Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Adenoid_Hynkel

(14,093 posts)
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:20 PM Jan 2013

Heidi Heitkamp: Reported White House Gun Control Plans 'Way In Extreme'

Source: Huffington Post

Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp (N.D) told ABC's 'This Week' that gun control plans reportedly being considered by the White House are "way in extreme."

The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Obama administration is weighing a broad approach to tackling the gun issue. Some of the measures apparently being weighed are universal background checks and stricter penalties for giving guns to a minor or bringing a gun near a school.

Heitkamp, who has an A-rating from the NRA, said that "I think you need to put everything on the table, but what I hear from the administration — and if the Washington Post is to be believed — that’s way — way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about. And it’s not gonna pass."

She said that addressing the country's failing mental health system should be a bigger priority for Congress.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/06/heidi-heitkamp-gun-control_n_2420775.html



Lieberman may have gone home to Connecticut, but looks like there will always be folks to keep his spirit alive in D.C.
67 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Heidi Heitkamp: Reported White House Gun Control Plans 'Way In Extreme' (Original Post) Adenoid_Hynkel Jan 2013 OP
Michael Moore thinks that pharmaceuticals manufactured by Big Pharma is a factor. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #1
Moores probably right, side effects are suicide thoughts,airline people who went nuts were on meds Sunlei Jan 2013 #26
They have this entire task force working on national gun control? Remmah2 Jan 2013 #2
If the banksters and the other super-rich want this, we are going to have it. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #35
Interesting never thought of it that way. Remmah2 Jan 2013 #37
"Heitkamp, who has an A-rating from the NRA" = Buy more guns, we want your money! arcane1 Jan 2013 #3
False characterizations belong on Fox News! Coyotl Jan 2013 #5
What false characterization? Tempest Jan 2013 #17
"What false characterization?" How about your suggestion that she is somehow related to your AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #40
The gun industry is dwarfed by pretty much any other industry that you can think of. Undismayed Jan 2013 #6
I am an employee of the banking industry arcane1 Jan 2013 #9
Coming on the heels of the red-state GOP leadership holding up Northeast/Sandy aid... mike dub Jan 2013 #4
"just blame the country's failing mental health system". -- Just check out Michael Moore at #1 AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #36
She should switch parties bucolic_frolic Jan 2013 #7
Hello! Have you ever seen her positions! She is a progressive from North Dakota. Coyotl Jan 2013 #10
Progressive? LOFL! Tempest Jan 2013 #18
Compared to her teabag opponent, she IS progressive NickB79 Jan 2013 #45
compared to black, green is white frylock Jan 2013 #50
No, but it's North Dakota. I think for a Dem in that state, that is Jennicut Jan 2013 #33
She's firing her blue dog shot over the bow. ancianita Jan 2013 #55
She's certainly firing her NRA shot across the bow. Cha Jan 2013 #64
Are the NRA supporters in Congress willing to authorize a very large increase in spending on mental JDPriestly Jan 2013 #8
When sixty percent of gun deaths are suicides. Improved access Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #15
Precisely Joe Bacon Jan 2013 #30
The NRA Politicos Use Mental Health Upgrades As A Dodge, Nothing More. Paladin Jan 2013 #32
Oy, and we celebrated her election? frazzled Jan 2013 #11
Like you didn't know this then? Coyotl Jan 2013 #12
Times change, even in North Dakota frazzled Jan 2013 #14
You Bet We Do DallasNE Jan 2013 #16
I understand red state Democrats frazzled Jan 2013 #19
Bob Casey is a very strong economic liberal Joe Bacon Jan 2013 #31
That's My Point DallasNE Jan 2013 #65
The White House proposals aren't that extreme at all. NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #13
Contact info for Heitkamp. CBHagman Jan 2013 #20
For what purpose, exactly? AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #38
Constituents, other voters... CBHagman Jan 2013 #60
I agree with her. And Lieberman is pro-gun control (F from the NRA). David__77 Jan 2013 #21
Why the new law? CT laws already bans the weapon used. KeepinItReal4u Jan 2013 #22
Semi automatic is not "assault". xtraxritical Jan 2013 #24
They've only been around since about 1911. Remmah2 Jan 2013 #61
We need hammer and club control KeepinItReal4u Jan 2013 #23
Of Course Nobody Is Talking About Restrictions On Rifles And Shotguns DallasNE Jan 2013 #42
Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #51
You need to lurk awhile so that you can live up to your moniker. ancianita Jan 2013 #54
You should do a little bit better research before posting "facts" groundloop Jan 2013 #58
Didn't major in math, did you? Zoeisright Jan 2013 #62
This isn't an unusual position for a senator from a rural western state. Blue_In_AK Jan 2013 #25
Sit down, Heidi. The White House will rattle your cage when it wants your input... Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #27
When you run for office and defeat her in an election, then you can tell her, "Sit down, Heidi." AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #39
She is the prime example that Bloomberg should finance heavily an anti-NRA, anti-Gun democratic graham4anything Jan 2013 #28
An anti-NRA, anti-gun Democrat in North Dakota? Seriously? NickB79 Jan 2013 #44
Women nationwide value their kids more than their guns. I would count on them. graham4anything Jan 2013 #46
Women nationwide who have been stalked value their right to defend themselves. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #47
Yet the vast majority of rightwing gun people don't value women at all. Especially regarding graham4anything Jan 2013 #49
i thought we have a representative form of government madrchsod Jan 2013 #29
Why do political positions always have to be constrained by state constituents' interests? Aren't ancianita Jan 2013 #56
agreed..... madrchsod Jan 2013 #66
Might as well aim high when you know you will fail hack89 Jan 2013 #34
WaPo Article She Is Using As Basis For Her Comments DallasNE Jan 2013 #41
And people are surprised by this why exactly? NickB79 Jan 2013 #43
"millions of gun owners vote Democrat as well." They do at this time. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #48
What's 'way in the extreme' is to shrug off the massacre of first graders and do nothing to prevent Dems to Win Jan 2013 #52
Someone from North Dakota is opposed to gun control? REALLY? ButterflyBlood Jan 2013 #53
"way in extreme of what I think... should even be TALKED ABOUT"? maxsolomon Jan 2013 #57
Well..... duh Blasphemer Jan 2013 #59
She sounds like a good little Cha Jan 2013 #63
She's a North Dakotan. what do you expect her to say? Odin2005 Jan 2013 #67
 

Remmah2

(3,291 posts)
2. They have this entire task force working on national gun control?
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:25 PM
Jan 2013

Guess we'll have a gun cabinet in the White House after all.

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
35. If the banksters and the other super-rich want this, we are going to have it.
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:20 AM
Jan 2013

The first AWB was enacted as a result of an unhappy businessman going into a major San Francisco law firm in 1993 and shooting up the place. It was an enclave for the rich and the super-rich.

 

Remmah2

(3,291 posts)
37. Interesting never thought of it that way.
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:24 AM
Jan 2013

The rich bastard 1%ers and corporate royalty will be the only ones with the ability to fortify their buildings.

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
40. "What false characterization?" How about your suggestion that she is somehow related to your
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:48 AM
Jan 2013

statement "Buy more guns, we want your money!"

 

Undismayed

(76 posts)
6. The gun industry is dwarfed by pretty much any other industry that you can think of.
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:41 PM
Jan 2013

The gun industry is about a $12 billion industry. Just as a comparison, the golf industry is a $195 billion industry. Seems like you have a strong anti-industry bias and will quickly latch that onto any problem you encounter.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
9. I am an employee of the banking industry
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:56 PM
Jan 2013

I know exactly what a dwarfed industry looks like: they show up monthly on our charge-off reports, and they ask us for more money.

mike dub

(541 posts)
4. Coming on the heels of the red-state GOP leadership holding up Northeast/Sandy aid...
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:37 PM
Jan 2013

Here we have a new Senator from a state whose entire population is roughly that of the population of the city of Memphis, slamming gun control plans before they're even laid on the table. The A-rating makes sense; she has the NRA deflection thing down ... just blame the country's failing mental health system...or Hollywood, or videogames. Lame.

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
10. Hello! Have you ever seen her positions! She is a progressive from North Dakota.
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:57 PM
Jan 2013

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Where almost every person is a hunter and sane too. Perhaps you want to wait for more details, or do a little homework first, then speak up.

NickB79

(19,224 posts)
45. Compared to her teabag opponent, she IS progressive
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:27 AM
Jan 2013

She's from North Dakota, just how much do you think she could push her campaign left and still stay electable?

Unless you'd rather write off large swaths of this country that a moderate Democrat has a chance of winning, simply to be ideologically pure.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
8. Are the NRA supporters in Congress willing to authorize a very large increase in spending on mental
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:53 PM
Jan 2013

health services without asking for cuts elsewhere?

That's the test. If not, they are not serious about better mental health services.

And I'm not sure that better mental health services will really do much.

That's rather simplistic. We have lots of depressed or even manic people, lots of mentally ill people who would never harm another person, not in their worst moments.

And then you get a sports hero who kills his girlfriend, wife and child.

Better mental health services would help our society but will not prevent gun violence to the extent that it needs to be prevented.

It's a bit of a red herring. Sorry to be a spoilsport, but Republicans won't fund this. They won't follow through on it. And better mental health services will miss the psychopaths some of whom are very good at pulling the wool over the eyes of psychologists, social workers and psychotherapists.

Mojorabbit

(16,020 posts)
15. When sixty percent of gun deaths are suicides. Improved access
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:28 AM
Jan 2013

to mental health services might make a huge difference.

Joe Bacon

(5,163 posts)
30. Precisely
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:32 AM
Jan 2013

Here in California, we had an explosion of homeless after Reagan, Deukmejian and Wilson closed the state mental hospitals. And all of them, including Ah-Nold kept cutting mental health services in the state budget. Result--increased crime which led to prisons absorbing some of those who were kicked out of the state hospitals.

Paladin

(28,243 posts)
32. The NRA Politicos Use Mental Health Upgrades As A Dodge, Nothing More.
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:44 AM
Jan 2013

They're OK with guns falling into the wrong hands, and they're OK with withholding the enormous funding it will take to bring the nation's mental health care system up to an effective access level.
 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
12. Like you didn't know this then?
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:13 AM
Jan 2013

Anyone who knows her, North Dakota, and its people and history would have known this. This is no surprise. Go all the way back to Quinten Burdick, and you will see the record. Sen. Burdick never supported gun control for obvious reasons, that would end a political career in North Dakota.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
14. Times change, even in North Dakota
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:23 AM
Jan 2013

Just today in the New York Times there's an article about a Korean woman who's bought and brought back to life the local cafe in Minot. My best friend was born and bred in Minot. She is very much for an assault weapons ban and other gun control measures.

People change their minds, too. Gabby Gifford used to be an NRA supporter, too. you can bet that's changed.

DallasNE

(7,402 posts)
16. You Bet We Do
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:31 AM
Jan 2013

Her opponent was a tea bagger. I suppose you don't like Sen. Casey (D-PA) just because he is pro-life. Democrats are a bigger tent than that.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
19. I understand red state Democrats
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:37 AM
Jan 2013

I'm just disappointed. Especially because we are in the moment where it is very easy to support basic gun legislation. Other new Dem senators with previous NRA ties are doing it.

And to call these proposed measures "extreme" is ... well ... extreme.

Joe Bacon

(5,163 posts)
31. Bob Casey is a very strong economic liberal
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:34 AM
Jan 2013

He's going to chair the Joint Economic Committee. I'd rather have Bob Casey as a Senator who crushed Rich Santorum than see Sicky Ricky in his fourth term.

DallasNE

(7,402 posts)
65. That's My Point
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:53 PM
Jan 2013

While I don't agree with Casey on the abortion issue I am just fine with him as a Senator because I agree with him on much more than I disagree with him on. A different issue but the same applies to the new Democratic Senator from North Dakota.

NutmegYankee

(16,199 posts)
13. The White House proposals aren't that extreme at all.
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:13 AM
Jan 2013

I mean shit, closing the gun show/private sale background check loophole is an obvious improvement. It's already the law here in CT.

CBHagman

(16,981 posts)
60. Constituents, other voters...
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:29 PM
Jan 2013

...people who helped get her elected via one form of support or another will want to weigh in.

Moreover, she's newly elected, so the information itself is a recent development.

David__77

(23,329 posts)
21. I agree with her. And Lieberman is pro-gun control (F from the NRA).
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:52 AM
Jan 2013

This new senator from ND is a progressive.

 

KeepinItReal4u

(4 posts)
22. Why the new law? CT laws already bans the weapon used.
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:17 AM
Jan 2013

Assault weapons are illegal in CT. but this horrific event still took place

"Sec. 53-202b. Sale or transfer of assault weapon prohibited. Class C felony. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, distributes, transports or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives any assault weapon, except as provided by sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class C felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which two years may not be suspended or reduced."

source : http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202a.htm

CT. has some of the nations strictest laws and not one of them prevented the mentally ill person from committing the crime

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/17/connecticut-gun-laws-among-the-nations-strictest/

 

Remmah2

(3,291 posts)
61. They've only been around since about 1911.
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:48 PM
Jan 2013

102 years? Semi-automatics were used for hunting long before WWII.

(Hatcher's Notes.)

 

KeepinItReal4u

(4 posts)
23. We need hammer and club control
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:19 AM
Jan 2013

FBI reports more people killed with hammers and clubs than rifles and shotguns.

Lets focus on controlling hammers and clubs since they kill more

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

DallasNE

(7,402 posts)
42. Of Course Nobody Is Talking About Restrictions On Rifles And Shotguns
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:00 AM
Jan 2013

So what is your point or do you have one?

Response to KeepinItReal4u (Reply #23)

groundloop

(11,513 posts)
58. You should do a little bit better research before posting "facts"
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:02 PM
Jan 2013

As should the reporter who wrote the piece you linked to. There were 679 deaths from shotguns and rifles, 6220 by handguns, and only 496 from "blunt objects". Also, since when are "blunt objects" the same as hammers and clubs?

Take your bullshit nit-picking of facts somewhere else.


Zoeisright

(8,339 posts)
62. Didn't major in math, did you?
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:54 PM
Jan 2013

Let's not forget handguns, the most precious of Precious of gun humpers, which killed almost 7,000 people.

God, what a STUPID post.

Blue_In_AK

(46,436 posts)
25. This isn't an unusual position for a senator from a rural western state.
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:27 AM
Jan 2013

I'm sure Mark Begich is totally in agreement with her.

 

Comrade_McKenzie

(2,526 posts)
27. Sit down, Heidi. The White House will rattle your cage when it wants your input...
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:23 AM
Jan 2013

And that goes for every gun nut in this party.

We might be a big tent, but it's time to install idiot detectors at the entrances and make the exit signs bigger and brighter.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
28. She is the prime example that Bloomberg should finance heavily an anti-NRA, anti-Gun democratic
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:38 AM
Jan 2013

and primary her out next time.

that is why change is going to take 6 years, til everyone is running again, and we can get all the pro-gun people out.

first we have to win the house back, but then primary all of the pro-gun people out
and do so with all the pro-gun in the senate

hope mike bloomberg's staff is keeping tally and notes on this.

NickB79

(19,224 posts)
44. An anti-NRA, anti-gun Democrat in North Dakota? Seriously?
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:23 AM
Jan 2013

Fuck, short of literally buying votes, how do you expect Bloomberg's money to make a bit of difference there?

Do people simply not realize there are large portions of this country that are strongly against gun control, no matter how much money you spend on election advertisements and radio ads?

that is why change is going to take 6 years, til everyone is running again, and we can get all the pro-gun people out.

first we have to win the house back, but then primary all of the pro-gun people out
and do so with all the pro-gun in the senate


And I'm sure all 80 million gun owners in this country will just sit back and ignore this while it's happening, right? They won't start sending millions of dollars in new contributions to the NRA? All those working-class union members in Ohio that enjoy hunting and shooting, for example, that the Democratic Party relies on, will be just fine with all this?

If I had to make a bet, I'd say that we'll probably have MORE pro-gun members in the House and Senate 6 years from now, because this is starting to look more and more like the 1994 fiasco.
 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
46. Women nationwide value their kids more than their guns. I would count on them.
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:30 AM
Jan 2013

1994 didn't have social media and didn't have Bloomberg, the Great Equalizer.

candidates in 2014 won't be afraid of the NRA anymore

and we don't need 100%.

Just about a movement of less than 50.

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
47. Women nationwide who have been stalked value their right to defend themselves.
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:59 AM
Jan 2013

Some women who have been violently raped now own firearms in their homes.

Imagine that. Who would have thought?

All you have to do is convince them that "it's all the NRA's fault," they should willingly give up their right to defend themselves in their homes, and/or stay home during the next elections.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
49. Yet the vast majority of rightwing gun people don't value women at all. Especially regarding
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:03 PM
Jan 2013

a woman's rights to an abortion.

Funny thing is

the NRA really is a terrorist organization, and cowards too.
Hiding behind a women, when there million other excuses have now all been debunked.

but again-
even if what you said made any sense(which it doesn't)-
why would someone need to have a gun in the street?

Keep the stinking gun in the house, but why in the street?
Why in a bar, a movie theatre, a shopping center?

You yourself just said all that is needed is for the house.

ah
well
oh
ah
well
yeah
but
no
yeah
oh

what
no

start discussion over trying to make like the question passed.

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
29. i thought we have a representative form of government
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:25 AM
Jan 2013

i thought people had the right to vote for someone who would represent them at the local,state,and federal level. if so, i would say she is representing the people who elected her because they expect her to represent them on many issues concerning their lives.

it would seem that her idea has more weight in solving the problem in north dakota and across america than pissing off the people who voted for her.maybe we don`t need her vote on national issues.

ancianita

(35,932 posts)
56. Why do political positions always have to be constrained by state constituents' interests? Aren't
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:19 PM
Jan 2013

their interests connectable to those of the rest of the country? Aren't her votes supposed to enact the greatest good for the greatest number? Her state's people can still get their interests served under 'states' rights' positions without pressuring her to impose their values on 49 other states. If a red state Democrat's tenure is that fragile, and job scope that narrowly defined, then the party should push in those states for the country's larger interests.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
34. Might as well aim high when you know you will fail
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:01 AM
Jan 2013

I suspect they are engineering a way to blame the repukes for the failure of reasonable gun control. Politics as usual.

NickB79

(19,224 posts)
43. And people are surprised by this why exactly?
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:16 AM
Jan 2013

She's a Democrat from North Dakota, one of the most conservative states in the nation. She represents her constituents first and foremost; without their support she won't get re-elected. And her Democratic and moderate Republican constituents that voted into office are saying "NO" to most new gun control laws.

This pushback will be repeated by other Democrats from Midwestern, Southern, and Southwestern states with high rates of gun ownership, make no mistake. Gun ownership is not solely a Republican domain; millions of gun owners vote Democrat as well.

 

Dems to Win

(2,161 posts)
52. What's 'way in the extreme' is to shrug off the massacre of first graders and do nothing to prevent
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:31 PM
Jan 2013

further slaughter.

A. Lanza had access to the best health care money could buy. Mentally disturbed people have always been with us, and will be in the future.

Only in America can the mentally ill get their hands on arsenals of lethal weapons and hundreds of bullets -- in their own basements, no less. Only in America do we have routine, recurrent gun massacres.

As long as Americans have the constitutional right to have arsenals of mass death in their basements, the gun massacres will continue.

No civilized country tolerates routine gun massacres. All Americans who love our country should want America to end the slaughter and join the ranks of civilized countries.

Repeal the blood soaked Second Amendment Now. Then implement REAL, effective gun reform and End the Gun Massacres.

ButterflyBlood

(12,644 posts)
53. Someone from North Dakota is opposed to gun control? REALLY?
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:35 PM
Jan 2013

Sheesh next thing we might learn that lawmakers from Maine tend to support policies that benefit the lobster fishing industry.

maxsolomon

(33,244 posts)
57. "way in extreme of what I think... should even be TALKED ABOUT"?
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:52 PM
Jan 2013

Good to know there will be an open debate.

Blasphemer

(3,261 posts)
59. Well..... duh
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:17 PM
Jan 2013

The white house has to begin with the most extreme proposal possible knowing full well that it won't pass and it will have to be negotiated down to something that can pass. There's no reason to start with a weak proposal.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Heidi Heitkamp: Reported ...