The Gun Debate In Congress
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-03-18/gun-debate-congress
Four gun control measures are on their way to the full Senate in April. They were approved along party lines by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the past two weeks. One bill includes an assault weapons ban and a limit on ammunition magazines. Other proposals would expand background checks and enact tougher laws against firearms trafficking and straw purchases. At the same time, addendums to spending bills could undermine both existing and proposed gun control efforts. Three months after the shooting deaths of 20 first graders in Newtown, Conn., a panel joins Diane to discuss the gun debate in Congress.
Guests
Paul Barrett
assistant managing editor and senior writer at Bloomberg Businessweek, and author of "Glock: The Rise of America's Gun."
Ed O'Keefe
congressional reporter for The Washington Post.
Jennifer Fiore
vice president of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
Richard Feldman
president of Independent Firearm Owners Association.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
How did George W.Bush say it..?? With that Texas slang he said,'you`re either fer em,or agen em". I agree.. You`re either FOR the mass murderers or AGAINST THEM...
When they banned fully automatic machine guns,the United States did not fall into an abyss. When these assault weapon bans were installed in the 90`s until they lapsed they worked.
A report from the Newtown paper revealed the changing of 30 round clips 4 times and over 150 bullets fired.. Having a shooter changing clips of 10 rounds each,could have saved lives
YOU`RE FER THE TERRORISTS,OR AGEN EM.. Do these folks really believe they have a 2nd Amendment right to commit mass murder..??
A little over 4 years ago,then candidate Obama was forced to apologize for saying,'some cling to their guns and religion'. I didn`t know why,it was the truth. Sadly some see freedom as the 2ND Amendment and holing up at home,comforted by weapons.An anti-social creature that hates and fears everybody and everything. I like other parts better. Like LIFE,LIBERTY,and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS..Being holed up,with teeth chattering,under a bed or in a closet is not freedom,it`s a self imposed prison.
BBB WROTE: "When they banned fully automatic machine guns,the United States did not fall into an abyss. When these assault weapon bans were installed in the 90`s until they lapsed they worked."
The 1994 assault weapons ban did not do anything except drive the prices of preban guns on the collector market up. The difference between an "assault rifle" and run of the mill semi autos is a bayonet lug or pistol grip, or a flash hider or a folding stock. Last time I checked there was not a rash of bayoneting. This illustrates why the ban was a fraud and did nothing except get a foot in the door for a larger more comprehensive ban, that was it's sole purpose.
The newest rant "weapons of war on our streets" is equally dishonest, every type of gun, bolt action rifle to a revolver were once used on battlefields everywhere. These so called modern "assault rifles" that are available to the public, are simply semi autos that look military but are not used by any military anywhere in the world, they use select fire machine guns.
If you gun banners want to take guns, amend the Constitution and stop trying to push through legislation with lies.
It fascinates me that the same people who are rabidly against any restrictions on one part of the Constitution, are rabidly passing laws that restricts another part of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that abortion is a Constitutionally protected right, yet Republicans are passing every possible proposal they and the evangelical right can think of to restrict access to this right.
So which is it, those on the right? Are you for the Constitution or against it? The evidence says you are both. Pick a side and be consistent.
Clearly, the laws in Connecticut which Adam Lanza violated did nothing to prevent the tragedy of Sandy Hook. Any person willing to die in the commission of mass murder is not deterred by the laws currently in effect or those under consideration. Rather, law-abiding citizens find their liberties constricted. Prevention of another Sandy Hook must address the sad state of mental health care in America.
Real Clear Politics reported that Senator Feinstein"opposed an amendment to her Assault Weapons Ban legislation that would allow military veterans to continue to buy the firearms that would be banned. Feinstein says a veteran may be mentally ill and should be prevented from purchasing firearms." Does it really constitute "common-sense gun violence prevention" to assert that military veterans are mentally unbalanced? Does that include John Kerry, Chuck Hagel or Eric Shinseki?
I have a solution for gun control.
Hand guns are not used for hunting. They are highly inaccurate at all but close range and really have only one purpose: to kill another human being.
That is a fact. You may dispute it, but if you do you're an idiot.
Thus, ban all hand guns....entirely! No exceptions. Currently most states have laws on their books that increase the amount of time that you get for a crime simply by the use of a hand gun in that crime. Simply extend that law to "life in prison, no hope of parole" across the board.
Anyone left using hand guns will be criminals simply waiting until they expose themselves....this levels the playing field to both "supposedly law abiding citizens" and criminals. Because both would face the same law. Bring out your hand gun and face the penalty.
As for long guns, fine. Keep 'em. Carry them around in public if you like on a shoulder strap if it makes you feel good....at least we'll know who is armed and who isn't, because you can't hide it.
I'll bet you gun violence drops off like crazy.
Mike Sergeant wrote: "So which is it, those on the right? Are you for the Constitution or against it? The evidence says you are both. Pick a side and be consistent"
A lot of legal scholars say Roe v. Wade is bad law regardless of political leanings. Having said that, lumping in all pro second amendment supporters with all anti abortion activists, would be like lumping all the Democrats in with the communists within the Democrat party.
Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness VS Kill at Will
freedom or welfare wrote:
"A lot of legal scholars say Roe v. Wade is bad law regardless of political leanings. Having said that, lumping in all pro second amendment supporters with all anti abortion activists, would be like lumping all the Democrats in with the communists within the Democrat party."
Be that as it may, at this moment in time, and for the last 40 years, abortion is a Constitutionally protected right. Until that changes, my point remains valid.
I am not lumping anyone with anyone. I am pointing out that those who seem vehemently opposed to any restrictions on one right of the Constitution, seem to be equally active in passing restrictions on another current right of the Constitution.
"Loughner fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed. Meanwhile, two men from the crowd grabbed him and subdued him, officials said.
Had Loughner been successful in firing the second magazine, "there would have been a huge, greater catastrophe," Sheriff Dupnik said. "
The larger the clip,the larger the execution..
My understanding of our 2nd amendment right is that it was created in light of the citizens right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.....in this respect, the citizens should be able to, at least, match the firepower of their government.
Mike Sergeant wrote: "I am not lumping anyone with anyone. I am pointing out that those who seem vehemently opposed to any restrictions on one right of the Constitution, seem to be equally active in passing restrictions on another current right of the Constitution"
Yes you are "lumping". Do you have any statistics to back up your statement. I have many gun owning pro second amendment friends, not a one of them gives a damn about abortion.
Interesting video ... Black conservatives supporting NRA and telling their early history of the NRA
http://www.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embedded
Yes, there is wide support from the Left and Right when you talk about focusing on mental health improvements to reduce gun violence. But the mental health practice is not a mathematical/hard-numbers science. Mental health is a fuzzy science and there's no professional who can tell you with any certainty that one of their patients will/will not commit a large-scale assault on unsuspecting individuals. And in the case where someone doesn't get mental help from a professional, where's the firewall preventing them from getting a gun at a trade show or a straw purchaser? If the Right's solution to this gun violence issue is to improve mental health, how do you get those who aren't in the mental health system into the mental health system? Forceful treatment/incarceration like in the movie Minority Report to prevent predicted crimes to be committed in the future? Sure, work on improving mental health services, but in the meantime why not take away the tools used to commit mass-scale crimes like large ammunition clips?! Why not close loopholes to purchase guns? If you have a dog, you need to register it with the town you live in. If you sell the dog to your brother, your brother now need to register the dog in his town. Why treat a gun with any less importance then a dog? A dog can bite, but a gun is more likely to kill. Why not make it a requirement for basic paperwork to be required for ALL gun sales?!
Why doesn't the logic of "criminals will get around the law so what's the point of having a law?" apply to all laws? Are those who advocate this position in regard to gun control suggesting it should apply to all laws? And if not, why does it apply to gun control?
Just because a right or law has a potential societal cost, does not mean we just scrap it. For example the presumption of innocence and due process likely frees some very bad people that may cause harm to children and innocent people. The law that protects unfettered gun ownership is the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. Chipping away at the Bill of Rights is not the smart way to go. If there is that much support for the taking away of rights, then change the constitution.
May I suggest a win win answer. 2 points
1. Guns don't kill people, ammo does. Restrict access to ammo except at gun ranges.
2. Shooters so far have all been male (and I am too). Put women in charge of ammo control.
Let the men own all the guns they want, and let them shoot all they want at gun ranges. Control ammo like it is a NARCOTIC. Lots of records to keep. Police already have to explain every shot taken. Others should have to explain each shot fired as well.
freedom or welfare wrote:
Yes you are "lumping". Do you have any statistics to back up your statement. I have many gun owning pro second amendment friends, not a one of them gives a damn about abortion.
I am only lumping in your mind. I am talking about the political parties, as evidenced by the use of "passing restrictions". I have said nothing about individual voters or groups of voters, just those able to pass laws.
You need statistics? Do a quick search. Almost every state in the Union, has at least one law that in some way restricts the access to abortion. Some of these laws make complete sense, some don't. However, mention that there should be some reasonable restriction to the access of anything to do with guns and suddenly anarchy will reign the next day from the take over by the tyrannical government.
Why the hypocrisy?
If there was a vaccine or drug that killed 8 children every day, how long would it be on the market?
Also, if I sell a car, a sign a form that I sold it, bring it in to the DMV with the buyer. Cannot we also do that with guns??
The point that is lost in this debate is that the percentage of privately-owned firearms in this country used in commission of crimes is far less than one tenth of one percent. The bans being considered will only affect the law-abiding citizens who own and use their firearms legally and safely for sport shooting, hunting, collecting and self-defense and nobody else. Unfortunately we American citizens who do follow the law and exercise care and responsibility in the use of our firearms are demonized by persons like Jennifer, simply because of our interests. I find that incredibly unfair.
Mike Sergeant wrote: "You need statistics? Do a quick search. Almost every state in the Union, has at least one law that in some way restricts the access to abortion"
You made a statement you can't back up, it's on you to supply the basis for it. You can't honestly make the connection can you?
I am currently saying aloud all the words that would prevent this comment from being read on air. Soccer moms???? SOCCER MOMS? Let's try grandparents WHO VOTE who have had a belly full of our gun-worshipping society that allows mass killings with little more than an off-hand apology from the politicians whose greasy palms rake in the NRA cash. I am the grandmother of 6 children under the age of 3 years. How many of them will live to be adults in our current gun culture?
Is there a reason why the NRA does not have the 2nd Amendment -- in its entirety -- displayed on their website? Might it be because the 'well-ordered militia' ... which is irrelevant to today ... negates the last part of that Amendment's sentence? Nicholas Penning, Arlington, VA
I am so pleased to hear Jennifer Fiore talk about changing the culture, not just the laws. It is through education and culture change that we no longer wink at drunk drivers, we do buckle up when getting into a car, we listen to and take seriously victims of rape and abuse. We've even stopped throwing trash out of our car windows and dropping litter on the sidewalk. It can be done; it has been done; it will be done.
In response to urbanrage's comment:
It makes a concession for a well regulated militia. Do you think a well regulated militia can be formed and kept out of the purview of the United States government? The amendment was created before the time of RPGs, tanks, aircraft, etc. Are you really suggesting that you're a 1-person, well regulated militia privy to the ownership of a tactical nuclear weapon?
Re: lack of enforcement - there are laws that tie the hands of the ATF so they are not able to efficiently keep track of the guns. They don't let the ATF have the records, they leave it to the gun sellers, and they don't let them computerize the lists.
How about getting rid of these laws and maybe we'll have better enforcement of illegal gun sales!
After the introduction of the paper doll campaign, the gun advocate was forced to admit that eight children do die of gun violence each day "if you count urban deaths." Why does he see those as different? Are the poor black children in our cities somehow of less value than the children of Sandy Hook. That is appalling.
Amen!
Jennifer, as an aunt and 43 year Middle School teacher, I am a 2nd Amendment supporter. Criminals don't follow laws. We need to enforce present guns laws. If you commit a crime and use a gun, you serve 10 years. If you kill someone and commit a crime with a gun, you serve 20 years. The basic problem in areas with gangs and teens, for example in Chicago, the 8 paper doll KIAs, is education--or lack of good education. People without hope of jobs and a future commit crimes. In addition, banning ammo hurts legan gun owners who use guns for competition. We all need to listen to each other.
Agree with Jennifer Rickards wholeheartedly.