. You misstate the truth when you categorize this as "taking away people's rights". Go to GunPolicy.org and click on Israel to see how that country, who's all about defending itself and its citizens, regulates guns.
Horror story in Brunswick, GA.
Georgia mom shot in leg and baby killed in stroller by kids with gun
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/22/georgia-mom-shot-in-leg-and-baby-killed-in-stroller-by-kids-with-gun/
A woman in coastal Brunswick, Georgia was shot in the leg and her 13-month-old son murdered in his stroller, allegedly by a pair of boys with a handgun. According to CNN, Sherry West was out walking her son Thursday morning when a pair of juveniles, one around 13 or 14 years of age and the other possibly as young as 10, approached her with a weapon and demanded her money.
“He said, ‘I am going to kill you if you don’t give me your money,’” said West.
When she replied that she wasn’t carrying any money, the older boy reportedly said, “Well, I am going to kill your baby.”
West tried to shield her child with her own body and was shot in the leg. The boy with the gun shot the infant in the head, then he and the other suspect fled on foot.
West’s son died at the scene. No witnesses have come forward and no weapon has been recovered. The boys are still at large.
_________________________________________
Ludicrous insanity. Pointless, mindless destruction perpetrated by two out of control little jerks with a gun they shouldn't have had.
The stupidity of this blind obeisance to the gun lobby is profound. The millions of guns lying around this country are the equivalent of mines, scattered throughout society and communities, waiting to go off when the required, volatile human fuse shows up to set the damn things off.
America is f'ed up on guns.
The only problem you see here is that they had a gun? Do you suppose it would have been different if they had a baseball bat or a knife?
These are not "out of control little jerks"...these are disgusting amoral criminal sociopaths.
When will we start charging the parents for instilling the values that kids like this have?
I see many problems with this scenario. But a gun was the chosen means of creating this havoc. Not a baseball bat. Not a knife. Not an ice pick. Not a rock. Not a slingshot. Not a plastic bag to smother the kid with. Not a vial of rat poison.
A gun is what killed this baby. The kids certainly had many options easily available to try to project their "authority" and demands. But they chose a gun. Two kids with a gun killed this baby.
Why did they have a gun in the first place?
It must be the inviolable right of pre-teens, even prepubescent kids to keep and bear arms.
So they are two "disgusting amoral criminal sociopaths". Whatever. They killed the baby with a gun. I'll bet you anything, that if they hadn't had that gun, that baby would be alive.
One man's values are another man's crimes. For example, I sure as heck wouldn't trust the judgement of a private citizen who carries a concealed gun, legal or otherwise, to tell me what my values should be. That would be crazy.
So good luck with those absolutes.
Right about the same time that we start charging Republicans for not having empathy.
Thanks for the constructive input . While I try to get to the root of the problem you can go ahead and keep placing blame on inanimate objects. You aparently have no moral values yourself to think that it is perfectly fine to raise a child that thinks it's just great to shoot a baby in the head if he doesn't get what he wants.
You're drawing wildly false conclusions again.
Typical gun nut.
Nice try, You have no actual argument so you fall back on stereotyping and name calling. What a huge problem you are for civilized society.
What burro~ sez ...
LOL. I seem to recall being accused of having no moral values. Where was that now? Oh there it is, just two comments away.
Dude, you really should think before writing. Or better yet, you could just pull your gun on me and force me to do what you think is right. Because really, the answer to gun violence is more guns (somewhere in Lala-Land.) Can't get any more civilized than that, eh?
I don't know, and neither do you. Since it was illegal for them to have it, I doubt any other law would have stopped them.
Not "whatever"...it's exactly the point that no law about guns would have stopped them because they DON'T CARE about the law.
While I try to
get todeflect from the root of the problem you can go ahead and keep placing blame on inanimate objectsSuppose a kid (Or anyone) shouts "fire" in a crowded theater. A baby dies in the ensuing stampede.
Yes, the kid is liable, and should be punished.
And yes, it's still ok to limit the first amendment in this way. Certain types of speech are limited because of the high potential for real harm. This is not an either/or situation.
Certain types of guns are already prohibited because of the high potential for real harm. Certain other types of guns need to be added to that list.
If a kid yells "fire" in a crowded theater, His parents(if you can find both of them) should be charged .
This whole baby-killing event is horrifying. Sandy Hook kind of horrifying.
Waiting for the NRA to suggest arming new mothers.
Nice try, You have no actual argument so you fall back on stereotyping and name calling. What a huge problem you are for civilized society.
Inspekktor's comment on the thread: Why Biden's interest in gun research matters:
#7.7 - Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:18 AM EST
Name calling. Check.
Stereotyping. Check.
Hmm....seems like inspekkktor's "holier than thou" front is just another act of hypocrisy.
The root of the problem is failure to respect the law. But just because there is disrespect for the law does not mean that we should not have laws. By passing a law restricting guns we make a public statement that certain kinds of behavior are unacceptable in civilized society. We also give law enforcement officers the authority to arrest someone who has a gun that is banned. Hopefully, they can then prevent such crimes from happening.
The parents of these boys no doubt allowed them to have a gun and to believe they had the right to use it.
Inspector:
I don't know, and neither do you. Since it was illegal for them to have it, I doubt any other law would have stopped them.
Not "whatever"...it's exactly the point that no law about guns would have stopped them because they DON'T CARE about the law.
------
Well, Inspector, you make some good points here. It's true that no law would have stopped this murder. It's also true that far, far too many children have useless sacks of sh!t for parents and will probably grow up to be useless sacks of sh!t themselves.
However, what if these two miscreants had had an automatic weapon with a magazine holding 30 bullets? Do you think just one person would have died? I think the baby, the mother and a whole bunch more people would have been killed.
Full disclosure: If I had the power, the US would do an Australia and almost all weapons would be melted down.
That said, I'm not even bothering to think about that for the US. I do believe that some weapons should be banned and even within the parameters of the 2nd amendment, can be. I don't believe there is any reason for a non-combatant to own a weapon that can fire 30+ bullets without reloading. You're not going to convince me there is.
We are not going to be able to prevent all murders. But we should be trying to prevent massacres. Right now, we are all simply twiddling our thumbs and waiting for the next Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc. Because as things stand, it's gonna happen. It's gonna happen. It's just a matter of time. And you, sir, are part of why it's going to happen.
Mass.
I think you were quoting John not me, I was only speaking about the parental issue. Even if you ban all guns in the US there will still be guns used in terrible crimes. My point is that personal/parental responsibility needs to be addressed even if it means jailing the parents of these kids that weren't taught any respect for anything. It should be a criminal offence to unleash a child that has no morals or respect on an unsuspecting population. Why am I facing opposition on that?
And I said above:
"It's also true that far, far too many children have useless sacks of sh!t for parents and will probably grow up to be useless sacks of sh!t themselves."
What, exactly, do you propose to do about the parents?
I honestly believe that crafting laws that prosicute parents for their minor's misdeeds is a good start. If your neighbor gets thrown in the can for what his delinquent child does then you wil reign in yours. I really think that will solve alot of problems that society has. The most important job any parent has is to make sure the child grows up to be a benefit to society, not a liability. Some where between 1970 and today that perspective was lost.
Around the corner from me there was something similar going on. A couple teens had got hold of a gun and were robbing people on the street. They quickly got caught. I walk down this street nearly every day when I work on my cardio. Am I carrying concealed? You better believe it.
How many times does it need to be demonstrated that if you aren't capable of defending yourself that you're a wide open target for criminals. Did the cops get there in time to prevent this tragedy? Of course not.
I know a lot of people find it scary to realize that you really are on your own. The only way to prevent yourself from getting killed or harmed is if you do whatever is necessary to make sure it doesn't happen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/children-guns-parents_n_2516849.html
Rochester
I don't think any D.A. would charge a parent in a home accident but that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm referring to parents of criminals. That should be added to the discussion in the state and federal legislature.
Donna J. Edmond
Name calling. Check.
Stereotyping. Check.
Hmm....seems like inspekkktor's "holier than thou" front is just another act of hypocrisy.
who is hypocritical????????
FS
People talk about Romney with his uncaring concerns and eager to buy into slave labor concentration camps. But what about Ann Romney who claimed that Mitt was such a nice and caring man. Especially when good old Mitt came home bragging to Ann on how much richer they were going to be from buying into Global Tech and telling Ann how the conditions were at the factory. Mitt did nothing but to continue that same type of brutality and harsh conditions at the factory. But what about Ann Romney who never spoke up once to Mitt that such awful conditions at a factory should not be tolerated and just wanted to brag how she thought Mitt was so sweet and nice. What a horrific couple and to think they could have been in the White House and Ann Romney as the first lady setting an example of what America stood for. These types of rich bastards are indeed a disgusting lot and should never be tolerated in a civilized society or culture. Surely Mitt and Ann should both enjoy their fruits they created in this living world that they have inflicted on others in Hell right along with those other politicians, rich bastards, and false Pharisees who helped with such evil things.
Yeah, but they donate a huge fortune to the Mormon Church, so I'm sure they feel that the Good (sic) outweighs the Bad. Or justifies it.
Either way, they're buying their way into Salvation. God luv 'em.
Yea sure Rochester12 just as they are buying their way to Hell. The Romney's do that exceptionally well too.
Could be, if you believe in those things. (I need a sarcasm tag. Really bad.)
Personally, I think the Romney's Karma balance sheet isn't quite skewed the way they think it is.
Ah Deb-3596991 , bring it back cadillac , sweet memories of Nancy Reagan . Nancy's ability to focus only on the important thing , Nancy Reagan .
Now we can only dream of a Romney regime thanks to Romney .
The lingering memories of American economic life before Reaganomics crushed and diminished our economics and government however requires no dreaming . How many college educated now don't fit into the anti science and pro corporate work force ?
Just a straight comparison .
The brave soldiering of the cerebral right wing individual , between dodging satire (when not appropriating it as "News") , reason , etc , continues with their own unmistakeable idiosyncratic mindset (policy) . That they firmly believe as implied , when not stated , irritating non conservatives is all for the best , and far better than nothing at all .
Aside from accepting as casualties the (rather lengthy) list of apologies owed to the generous numbers of toes stepped upon is a walk in the park . Based upon the easy as one two three fundamentalism , only a true conservative has any actual idea of the value of any topic .
Rewriting the endless gun powder based meat-grinder American life is crumbling into , a job for a Marty Peretz or a Tom Delay . The understandable need for more and better ultra violent capacity responses is the life of ease the gentle heart of the public curmudgeons conservatives choose , and we know as personal sweethearts . Who else ? .
The only agonies given the need misrepresent events and things , to trick , or fool people into accepting what our sagacious all encompassing philosophy provides , are the irritating need to change the names of organizations once they , we , are sued out of existence .
Correcting what "sheeple" mistakenly believe of what we read about every week should not break a sweat for the righteous chitinous back of the real , true , conservative . Completing the depth required for understanding the who , what , why , where , and when of the necessaries for armed guards for perambulators , and arming the females who push them , is just a matter of the obvious . After all it isn't the guns its the bullets that strike the unarmed and thus unprotected . Sigh ...
Prattling minds , the numbing make believe of reciting propaganda , freedom snatching Liberals and their ludicrous positions , regulate this ! The laughable idea that they can actually think ... pure hubris . The slippery slope of socialistic reasoning is fatal to the sturdy shoulders of freedom , and true conservatives .
Oh what a busy lot we are , seducing and wooing America with the bitter perfume of cordite , the better to strengthen our domestic tranquility with .
Which face would you rather kiss , the pasty faced freedom hating socialist , or the cherubic Jonah Goldberg of sweet reason ?
Jonah Goldberg, Hands down.
FRP I know that a thesaurus can be a mighty handy tool but please try to use it sparingly in future posts. Most Obama voters just cannot understand what it is you're trying to say.
Contact your legislators on this and do so often. Last night I e-mailed the senator of my state more likely to vote against the bill (even though he voted for the assault weapon ban in the 90's). I pointed out that the only reason to not have universal background checks were to allow the gun manufacturers to expand their consumer base by making it possible for criminals and others that cannot buy weapons normally to do so. I also encouraged him to support any measure that cracked down on buying weapons for the purpose to sell it to criminals.
http://alvagoldbook.newsvine.com/_news/2013/03/21/17403176-the-movement-to-ban-free-speech
This isn't a fight over gun violence. If it were, there would be bills being put forth to address the causation of violence, which has nothing to do with guns themselves.
What it is is a fight over how many more rights of law-abiding citizens are going to be taken away, Constitution be damned. Not just the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st, the 4th, and others.
I'm beginning to think Harry Reid is Lucy with the football and the "People's Will" is Charlie Brown. I'm sorry. I don't believe Harry Reid. I don't.
Remember when he said he was going to include the public option?
Remember his betrayal on telecom immunity?
Remember when he stripped the money and provisions from a bill to close Gitmo?
Remember the 87 jillion times he said filibuster reform was absolutely necessary and going to happen?
The list goes on.
Reid is so in love with Mitch McConnell that, if his buddy Mc objects to anything, Reid doesn't even try to whip the votes for it. He capitulates time and time again to the minority. He time and time again sells out the base of the Dem party.
So yeah, today he may say these things will get a vote. But he, as Marjority Leader, won't "lead." He will capitulate. He will let them flounder and die rather than whip the votes for them. Or he will pull a fast one and not let them come up for a vote at all. Until these votes actually happen and I see him working to get these passed, it's just words. So, Mr. Benen, please do not celebrate Sen Reid because of this. Remember, he still has the football and can pull it away from us in the blink of an eye.
TRMS needs to start a new segment: Harry Reid is bad at his job.
I couldn't agree more!!! Harry Reid is very, very bad at his job! Time after time, he simply gives up and sells out his base in order to go along with the GOP. Can't we make someone with a spine the Senate Majority leader? Someone like Barbara Boxer perhaps?
I would like to see the Congress and the Media take a different approach with the NRA. Bypass the NRA and start calling firearms manufacturers to testify and comment on firearms issues. Take the NRA at its word that is lobbying for gun owners. Find out what the manufacturers say they want in public.
Let's hear from people like Bob Nardelli, CEO of Remington Arms, not the LaPierre and Nugent Comedy Hour.
Here's a list from Yahoo
http://dir.yahoo.com/business_and_economy/shopping_and_services/weapons/firearms/manufacturers/?o=a
I have clicked through on several of the links. These companies are also encouraging their customers to contact Congress. Their CEOs should be interviewed and subpoenaed to testify before Congress.
Most of the arguments about self-protection that have been made by gun nuts in these comments may seem to make sense in themselves, but become irrelevant in the face of the basic statistics - there are far more gun deaths and injuries in countries that have more guns; and if a household owns guns, the chances of being killed or injured go up, not down. This means that allowing free use of guns, or even owning guns in a household, introduce danger factors that far outweigh the supposed advantages of guns for self-protection.
Denying these statistics, even making arguments that ignore them, is literally insanity - a denial of fact. This is why people who make these arguments are nuts.
Its a false sense of security, we have seen this same false sense of security before with seat restraints in auto's, people believed that by putting a restraint on it would prevent all auto accident injuries while ignoring the injuries seat belts cause, if your short the shoulder strap can/has broke necks, crushed wind pipes and other neck related injuries or deaths, so laws were enacted for drivers to wear seat restraints and what happened, accident rates increased. Same with a gun the person carrying believes he is safer because he has a gun in reach then theres reality that 1) said person takes greater risks 2) he is only safe if he is aware of the danger, crime is a random event and so far I have yet to meet anyone who could read another persons mind so having the gun will keep you safe is a stupid false belief. Criminals rarely tell you their intentions before they rob/mug you.
Whom
Crime is not a random event. Running out of crack is not a random event. Robberies are planned events
Murders are planned events
Mass shootings are planned events
Self protection is a planned event
What a load of horse manure. All I see is someone who watches to many COPS reruns. If crimes were not random then police would be able to predict and stop crimes from happening instead of having to wait for a crime to happen before they act. You can plan on protecting yourself all you want that doesn't mean you will be able to protect yourself when you become a victim of a crime. How do we know this, rather simple, cops get killed every year and they not only plan for defense but they train for it and still find themselves victims. If cops can't protect themselves what leads you to believe that having a gun means you can protect yourself other then delusions of grandeur. Planning a crime and having the opportunity to carry out that crime is what makes crime random. Because without opportunity crimes will not happen no matter how well your plans are or you believe they are.
Delusions, walk in my house to commit a crime and I will introduce you to 10 rounds of 9 mm of delusions