Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

Personally, I think the NRAs response is exactly right, assuming they've done it out of respect for the families. Unfortunately, they haven't really said much, so we're kind of guessing.
 
I don't think they did it out of respect for the families. I also think it was the right move however. Better to not give people your facebook page to rage back and forth over the issue. There isn't a winning tweet available in this situation so also a wise move. Let the shock and passions stirred up die down. The best analogy I could come up with, is they were carrying concealed and walked into a shouting match. They're extricating from the situation before it gets worse, and it really does become their fault for throwing proverbial gasoline on the fire.
 
Here's what a progun life long hunter Senator Manchin says:

The President called me this afternoon. We agree that as Americans and parents, all of our children belong to all of us – and we must work together to keep our precious children safe.

I believe that we must have a dialogue and bring parties from all sides to the table. I know my friends at the NRA and those who support our Second Amendment rights will participate because I know that their hearts are aching for the families in Newtown, just like all Americans.

To have a productive dialogue, we also need to address a number of critical issues, including our mental health system, safety in our schools and a media and entertainment culture that glorifies unspeakable violence.

What I have learned since coming to Washington is that there are some who will vilify you for being open to a conversation with anyone you might not agree with. That’s wrong – as Americans, we all need to sit down and have a serious, adult conversation about the best actions to move forward. The deaths of these children demand that each and every one of us in Washington and the United States be willing to talk with each other.
Click to expand...
 
I am hoping that our pro gun allies in the senate and house will stand firm with us. But just in case I went out today and bought extra mags for my AR-15, AK47, and Glock 21SF.
 
Today I sent an emergency contribution to the NRA-ILA, contacted both senators and house member. Am networking with everyone I can online.
 
I believe that we must have a dialogue and bring parties from all sides to the table. I know my friends at the NRA and those who support our Second Amendment rights will participate because I know that their hearts are aching for the families in Newtown, just like all Americans.

To have a productive dialogue, we also need to address a number of critical issues, including our mental health system, safety in our schools and a media and entertainment culture that glorifies unspeakable violence.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good idea. I'd also like to know what concessions will be coming from the antis. So far it's always been us giving up something.

Forget Lawdog's analogies about cake - making deals with these people is like dealing with the mob (the TV mob, I'm really not sure how the real one works). You can pay up or get your legs broken. Still don't want to pay up? Say goodbye to the use of your hands. So now you give them what they want and they leave you alone for awhile - too bad you're now crippled.

Yes, let's be reasonable
 
Let's consider the people who want to have this conversation with us.

Dianne Feinstein, on the original Ban: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."

Charles Schumer, on the same: "Clearly, this is just a start."

Aside from both having held concealed-carry permits in areas that others cannot, they have it in common that they both spoke of a desire for total bans on firearms in the early 1990's. They made it clear that they wanted all guns banned. Full stop.

It would be a mistake to assume that their positions have changed. They're not looking for negotiation or compromise; they're looking to get their foot in the door so they can throw it wide later.

We don't owe them the dignity of a negotiation. In a way, this is the last stand for a very beleaguered gun-control lobby. They couldn't get anything passed when they had near total control of two branches of government. The Newtown shooting gives them an impetus and mindshare they haven't had in nearly 20 years.

If this doesn't do it for them, they're toast. Expect them to fight hard.
 
I agree. If the starting point was that all folks agreed that we can have guns for self-defense then you might say - let's talk. However, when the starting point is unconditional surrender for you - why bother?

Schumer seems gleeful underneath.
 
I have seen comments that state we need to stop claiming the militia clause in the 2nd ammendment because it does not apply to most people; this is not currently true. The militias that defended and protected this country from invasion were many times required to maintain and bring their own gun to the fight.

If the militia clause is not applicable to the modern/common citizen, if it is truely outdated or otherwise non-applicable because of our better organized active duty military, and state & national guard forces; then the Constitution once again needs to be amended, as it has been in the past such as with prohibition. I am not saying the 2nd Ammendment is not outdated, that's another argument....I'm arguing the constitution as written.

Are there any politicians out there seeking such an Ammendment?

In my opinion, restricting firearms from citizens without a consitutional Ammendment is non-constitutional. I am not an attorney, but my Masters is Criminal Justice Administration, and I have argued/defended this position successfully in class.
 
With each day, the language gets stronger and stronger in favor of powerful gun controls.

I haven't been watching FoxNews, so I don't know what they're doing, but the rest of the news outlets are utterly certain that we need to prohibit the right to possess the high capacity type firearms.

Even during the Clinton ban, there wasn't THIS kind of political pressure to act strong against guns.
 
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/...-briefing-by-jay-carney-december-18-2012.html

From yesterday's White House Briefing:

MR. CARNEY: And the President is moving forward, as he said he would, in having discussions here at the White House with members of his team, having discussions moments ago with Senator Manchin and others who have introduced important ideas about how we can move forward and whose decision to break from past positions and -- in how they look at this is heartening, and perhaps harbors an opportunity to move forward in a constructive way. But we are still early in a process.

And I just want to be clear that, in addition to his support for a renewal of the assault weapons ban, which has long been stated and if it does take form in legislation that Senator Feinstein introduces, then that would obviously be something that would win his support, but it goes beyond that. His view is that we need to address this in a way that, as I said yesterday, acknowledges that no single piece of legislation, no single restriction on access to a certain type of weapon will solve this problem and that we need to address it more broadly.
Click to expand...
Whatever more broadly means...

I'm beginng to get a sick feeling that a new AWB won't be the same as the old AWB. My gut feeling is that it'll point out that the old AWB had no effect because it wasn't restrictive enough.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Schumer seems gleeful underneath.
Click to expand...

I've gone to some effort to keep the recent news out of my home, but after the kids were put to bed, I saw Lawrence O'Donnell speaking with a couple of like minded guests about putative restrictions and bans.

The palpable excitement amongst them as they discussed the episode was offputting. I doubt my reaction to the barely containable glee is unique.
 
"Dancing in the blood" is how one of the past members of staff here (DC) liked to state those types of actions.
 
bfskinnerpunk said:
I haven't been watching FoxNews, so I don't know what they're doing, but the rest of the news outlets are utterly certain that we need to prohibit the right to possess the high capacity type firearms.
Click to expand...

What's new? News outlets were utterly certain that "assault weapons" and "high-capacity clips" needed to be banned after the Virginia Tech shootings, the Giffords shootings, and the Aurora theater shootings. After each recent mass shooting, anti-gun types in the media tried their best to persuade people to endorse gun control without thinking about anything but sympathy for the victims.

Wait for the media's sympathy blitz to burn out. Right now, there is no pretense of rational discussion; the media's response to pro-gun arguments is to run stories about the funerals of small children. After the funerals are done, and everyone enjoys the holidays, and the media's focus shifts to the 'fiscal cliff' wrangling, things will look much different.
 
One thing is certain in my mind the left will never be satisfied until all firearms are removed from the hands of American citizens, this is the goal nothing short of that no matter what they say about the second amendment.

It is difficult to have a common sense conversation with folks who wish to take your freedom.
 
The danger here is the media, which sees ratings in the deaths of these poor souls and always hated guns to begin with. Seeing as most of the American media is state-run for all intents and purposes, we can expect a narrative wherein the noble Democrats righteously seek to strip the awful "assault weapons" from evil Republicans who seek to sow carnage with them.

This is where everything we've learned about gun rights must be employed in representing ourselves as a community (a community that virtually never includes these sort of psychopaths, who often just pick up the gun right before their evil deeds). Our representatives must be lobbied, and perhaps more importantly, held accountable for their actions. There might be some dark days ahead for gun owners, but the future is not yet written.
 
One thing is certain in my mind the left will never be satisfied until all firearms are removed from the hands of American citizens, this is the goal nothing short of that no matter what they say about the second amendment.
Click to expand...

This is why concessions should not be made to the anti gun lobby. It will only embolden them to take bigger bites down the line.
 
What's new? News outlets were utterly certain that "assault weapons" and "high-capacity clips" needed to be banned after the Virginia Tech shootings, the Giffords shootings, and the Aurora theater shootings. After each recent mass shooting, anti-gun types in the media tried their best to persuade people to endorse gun control without thinking about anything but sympathy for the victims.

Wait for the media's sympathy blitz to burn out. Right now, there is no pretense of rational discussion; the media's response to pro-gun arguments is to run stories about the funerals of small children. After the funerals are done, and everyone enjoys the holidays, and the media's focus shifts to the 'fiscal cliff' wrangling, things will look much different.
Click to expand...

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with this. Aside from the usual suspects like Feinstein, McCarthy, Schumer, and the various pundits on a cable news channel that will remain unnamed, most of the democratic party seems to be addressing the issue rather tentatively. The president himself seems very hesitant to mention specifics about what should be done and nearly everyone seems to agree that gun control, in and of itself, isn't going to solve the problem. Gun ownership is more widespread and mainstream now that it's probably been in the last 30 years and the percentage of gun owners who are interested only in "sporting" guns is dwindling quickly. Also, most of the "swing" states that both parties need in order to win elections are midwestern, southern, or western states like Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, and New Mexico where gun control isn't popular.

Also bear in mind that there really hasn't been any debate thus far because only one side has been talking. I've yet to see any comment from the NRA, SAF, or any other notable pro-2A group. Once they weigh in (the NRA is supposed to have a press conference on Friday), I doubt the argument will be so one-sided. Basically, I think the politicians are testing the waters on this right now and, if there seems to be much chance of a backlash due to new gun control, they'll likely let the issue be buried in committee to quietly die.
 
I would add that, and this is important, things could get even worse should *another* high profile shooting rampage occurs soon. It doesn't even have to have a particularly high body count or sensational circumstances, because right now, the media is interested in making it look like these events are happening constantly, all the time, and that everyone is likely to be shot at least once by a psycho by the time the year is over.

That said, to some degree the fervor will die down a bit, at least assuming the above doesn't happen again soon. A couple of politicians that are sympathetic to gun control this moment could be swayed by constituent backlash.

Hopefully, if another AWB just has to happen, the gun rights side can muster enough energy to dilute it as much as possible. A sunset provision, expanding the number of guns exempted, making transfer and sale of pre-existing guns and magazines legal, etc. I'd even like to see them add something like a higher cap on a mag ban (15 rds instead of 10, for example) or a national concealed carry reciprocity, though that's probably just an utter fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top