Reid couldn’t muster up even 40 votes in the Senate so he killed the bill without a vote. When the outcome is known, or feared, this is what happens. The inverse dynamic is also true and that is why so many House passed jobs bills have not been brought to a vote. They might have passed and we can’t have that.

It’s a sorry political reality that we can’t even bring a bill on the assault weapons ban to the house and senate floors so that legislators’ positions are right out there in public, but it’s outright disgusting that legislators are so intimidated that they’re already compromising on something as valuable and non-threatening as universal background checks.

The gun lobby/NRA opposes EVERY reasonable measure on the bases that they either “won’t do anything about the hundred million guns already out there” or “criminals are not going to register” but those are no reasons to fail to start reining in gun trafficking and instant access for those bent on harm to others or to themselves.

The BALANCE in gun control measures has been shifted way to the no-controls-at-all side for decades. It’s time for the vast majority of reasonable people to make their voices heard and restore the balance.

At various points in our great country’s history we have
collectively acknowledged imperfections built into our Constitution as written
by our Founding Fathers.  One of
the things that makes our democracy strong is the inherent structural ability
of our government to recognize and correct the Constitution’s original
flaws.   Although there is a
tendency amongst some to treat the document as a sacred text, never to be
tampered with, questioned, or interpreted in any way other than its
“original meaning” (never mind the inherent contradiction), its
authors deliberately baked in a certain flexibility meant to be responsive to
changing cultural mores.  If
courageous and responsible leaders over the centuries had not made adjustments
to some of the Constitution’s central tenets, we would, for example, still be a
country in which slavery was legal, and the only people who could vote were
land-owning white men. 

            One
of the most controversial amendments is the Second.  It was written at a time when the country had no military,
other than local militias made up of farmers and bakers with front-loading
muskets.  At the time, it made
sense partly because it defined the
military.  Now it does not.  

            I
say this as a gun-lover myself.  In
my younger days, I spent quite a bit of time at shooting galleries and in the
tropics knocking coconuts off trees at a thousand yards.  I would have made a good sniper.  Guns can be fun, and in the words of
Dan Baum (a fellow Democrat who has recently been going around evangelizing the
rights of gun ownership), they are “beautiful machines.”  But guns are not toys, and there are
lots of other beautifully crafted mechanical objects whose primary purpose are
not lethality. 

            A
few years ago, a good friend of mine — then just starting out a promising law
career, a loving husband and a father of a young child — was walking his dog
one Sunday in the woods near his family home while visiting for Thanksgiving
and was shot to death at close range by a hunter who was going out that day to
try out his new rifle.  Not only
did this tragedy sadden me because he was my friend, but it also manifested my
own childhood fear of being mistaken for a deer while walking in the woods on
my parents’ property in central Connecticut.  Often we could see hunters from our kitchen window, despite
the “NO TRESPASSING” signs posted around the 30 acres of our woodland
homestead.  Since then, my parents
have moved to rural New Mexico, where they’ve had the locks on their gates shot
open by elk poachers and their “NO TRESPASSING” signs riddled with
bullet holes. 

            Chief
Executive of the NRA Wayne LaPierre responded to the recent massacre of
first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary School by saying, “The only thing
that can stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”  That kind of logic is not only deeply
cynical, it is also indicative of the “crouched, defensive” position
that Dan Baum describes American gun owners take when anyone even remotely
whispers the words, “gun laws.”            LaPierre’s
and Baum’s comments also reveal something else about gun-owners in this
country.  Namely, they are
paranoid.   The idea of discouraging gun violence
with the threat of retaliation with more gun violence creates an arms race
reminiscent of the Cold War rationale of “Mutually Assured
Destruction.”  But iterative
escalation only feeds cultural paranoia.�
What kind of peace is it that is kept at gunpoint?  Shouldn’t we be seeking a societal norm
of trust rather than suspicion?  It
takes courage to put down a gun.  Resorting to guns as pacifiers is not
only cowardly, it’s childish.

            Rationale
for gun ownership tends to fall into a couple of categories:  A. Protection and B. Fun.   Neither makes sense.  Nor is either reason specified under the
Second Amendment.   Under
“Protection” fall misguided and unsupported claims that follow
Hollywood scripts about good guys and bad guys.  Supporters of this theory still live in childhood fantasies
of cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians, fed by dreams of being like Clint
Eastwood, John Wayne, or James Bond.   Or perhaps we never developed the social skills
necessary to conduct ourselves maturely amongst society either because we were
bullies or bullied as youngsters.  We
hide behind the false sense of security and projection of power that a gun
provides to compensate for our own sense of powerlessness and fear in a society
that has abandoned us, seeking out company amongst fellow gun-owners for lack
of more positive forces over which to bond.

            Those
of us who use guns for “Fun” also have never matured fully.   I make some exception for those
who hunt for food out of necessity, but even then I have come to question
societal values that place the rights of those bent on the destruction of
sentient beings with assault rifles over the rights of children to wander
amongst their natural surroundings in peace, as I sought to do as a child.

            I
find it ironic that so-called conservatives have called for a “war on
drugs” and a “war on terrorism,” citing the need to curb
violence, when the violence is generally conducted with guns, which they
support without any meaningful restriction at all.   Why don’t we get to the root of the problem and stop
cowering before the steroidal hyperbolics of the gun lobby?  Let’s declare instead a “war on
guns.”  Imagine all the money
and lives we’d save by buying back all the guns in this country and cultivating
instead a culture of mutual trust and communal good?  Like an addict who has been saved, I have sacrificed my own
love for the beautiful lethal machines in the interest in a greater good than
my own self-interest.  I invite my
fellow gun-lovers to do the same.  In
the words of John Lennon, “Some may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the
only one.”  Let’s repeal the
Second Amendment.  It’s time has
come and gone.  Let’s find
something more positive into which to focus our efforts.

Why can’t we have teachers and administrators in the schools equipped with Tasers? (Tazers?).  Newtown might have been much different.

Please don’t call Harry Reid a “Leader”, he has not been one for a very long time.  He is the most spineless Majority leader imaginable.

Here’s a telling image:

Deer hunting is not part of the 2nd Amendment. Every time a media commentator mentions hunting in the same breath while discussing this issue they “nullify” their own argument.

I find it noteworthy that at the same time the Prison Industrial Complex has been building for-profit jails, the potential “customers” (ie. the American population) has been arming itself up with assault weapons. It would be fine with me if the law began to clamp down on civilian arms dealers who obey no laws at all. Always room for one more in the corporate Big House.

Why is it that our congress cannot even agree with meet-in-the-middle legislation, for example universal background checks? Is it that difficult to protect our children?
And what messages, and images do we project to other nations when our congress cannot work together? At least something to protect our citizens and law-abiding gun owners.
We have the most violent gun culture of an industrial nation and we want to police other nations. We screem W.O.M.D, no wonder they reply M.Y.O.B.

If a National Vote of the populous was held today would it differ from the results of our do nothing Congress? Bet it would.

Do you support Universal Background checks for firearms? Yes or No
Do you support large capacity magazine restrictions? Yes or No
Do you support a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons? Yes or No.

I’d wager that the first two measures would pass with flying colors. How silly of me to think that Congressional action should reflect the will of the majority.

I am appalled.  These senators will face a backlash, not from the NRA but from the 91% of whom they are who are ignoring.  I will not vote for any politician who will not vote for banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines.  

We know that these weapons have killed thousands of Americans and now we
have to cope with the ghost of children being struck down
in their school room at age 6 or 7 years.�
There is NO excuse for not supporting this ban on weapons that are of no
use to hunters or those who want to protect their homes.

These weapons have become a TOY for men who have been
allowed to remain in a state of arrested development, perpetual 11 or 12 year-olds playing target shooting; OR, men who seek to enhance their manhood by
having a BIG gun; OR criminals who want to outgun the police; OR the mentally
ill who think they have an ax to grind.�
There is NO other reason to have these weapons.  Our children should not be subjected to a
future where they are not safe to go to school, to a mall, to a church, to a
movie theatre because of these horrendous weapons in the hands of maniacs.   Is the ability to play target-shooting games
more important than protecting  children
and all law-abiding citizens? NO!

Politicians need to stand up NOW for the safety of the American people or every future violent act by these weapons will be blood on their hands as accomplices to these murders.  Sorry, their re-election is NOT more important than the lives of innocent people.

Assault weapons are instruments of killing, but what about handguns?  Aren’t they involved in many times more US deaths than these high capacity rifles?  If our interest is in saving lives, shouldn’t we be focused on discussing the availability of handguns?

This is crazy, absolutely crazy. 3-D printers cost thousands of dollars.

The whole discussion on this AWB is irrational. There are two issues here: the so called assault weapons, its definition and the list of exempted firearms and the “large capacity magazines”. 

In both cases Sen. Feinstein has not shown the least desire of compromise and she came up with an overreaching, irrational and unconstitutional bill.

Firearms ownership can be regulated, as other enumerated rights are. the issue here is where to draw the line and based on what criteria.

The firearms targeted by the ban are semiautomatic firearms in common use for lawful purposes (not only in this country but in nations like Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Norway, by the way). They are not machine guns, despite the looks.  They are targeted because of their looks, not lethality: chief proof of this is the fact that rifles like the Ruger Mini 14 ranch semiautomatic rifle is in the list of exempted firearms because it has a wood stock and no pistol grip! Note, this is the same rifle used in the Norway massacre 2 years ago. So you would ban my AR-15 because it is black and scary but not a rifle that has been used in a massacre of 77 people…It targets all calibers and type of ammunitions, centerfire and not, even a .17 or a rimfire .22LR caliber. It bans pistols like the Beretta 92FS or a Glock 17, but no particular logical reason, discriminating in favor of After -if- the Feinstein ban is passed, will you be “safer”? no. not at all. “Regular rifles” are just as lethal: they shoot the same or larger calibers than an AR-15, they can be fitted with large capacity magazine, they shoot at the same rate (take a hunting rifle like the Ruger mini 14 ranch rifle or the Remington 742: same magazine as the AR-15, same rate of fire).Visual proof here:http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/on_air/links_on_tv/special-report-firearm-facts#.US5dv6WQmR0The fact is that the ban language uses superficial, cosmetic criteria unlinked from lethality, undermining its constitutionality (functionally identical firearms are exempted, making it irrational, and it discriminates against a weapon, the AR-15 and the alike, that are in common use for lawful purposes; it exempts retired law enforcement officers, as if they are some sort of privileged protected category holier than the common citizen).

As for the large capacity magazine: pistol magazines with 15-17 rounds are “standard capacity”, as rifle magazine with 20 to 30 round are standard capacity. that is what the police use. The police works in our streets, not Afghanistan or war theaters. if they are good for the police for self-defense they are good for private individuals as well.

Do you want to ban 40, 50, 100 round magazines or machine guns (already banned since 1986)? go ahead, I do think those are not constitutionally protected, they don’t affect self-defemnse, they are not “in common use for lawful purposes”, as police never use them and even the military do not issue them as standard side arms. those limits that respect the second amendment. in the end, SCOTUS will decide.

Why do we give the NRA so much power??…if you look at the results from the last elections…the mounds of money the NRA poured into getting their candidates elected didn’t yield much. This is about courage and backbone. 

Members of Congress do take contact from the public into account when acting on controversial issues, at least to some extent.  It’s very easy to voice own’s opinions to them.

Here’s an easy way to find out who your Representative is, and who your Senators are, and how to contact them:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Just enter your Zip Code or your full address.

Alternatively, you can go to

http://www.senate.gov/

There’s a [Find Your Senators] dropdown menu in the upper righthand corner.

http://www.house.gov/

There’s a [Find Your Representative] search box (by Zip Code) in the upper righthand corner.

The Republican party is almost pure evil, but the Democratic party is lame.

The Democrats need to have a vote on this issue, even if they lose, so that the country can see who is for and who is against gun control. It will become an issue in the next election. We will make it an issue.

The Senate needs either to deal head-on with this idiocy of the anonymous, automatic filibuster or close up shop until the present obstructionist crop of Republicans are ousted from office.

And why is it that a majority of Republicans in the House have a veto on all legislation? It is Boehner’s policy of obstructionism not allowing votes on anything that is not supported by a majority of Republicans that causes gridlock there. He will not allow for any compromises. We cannot remember any time when the Democrats did this when they were in the majority in the House.

The Republicans’ House majority, it also should be remembered, is due to post-2010 election gerrymandering in states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. In the last election more votes were cast for Democratic candidates for US House than for Republican candidates.

Do we live in a real democracy?�
Any democracy worth its salt would have some way to have a national referendum on gun control and other issues. We would then have a national debate in which the electorate would gradually become educated on the issues at hand. 

We need participatory democracy more than ever.

I don’t understand why we accept as obvious common sense limits on rights mentioned in other amendments – everyone agrees free speech does not protect shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater – and get into such a tizzy over doing the same for guns. What’s the difference between limiting ‘fire’ and limiting military style weapons?

Furthermore, the 1′st amendment gives an unconditional right of free speech, while the 2′nd gives a right to bear arms contingent on the need of the government for a militia. It seems to me that the 2′nd is far weaker than the first, and thus even more subject to limits.

Make kids safer?  Absolutely, by focusing *directly* on the most effective ways to do that:
1) provide adequate funding to schools. �
2) renovate them to protect against external breach. �
3) staff them with trained security professionals.  

Aurora and Newtown were security failures.  In a post-911 era, sad schmucks with guns should never get close to their targets.  Soft targets should be capable of repelling armed, determined and trained attackers- the kind that take down aircraft or park car bombs in public places.

As an advocate for both gun rights and gun safety, here’s where we can make some headway:

1) Close the gun show loophole?  Absolutely.
2) Background checks on private sales?  Maybe.  No between family members, yes between non-family if a licensed dealer handles the paperwork.
3) Limited capacity mags?  OK, but gun rights advocates point out that it only takes seconds to swap out mags.  That’s true, but then Yes, sometimes it makes enough of a difference if the public is *willing* and *able* to rush the shooter.
4) Assault weapons ban?  No.  If you look logically and dispassionately at the issue, it makes little sense, and most of the arguments put forth by gun control folks are misguided, especially on the technical merits.

Let’s be frank.  An assault weapon is for defense.  Please stop saying that they’re not necessary for hunting- that’s irrelevant to their central purpose.  By saying things like that, you sound whiny and fail to engage at the core of the issue.

Senator Graham got it right: in a disaster situation (Katrina or Sandy), when civil disorder disintegrates and law enforcement can’t respond to your 911 call because they desert their posts or are busy protecting critical infrastructure (like gas stations), you are on your own, and have the right to arm for your own defense and for the defense of others.

VP Biden was pretty close to the mark (to paraphrase: “get a shotgun, I have one”), but that brings us to an issue of fundamental mechanics.  An autoloading shotgun is a semi-automatic weapon.  It has more destructive power than an AR-15.  We have semi-auto hunting rifles (sans pistol grip).  So, what difference does the pistol grip make?  Some say it makes the rifle more accurate.  Good!  As a gun owner, I am responsible for every round I put down range, so of course I want to be better at hitting my target.  Others might say the opposite, that one can “Spray and pray”.  Well, I can do that by dual-wielding Glock 19s, or with my Remington Autoloader, or with my semi-auto hunting rifle, so what’s the point?  It’s a weak argument.

Along those lines, gun manufacturers simply retool their products to disqualify them from the ban.  Instead of a pistol grip, they cut a hole in the shoulder stock, and *viola*, now I have a comfy place to put my thumb.  It doesn’t have a pistol grip, but it’s just as lethal.  So, on simple mechanics, the ban is misguided.

“It’s a military-grade weapon.”  Precisely.  The Constitution protects an individual’s right to bear arms, and the right for the People to organize into well-regulated militias.  And militias use… you guessed it: military-grade rifles.  That’s the default for personal armament in a militia configuration.  We’re not talking about grenade launchers or SAWs or burp guns, we’re talking about the basic firearm issued to an individual who participates in a well-regulated militia.  As long as the Constitution protects that, we don’t need to discuss it.

So let’s focus on the practical solutions.  Or, if gun-control advocates think they have the votes, be honest with yourselves and your intentions, and just go for an all-out repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Be free, be safe, and be well.

pragnosticator.blogspot.com

Everyone agrees that those who are mentally ill or who have been shown to be otherwise deficient should not be allowed to purchase firearms, but there are two obvious issues with mental health background checks, namely:

1.  Spotty reporting from states, due to a variety of reasons
2.  Privacy concerns, especially of having mental health records in searchable databases

Repeating an idea about mental health and firearms purchases that I’ve expressed before:

Rather than the current system or the proposed idea of universal mental health background checks, instead require a pre-purchase mental health certification of potential firearms buyers via an exam by a mental health professional.

This idea is not problem-free, but it removes the objectionable massing of searchable mental health records, and would seem to comply with HIPAA. Only the certification would be part of the purchase application, similar to a driver’s license eye exam. It also removes the issue of states not reporting mental health info to the NICS. To me, this is far superior to the present situation.

Currently, one needs only to attest to never having been “adjudicated mentally defective” and never having “been committed to a mental institution.” And if the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) finds no matching record that shows an adjudication of mental defect or involuntary commitment (or other disqualifying records), then “the transaction is automatically proceeded.” This is much less restrictive than having the Buyer provide positive proof of being free from “mental defect.”

While it’s certainly true that the applicant could try to conceal their pathology, having some sort of examination makes this less likely to be effective. And while the mental health professional might be biased (aka “Dr. Firegood”), this problem could be combatted by the Professional Boards of Review, as well as the potential liability aspect if someone they certify to be free of “mental defect” purchases a firearm then murders someone the next day.

Since purchasing a firearm is optional, any mental health status disclosure would be completely voluntary. Further, the actual exam would remain private and still subject to HIPAA.

Consider also that The US military has done recruitment and predeployment psychiatric screening for nearly 100 years, focusing on identifying and disqualifying those with gross psychiatric disorders. They recognize that not everyone should be given access to or training in the use of weapons designed to kill as many humans as possible in the shortest period of time.

This seems reasonable, and something we might consider for firearms ownership, especially in light of the fact that one can legally purchase firearms with capabilities similar to military firearms.

It is rather obvious where Tom comes down on this issue, using FOX tactics (“20 Little Babies” etc).  Be that as it may, a majority of the people, dispite confusing rhetoric, are not in favor of ever more restrictions on what they believe is a Constitutional right.  You don’t use a 30 round mag to hunt, true, but there are other reasons for having a gun than hunting; collectors or all types, self protection, tinfoil hat fears, etc.   Almost all the ‘shooters’ were on psychoactive medications, but we are not going after Pharma or Psychiatrists.  THis seems to highlight what the Right has been saying for 60 years:  The Democrats want to take your guns away.  It’s a slippery slope to confiscation. 

Want more safety?  Enforce the laws and rules we currently have!  Take the “blood and guts” out of the news reporting, the whipping up of hysteria to get a point across.  Didn’t we learn from “WMD”  “Mushroom Cloud.” “9/11-9/11-9/11-9/11″.  Let’s fight the good fights and leave this, frankly radical Left, alone while we concentrate our power on important (and winnable, and non scary) fights for the future of this country.  This is the Democratic Party equiivent to the Republican Abortion and anti Gay stands.  Are we to be diminished, as a people, by this fringe radicle driven issue?  This ‘Hot Button’ issue?

As a Progressive, I’m disturbed that most of the 300 million guns loose in the US are in the hands of conservatives and far-right-wingers. I oppose any attempt to limit sale of military style assault weapons until Progressives have a chance to reach parity.   

You can pole the public and find 85% want deficit reduction, financial reform,
drug enforcement, educational reform, background checks for gun purchases, and
lessening of drunk drivers. There’s no question these are good objectives. But
there’s no consensus on how these programs will actually work. Most gun
advocates will support background checks, as soon as someone explains exactly
how they will be implemented. That’s the rub. How does it work? Can anyone
explain this? I thought not because no-one knows. And until you can don’t expect support from me or other gun owners.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this. The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time. United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons” (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear  that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings in quill pens. Liberty is worth the risk of death!

Tom, your bias is oozing out of my radio. Your rudeness towards those who disagree is unacceptable. Your insistence on emphasizing the AWB and clip size limitations just shows your ignorance. <3% of murders involve AWB's.

Please hang up your mike until you can conduct an unbiased show. As a tax payer and a supporter of my local station, you are an embarrassment.

And I’m paying for this anti-gun spewing liberal nonsense with my hard earned TAX DOLLARS.
This my friends, is a crime.

Michael Moore suggested that the tragic photos of the murdered children at Newtown would shock people into doing something more intelligent about gun control. Have the senate and the congress seen these images? Maybe this would at least make them see the treacherous damage that is done with assault rifles and make them more readily ban them.

Look, I am not sure of what “Gun Show Loop-Hole”  you are speaking about?  I have personally purchased several guns from a Gun Show and went through the exact same backround check as when I purchased the gun from a Brick and Mortar business,

Disqus fail.

The concluding statement of Thursdays segment stopped me in my track.  It was something to the effect “We are a country of chasms”.

I don’t see it that way at all.  We are a country of GREAT diversity.  I for one think that diversity makes us better and is an asset if we but recognize that everyone does not think like we do.  Everyone does have a right to think the way they do.  We need not try to “convert” others to our own point of view. 

We need to recognize that some things are important to us that are not important to others. There is a compromise that will allow law abiding people to own guns if that is their choice. 

There will never be a law that prevents someone from going insane.  An insane person can do great damage regardless of the tools available.  I don’t own a gun and never have but I am also not threatened by those that do.

Let’s work on mental health!   

For a fine example of how gun control fails in its intended mission, here’s a long article:

 http://www.calgunlaws.com/institutionalized-ignorance-how-california-encourages-gun-crimes/

thats a false choice

Tom,

I know you’re all in favor of a Police-state, and are probably engaged in the Communist Manifesto at this moment, just all those that fit the mold to speak on your show…but I have a question for you. Do you believe in freedom of speech, or should it too be limited? You see, regardless of your emotional feebleness, you cannot start picking and choosing which laws you like, and which ones to amend; eventually all will fall apart. 

Do I like that someone can kill innocent children with an AR? No. I also don’t like that RESPONSIBLE adults can get behind a wheel drunk and kill innocents. People die. Unfortunately, many   times needlessly and preventably. But no amount of laws will ever prevent that. Perpetuating such a flawed ideology only deepens the real issues, morality and education.

As a last point, the second amendment provides�
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
How can a free nation defend itself in the face of tyranny without weapons? Perhaps we could borrow your microphone, or you could talk to them. Secondly the last word, and most important, “INFRINGED”. It shall not be violated, oppressed or trespassed on. As you one frantic call suggested tanks and rockets. Well, he’s wrong. I can own a tank. I can own machine guns. And with the right permits, I too could own explosives. 

Now, if you have the intestinal fortitude, and more over humility to read this, I urge you to respond. No need to try and appear unbiased. You show  silently speaks volumes to that. 

Thanks.

-A concerned listener of NPR.