Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

Another gun friendly senator sees the light!

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/report-gillibrand-shifts-on-guns-85474.html?hp=r2

Geez. Do you have principles or not?

The Senator was chosen as a replacement to perhaps bring more conservative folks back to the Democrats. Sorry to be political for a touch but this is explanatory. Upstate is not NYC. However, if she has national ambitions then she has to march lock-step with the national party. Will this act against her - we will see when she runs again?
 
Last edited:
Kay Bailey - hey - you are from TX.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...=maing-grid7|maing6|dl1|sec3_lnk2&pLid=249428

Thanks alot.

A point is that many politicians have little knowledge of issues beyond sound bites. They will then switch opinions for emotional flares of the moment. This is well known in the decision making literature. The we have to do something mantra takes over in a fast mode as compared to longer rational thought processes.

They also feel self-important and have to say something on the tube. But there aren't tubes anymore - on the Plasma screen or LED?
 
Last edited:
"In that article, Gillibrand said the Second Amendment itself allowed for regulations of weapons.
“As someone who believes in the Constitution and an individual’s right to bear arms, I believe the first place we should look for answers is in the Second Amendment itself,” she wrote, adding, “The words ‘well-regulated’ prove the Founding Fathers themselves understood the need to have reasonable limits."

Uh...didn't heller conclude that well regulated meant well trained?
 
What they say in the press and what actually happens are two different things.

I really wonder if all those stating support for a nationwide AWB will end up pushing for a bill to clear committee and hit the floor for a vote. They could very easily state a desire for a ban and then work behind the scenes to ensure it never actually comes up for a vote (where they'd have to declare a side and be sure to lose votes one way or the other), then just blame the gun lobby for quashing it (we'll be the bad guys, but we've ALWAYS been the bad guys in this discussion).

Moreover, it will still have to clear the House (not a given) as well as get enough support to avoid a Senate filibuster (ditto).

I'm not saying a ban is impossible, but it's not a foregone conclusion. The more we contact our legislators the more likely it is that there won't be anything passing and getting signed into law.
 
They could very easily state a desire for a ban and then work behind the scenes to ensure it never actually comes up for a vote
Click to expand...
I think that's what the White House has already done. The issue has been punted to a Blue Ribbon panel.

A panel! And not just any panel, but a Blue Ribbon panel! Sounds pretty serious, right?

[cue obnoxious buzzer]

If I'm a politician, and I want to be perceived as taking action on an issue without actually taking any action, I'll refer the matter to a panel. For several months, the panel will dicker. They'll do research. They might conduct some interviews. After that, they'll present a nice little report in a pretty font with some graphs and charts. And that's about it.
 
"If I'm a politician, and I want to be perceived as taking action on an issue without actually taking any action, I'll refer the matter to a panel. For several months, the panel will dicker. They'll do research. They might conduct some interviews. After that, they'll present a nice little report in a pretty font with some graphs and charts. And that's about it."

In announcing the panel (I'm sure Obama's speech is online), he specifically stated that it would NOT but such a superficial panel. But, I hope you are correct Tom.
 
Quote:
They could very easily state a desire for a ban and then work behind the scenes to ensure it never actually comes up for a vote
I think that's what the White House has already done. The issue has been punted to a Blue Ribbon panel.

A panel! And not just any panel, but a Blue Ribbon panel! Sounds pretty serious, right?

[cue obnoxious buzzer]

If I'm a politician, and I want to be perceived as taking action on an issue without actually taking any action, I'll refer the matter to a panel. For several months, the panel will dicker. They'll do research. They might conduct some interviews. After that, they'll present a nice little report in a pretty font with some graphs and charts. And that's about it.
Click to expand...

I agree and I think it's also somewhat telling that Vice President Biden was put in charge of it. Without getting too political, Biden's usefulness to the administration throughout Obama's first term has been rallying the base and that's about it. Biden is, IMHO, too far left and too gaffe prone to be put in charge of something that must appeal to a wide audience and I think that the President and most of his party knows that.
 
If I'm a politician, and I want to be perceived as taking action on an issue without actually taking any action, I'll refer the matter to a panel. For several months, the panel will dicker. They'll do research. They might conduct some interviews. After that, they'll present a nice little report in a pretty font with some graphs and charts. And that's about it.
Click to expand...

I don't know about this one. This is less of a standard congressional-type panel with all the him-haw you listed, and rather a homework assignment (assigned to someone who has proven very 'good' at this type of assignment) with a FAST approaching due date.
 
Don't forget that Biden was supposed to have authored the '94 ban, & it passed.
Click to expand...

The political climate in 1993 was different than it was today. Not only did the Democrats have the Presidency, but also both houses of congress. Also, they lost congress the following year and President Clinton attributed that loss to the AWB. Finally, the role of a senator and that of Vice President are two very different things. Biden is a rather polarizing and partisan figure as are most VP's and the job of the VP, traditionally, has been to rally the base rather than reach across the aisle. Given that the Repubilcans still hold the House and the Democrats don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, there would have to be at least some Republican support for a new AWB and I can't help but think that if Obama really wanted to do something about gun control he would appoint someone with more bipartisan appeal to head the committee.
 
Last edited:
If I'm a politician, and I want to be perceived as taking action ...
Click to expand...

I hate to say it but that was the strategy used by PRO-gun politicians to kill campus carry in TX. There were the supposed votes but terrible pressure against it by University of Texas and Texas A&M. They are extremely powerful lobbies. Thus, the bill never made it on to the calendar due to chicanery. Gov. Perry had the power to assure it made it on the calendar for a vote but somehow didn't get around to it.

Thus,' progun folks ' could support it but OH, DEAR - we couldn't vote on it.

So it might happen hear. Make a fuss and let public interest decay.
 
Given that the Repubilcans still hold the House and the Democrats don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, there would have to be at least some Republican support for a new AWB and I can't help but think that if Obama really wanted to do something about gun control he would appoint someone with more bipartisan appeal to head the committee.
Click to expand...

I really don't think we can assume this one is going to be party line split one way or the other. Some Republicans will certainly support a ban, some Democrats will certainly fight one.

It's going to be somewhat bipartisan on both sides- small minorities of both parties siding with the other side out of their own political realities. Despite the high emotion level on this issue, I don't see either party cracking the whip on their members to get everybody on board. It's not the hill the Democrats want to die on and the Republicans have hardly been an across the board benefit to the right to keep and bear arms. Meanwhile, they already have a fantastic scapegoat to blame if nothing gets done- us. They'll be quite happy to do nothing and blame the NRA and all gun owners.
 
It's started.

House Democrat pushes gun reforms backed by NRA members - The Hill

While not yet introduced, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has signaled he has legislation ready that is "popular among members of the National Rifle Association (NRA)."

From poll data (by Frank Luntz), Rep. Moran has found that

• 74 percent of NRA members support criminal background checks on all potential gun buyers — as opposed to current law, which requires background checks only on those who buy from licensed gun dealers;

• 79 percent of NRA members back requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees;

• 71 percent of NRA members would bar those on the FBI's terrorist watch-list from buying and owning guns;

• 64 percent of NRA members support requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms.
Click to expand...

Add to this that there is a push to bring forward HR 308 (which has been sitting in limbo since Jan. 2011, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY4]), a magazine limit/ban bill and a new bill, HR 6680 (Bobby Rush [D-IL1]) that would purportedly register "certain firearms" (the text is not yet available).
 
Originally posted by Technosavant
I really don't think we can assume this one is going to be party line split one way or the other. Some Republicans will certainly support a ban, some Democrats will certainly fight one.
Click to expand...

That's, in essence, what I was saying. Neither party can really do much of anything right now without at least some support of the other due to the split in control of the House and Senate. Even if every single congressional Democrat voted for a new AWB, which is highly unlikely, it would still need some Republican support since that party controls the House. The point of my earlier comments was that if President Obama wanted to gather bipartisan support for a new AWB, which he would have to in order to get one passed, I think there would be much more effective people to convince Republicans and moderate-to-conservative Democrats to do so than Joe Biden.

I simply find it odd that the President would suddenly choose Joe Biden to spearhead an important part of his agenda because, thus far, that has not been Biden's role within the administration. As I think back over Obama's first term, every single important part of his agenda including the automotive bailouts, financial regulation, debt limits, and foreign policy has been spearheaded by the President himself, other members of the cabinet such as the Attorney General or Secretary of State, or prominent congressional Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Thus far, Biden's only newsworthy role has been the traditional VP role of campaign attack dog. It just seems strange to me that the President would suddenly change up his roster if gun control were as important to him as the media would have us believe.

Originally posted by Al Norris
While not yet introduced, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has signaled he has legislation ready that is "popular among members of the National Rifle Association (NRA)."

From poll data (by Frank Luntz), Rep. Moran has found that


Quote:
• 74 percent of NRA members support criminal background checks on all potential gun buyers — as opposed to current law, which requires background checks only on those who buy from licensed gun dealers;

• 79 percent of NRA members back requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees;

• 71 percent of NRA members would bar those on the FBI's terrorist watch-list from buying and owning guns;

• 64 percent of NRA members support requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms.
Click to expand...

I'd very much like to see Luntz's data, but given the criticisms he's recieved from the AAPOR, National Council on Public Polls, Media Matters, and PolitiFact, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Add to this that there is a push to bring forward HR 308 (which has been sitting in limbo since Jan. 2011, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY4]), a magazine limit/ban bill and a new bill, HR 6680 (Bobby Rush [D-IL1]) that would purportedly register "certain firearms" (the text is not yet available).
Click to expand...

That's not surprising as I would classify both McCarthy and Rush as "usual suspects" when it comes to gun control.
 
I'm not so sure of the veracity of such polls. A better way of Luntz putting would be:

74 percent of people who claimed to be NRA members and agreed to take the survey rather than hanging up support criminal background checks on all potential gun buyers — as opposed to current law, which requires background checks only on those who buy from licensed gun dealers
Click to expand...

And so on. I'll bet a gulf exists between Luntz's data and what politicians are hearing from their constituents.

Then there are the phone calls to legislators the NRA makes.

The Feinstein and Rush bills are the same thing they've been proposing year after year. McCarthy's bill has been on the docket every year since 2004, and Rush's bill (once called the Blair Holt Act) has been advanced every year since 2000.

The McCarthy bill has been in limbo since January of 2011, and according to GovTrack, its chances are 10% of getting past committee and 2% of being enacted. The Rush bill has even worse chances.
 
I quite agree, Tom. However...

We've been waiting for the fallout. Now we have something to actually refer to.

My assumption in reporting these bills, is that with the current emphasis of, "Do Something, Anything!" emotionalism, they stand a better chance than before the tragedy.
 
I think Biden's selection is due to the tenuous status of Holder and the tainted reps of Feinstein, McCarthy et. al.

IIRC, Biden has some reputation as being anti-gun.

For his abilities to see a bill through, I suspect them to be minimal. This insulates Obama from responsibility for the ultimate failure of a bill of any significance, puts it onto Biden.

Obama likes applause, not responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top