Assault Weapons Ban Lacks Democratic Votes to Pass Senate
Source: Bloomberg
A proposed ban on sales of assault weapons would be defeated in the U.S. Senate today unless some members changed their current views, based on a Bloomberg review of recent lawmaker statements and interviews.
At least six of the 55 senators who caucus with Democrats have recently expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a simple 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote.
A ban on the military-style weapons is among the legislative goals President Barack Obama outlined in his recommendations to Congress on curbing gun violence. Yesterday, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced legislation to outlaw such sales during a news conference where survivors of past shootings, some of them with bullets still lodged in their bodies, urged its passage.
At that event, Feinstein said it’s unclear whether the fight is winnable. “We don’t know, it’s so uphill,” she said. “It depends on the courage of Americans.”
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html
This was totally foreseeable:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021981532
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Turbineguy
(37,329 posts)to kill more Americans.
hack89
(39,171 posts)there are many from pro-gun conservative states. Asking them to commit political suicide and turn the Senate over to the repukes is not reasonable.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Handing the Senate to the GOP just to pass what amounts to a fluff measure is mind-numbingly stupid.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It's not mind-numbingly stupid. It just plays right into the narrative that any wide sweeping legislation on anything (healthcare, global warming, guns) won't pass because we have one too many Democratic cowards in the U.S. Senate. They'd rather play it safe than risk anything to advance a legitimate cause. So, in response, we're left with watered down legislation ... and even that's a bitch to pass because senators cower to the lobbyists.
So, what's the point of keeping the Senate when we don't do anything with it? I mean, we're basically advocating that the only function of the legislative branch is to keep each chamber in check. The Senate checks the House and the House checks the Senate. The Senate can't get anything done because the House is too extreme and the House can't get anything done because the Senate is too tepid.
Why even have a legislative branch? They're all worthless.
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It just shows that nothing can get done. Even a watered down AWB is going to go nowhere. If they proposed something dramatic - actually making them illegal to own - that would go nowhere, either, because the Senate is too scared to pick up anything that might lose 'em their jobs.
So, I continue ... why even have a legislative branch when they do nothing?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)But I think it's still valid to argue that risking control of the Senate (largely useless though it mayu be) is best done over something that actually matters...like filibuster reform.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)We're always too worried about losing control and it leads to this type of mindset. We intentionally water down legislation so that it's tolerable enough to actually pass and then it's not worth fighting for anymore.
I think gun control is worth the risk. But you're right, half-assed legislation will get us nowhere. Unfortunately, expansive legislation is a non-starter, so, that means we're not addressing the real issue and the status quo once again wins.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)fuck you to their face.
pscot
(21,024 posts)You need to listen to yourselves. You have an alibi for any and all Democratic dickishness. There's always a reason it can't get done now, but boy, howdy, there will be jam tomorrow.
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)Notice how we NEVER manage to win a hand - even when we're holding all the cards.
markpkessinger
(8,396 posts)
earthside
(6,960 posts)... with the help of Feinstein.
Why should any Senators up for reelection next year go out on a limb for her bill when because of her support against filibuster reform it will never get a vote on the floor anyway?
She's another one that has been there way too long.
LeFleur1
(1,197 posts)If these elected people are so afraid they won't be elected again that they are crippled, they shouldn't be there anyway. What difference does it make if they won't stand up for anything, or the Republicans get in office? The result is the same.
Where along the line did it become more important to get relected than to do the right thing for the people in this country?
They are oh so shocked and sickened by the murders of those in foreign lands, but here at home twenty children and their teachers are murdered and they just don't give a rip because they might not get back in office if they vote to save people/children from being shot in the head in large groups right here at home. How the parents of these children must be suffering, watching this stinkin debacle in our congress.
If this ban on automatic weapons doesn't pass, gun show loopholes aren't closed, background checks, and gun licensing are not implemented by this congress those in Congress who didn't have the guts to stand up for the children in this country should be shamed into resigning. The problem is they probably have no shame.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)accept the end of their political careers, and get a real job.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if their constituents don't want your brand of gun control then they are under no obligation to support it.
Besides - explain to me.how a Republican dominated Senate will make things any better.
Your side doesn't have the support to get all you want. Be smart about it and get what you can get.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)and get their way by threats and bullying.
hack89
(39,171 posts)who, like me, support many of the President's proposals but not all.
We get our way by voting for politicians that reflect our views.
You don't have the support you think you do - if you did we would not be having this conversation. Votes are all politicians care about. Not threats, not polls - just votes. You don't have the votes.
nick of time
(651 posts)in the Senate and the certain failure of passing an AWB in the House.
I too, support most of the President's proposals, but not all of them.
Cha
(297,220 posts)was used to massacre the poor kids and their protectors in Newtown, Connecticut?!
Assholes.. have they no freaking decency.
nick of time
(651 posts)The AR-15 is the perfect platform and caliber for what I use it for, it's light, easy to handle, minimal recoil, dependable.
Other than shooting predators, it stays in my gun safe and never leaves my farm.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,340 posts)Or, do coyotes hunt alone?
And, if you miss, what would you guess is the number of rounds (Max, Average) that you fire in one string?
Would you be affected if you were limited to a pocketful of ten-round magazines, or seven-round magazines? Or if you miss or wing a coyote, is it vanished before you can get off another shot?
The only thing I've hunted is deer, and in MI, if you shoot a semi-auto rifle, your magazines cannot hold more than five rounds.
nick of time
(651 posts)and only once have I had to use 2 rounds to put one down.
The only mag I have for it is a 10 mag, that's all I need and want. It's a farm only rifle, never leaves the property.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's just some doubt that we can do much about the hundred million or so extended ones that are already out there.
Response to nick of time (Reply #8)
Post removed
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that has been a focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.
All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.
"It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)not an assault rifle and not an assault weapon under Connecticut law. Still it was a horrifying event and we need to work on how to fix the problem. A new AWB will not.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Why would I?
But I don't care if other people carry guns either, none of my business.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)nick of time
(651 posts)but like I said, none of my business.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)sensitive House and Senate seats...D seats threatened, R seats that can be challenged. 2014 is even more crucial than 2010 when the Rs brought out the mid-term TP voters. That's how we inform and dictate our will.
SIBIndi
(11 posts)Congress doesn't give a crap about anything but their own skin...time to implement term limits to
allow people to vote with common sense. There is no blame to be passed on this one.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)their forth coming corporate or lobbyist job. ... in the revolving door between corporate America and congress.
Lesmoderesstupides
(156 posts)yes to ID and vote out the asshats who are against this even if they have a (D) after thier name.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)nick of time
(651 posts)Forget about social justice, social equality, gay rights, single payer, election reform, just to name a few.
Even if it did pass the Senate, the repukes would never allow it to the floor of the House for a vote.
Lesmoderesstupides
(156 posts)social justice, social equality, gay rights, single payer, election reform, just to name a few too and yes they have a (D) after thier name and they need to be voted out of office.
nick of time
(651 posts)The Dems in the Senate that are against the AWB, are not against those other issues.
Lesmoderesstupides
(156 posts)to single payer.
Blue Dogs, Moderates, Centrists, 3rdWay = GOP in my book.
They are 100% USELESS and need to be voted out of office.
The best they do is water down good legislation.
nick of time
(651 posts)What a concept, listening to what the people you represent want!
If those Dems. constituents don't want an AWB, why should they vote for it?
frylock
(34,825 posts)when they all voted for IWR.
Besides, any chance of getting an AWB through the Senate went out the door yesterday when Reid caved on filibuster reform.
frylock
(34,825 posts)and I agree that AWB was going nowhere fast, but the voting what their constituents want is a BS excuse as the country was overwhelmingly against starting a war in Iraq, yet they voted for IWR anyway.
nick of time
(651 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That technique is old hat, they can all go home and talk about the progressive bills they voted for that just didn't quite make it through the legislative process.
It would be stupid for certain Democrats take all the blame when it can be apportioned out according to who it's going to hurt the least with each bill.
forthemiddle
(1,379 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)fuckers. The sleaze-balls need to be called out, these DINOs who would
not support even an assault weapon ban.
nick of time
(651 posts)All Feinstein's bill does is ban certain cosmetics, all the gun companies would have to do is change or remove certain cosmetics and rename the firearm and, volla, it becomes legal to sell and own.
Her bill is nothing more than a feel good do nothing bill.
If it were a true AWB, then it might be worth the risk of the loss of the congress, but her bill is not.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Kiss your Kindergartner killers goodbye.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)To be honest I have my doubts that a outright ban would manage to survive not being ruled unconstitutional, now what might work is requiring gun owners to pay a federal "tax" every time they purchase a weapon and use their proper ID also require someone who sells a gun to pay a "tax" on it and report it as sold and who to.
nick of time
(651 posts)Would be worth looking at.
samsingh
(17,598 posts)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)A few months ago we weren't even talking about it.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)rinse and repeat ad nauseum. I am so sick of this do nothing Congress, many Dems included
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)Find a nice social democracy somewhere with more healthcare than weapons, a sane military budget, and an environment that will withstand global climate change.
how hard can that be?
Lesmoderesstupides
(156 posts)too, The Nordic Counties would be the best choice now IMHO.
I am starting to feel like I did during the reagan, bush, bush years, ashamed to be an American.
The sad part is I am a vet too, so is the wife and she feels the same way.
Paladin
(28,257 posts)So perhaps it really is true what our resident gun obsessives have been saying all along---all they have to do is sit around and wait for a while, endure a few days of overheated rhetoric, and then things slip back to normal, Republicans and their chickenshit Democratic cohorts get back in the driving seat, and nothing whatsoever gets done about the gun problem in this country. Ted Nugent triumphs over Gabby Giffords. Assault-rifle wielding psychopaths continue to prey upon the innocent at our schools, our shopping malls, our office buildings. Who knows---maybe we get to live through another history-altering political assassination. Eventually, it will all be too much, and some effective action will be taken. Failure to implement some measures at this point just means we're asking for what happens in the interim.
hp6
(7 posts)Why is the push always for just gun control when there are no mental health services available? If we invested in a system and changed the laws that provided help to the mentally ill and identified them so they could be placed in the national instant check system we would all be better off. They should also be provided with help regardless of income.
The shooter in CO said enough to his psychiatrist that she contacted the university for help to deal with this nut job. But, when he dropped out of school she just dropped the issue instead of calling the police.
The VT shooter should have been judged mentally adjunt during his trial before the shootings and prohibited from owning firearms.
The shooter in AZ was known to his parents as being crazy. So, when their son bought a gun they called the police only to be told there was nothing they could do unless he committed a crime. Being crazy with a gun is not currently a crime.
Parents need help with their mentally ill children (even if the are not dangerous), and (in the case of the CT shooter) recognize that they can't always control their kids.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)for the treatment of people who are actually mentally ill.
There are a great many people who meet critera at some point in their lives for diagnosis as being mentally ill.
Almost none of them are in any way violent, and many mental illnesses and emotional disorders actually radically reduce any tendency toward aggressive behavior.
Paranoid schizophrenics should probably not have access to firearms. They deal with a high risk of suicide to begin with, and firearms increase that risk considerably. There aren't many paranoid schizophrenics and most lack the real-world planning skills to conduct a mass shooting.
Severe manic depressives deal with high suicide risk in their depressive state and some may have potential to harm others in severe manic states. Not such good candidates for access to firearms. There aren't many severe manic depressives, and their planning skills are severely impaired while in manic states.
People with sociopathic tendencies, which means they tend to have little capacity for sympathy for other human beings emotional states, probably shouldn't have access to firearms. Unfortunately, sociopaths are highly successful in our society, and many CEOs of major corporations exhibit sociopathic characteristics. It's usually sociopaths who have minimal capacity for compassion and a high level of focus on 'wrongs' being done to them that engage in mass shootings. They're not 'mentally ill' - they just have relatively uncommon set of traits (but not nearly as uncommon as, say, truly chronically mentally ill people such as schizophrenics or severe manic depressives) that result in the potential for engaging in extremely violent acts against large groups of people. Sociopaths don't see anything wrong with themselves and are very unlikely to be identified as 'mentally ill' by those who know them.
What would a national 'database' (which would force mental health workers to violate their oaths regarding confidentiality) do, except re-stigmatize conditions that rarely result in violence and keep people who may recognize a need for treatment away from it? Its the access to the guns that make it easy for the wrong sociopath to engage in episodes of mass violence, and for some reason a national database of gun owners and ammunition purchases is furiously resisted by many of the same people who call for some nonsense database of the mentally ill?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Anyone who has been deemed incompetent by a judge or committed to mental hospital involuntarily is SUPPOSED to be entered into the NICS system and prevented from buying a firearm.
I think putting something in place were a TEMPORARY hold is placed in NICS pending further medical review would be a good idea.
Perhaps a 30 or 60 day hold that automatically sunsets when the time expires, unless a judge authorizes an extension, with very strong provisions for review and strong penalties to prevent the process from being abused, along with immunity from lawsuits if the diagnosis was made in good faith and determined to be a reasonable presumption by a review board of judges and medical professionals.
The Virginia Tech shooter should have been flagged in NICS and prevented from buying a gun.
There were enough warning signs for the AZ & CO shooters that a temporary hold probably would have prevented those shooting.
I will be surprised, that when the final report comes out on the CT shooter, if we don't find out that there were warning signs that could have enabled a hold to be placed on him as well.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)different than being mentally ill. That kind of thing only happens in extreme cases, and yes, major firearms restrictions make total sense in such cases.
The question is one of being judicially determined to be a substantial threat to oneself or others. I would call that a threat to public health, not simply one of mental illness. The difference is immense, and just calling it 'mental illness' waters the issue down to a simple phrase that makes it easy for people to agree on an idea that doesn't have a genuine basis in reality.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I do think there needs to be an intermediate step before "deemed incompetent or committed to a mental hospital involuntarily" for those that may be a danger to themselves or the public, hence my proposal for a TEMPORARY hold is placed in NICS pending further medical review, a 30 or 60 day hold that automatically sunsets when the time expires, unless a judge authorizes an extension, with very strong provisions for review and strong penalties to prevent the process from being abused, along with immunity from lawsuits if the diagnosis was made in good faith and determined to be a reasonable presumption by a review board of judges and medical professionals.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)But first, the concept that mental health professionals (very few of them are doctors), should report people they conclude might be, for a period of time, a danger to themselves or others, to any kind of authority maintaining a central national or state database, is hopelessly flawed. Currently, ethics rules normally allow a practitioner to voluntarily notify law enforcement or other parties (it's usually an emergency contact first, if the person provided one, which is often required by the practitioner) under such circumstances. The matter seldom escalates beyond the notification of the emergency contact, but sometimes there will be police involvement, leading to likely police reports, and, if the situation is really a mess, emergency involuntary commitment, perhaps an arrest, and/or charges and prosecution.
The thing is, mental health practitioners generally consider themselves professionals, and most are also in private practice in one way or another, making them businesspeople as well. The entire point of confidentiality, a critical cornerstone of all medical and (especially) mental health practice, is enabling the parties to trust practitioners with information they would not wish to become public, so that the practitioners may have access to potentially intimate information necessary for them to do their jobs. A 'national database notice' would have to be on the first paperwork filled out by anyone seeking medical or mental health services, ensuring that vast numbers of people would simply turn away immediately from mental health practitioners. Most who seek mental health services are very sensitive about sharing with anyone, including the mental health practitioner, information about why they are seeking mental health services to begin with. The idea that they might end up in a 'national database of loonies' would guarantee that many if not most would simply turn away rather than trust that the particular practitioner's judgment of what constitutes a genuine 'risk to themselves or others.' The bottom line is, the whole thing wouldn't work - not with any permutation or adjustment or safeguards that might be devised. The delivery of mental health services in the country would collapse, and the very people who should be seeking help to prevent mental health-related violence never would.
Now - what I was trying to say in my previous post is this:
Almost everyone can agree with a simple statement such as this: Mentally ill people should not have easy access to guns.
The statement is simple - but actually keeping guns out of the hands of 'mentally ill' people is virtually impossible, so long as guns are readily and easily acquired throughout society in general.
The experience of agreeing to such a statement provides many people with a sense that they, in some way, are contributing to a solution to the problems of gun violence. After all, if enough people are discussing the issue, doesn't that mean that something will probably get done about it? Obviously, to massacre a whole bunch of people, especially children, you've got to be mentally ill, right? (Would the person have actually met any criterion for a proper diagnosis of a particular mental health disorder? - well, let's not get bogged down in that sort of stuff - they were obviously nuts - the after the fact reality of the situation proves it.)
So... Gun violence is pretty bad in our society, and the really bad stuff is obviously done by people who are mentally ill, right. So if we just keep guns away from mentally ill people, the really bad stuff won't happen. Problem solved - no more need to deal with stuff we can't agree on, such as the legal proliferation of semi- or full- automatic weapons with extremely high-capacity magazines that can turn a single person into a death machine.
So - the bottom line of my argument is simple - it's easy to get distracted from a difficult question by the promise of an easy answer. Hell, it's American politics 101 - we don't talk about real resolutions to problems, which might be inconvenient to the wealthy interests that really run the show, or to people in general (if global warming is really a serious problem, then we should do something about it! Huh? What do you mean that I should take a bus across town instead of just getting in my car? Who are you to tell me what should and shouldn't do? It's my car and I'm going to drive it - in fact, I'll drive it even more because you told me I shouldn't!) Instead we just have a bunch of people yelling at each other about how the problem is really the fault of this or that party on the 'other side.' Real solutions to issues such as gun violence are messy and difficult (reducing gun violence simply boils down to having way fewer guns around, meaning effective prohibitions on sales/purchases of lots of guns, which is a very, very messy matter indeed).
Hope that clarifies what I meant 
.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I share you concern about those seeking help may no longer choose to seek help if they feel they will end up on a list somewhere. I would object to any permanent list. .
Gun violence has been trending down for 20 years now, those are FBI & DOJ statistics
"Guns are readily and easily acquired throughout society in general" I don't think it is quite as simple as you make it out to be.
"the really bad stuff is obviously done by people who are mentally ill", I suppose that depends on how you define "really bad stuff", I'm not sure I am going to agree though. There are criminals who commit crime for financial gain. The FT Hood murderer committed his crime for political/religious reasons and would be considered perfectly sane by some in the Middle East or among the very militant Islamic believers.
I will say that most, if not all, mass shootings are committed by those mentally ill, but despite the horrifying aspect of a mass shooting, they represent a small number of the murders committed in the United States.
I think the real solutions to reducing gun violence is enforcing existing laws and addressing the social and economic issues that cause the majority of gun violence. If you look at a map of gun violence, you will find it in and around the major urban centers.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)in today's society. There is no practical means to ensure that:
1) Data backups won't remain available practically indefinitely.
2) People who have authorized access to the database don't abuse that access.
3) People who do not have authorized access to the database acquire access.
4) Laws would not change and a database previously designated as temporary retroactively could become permanent.
The statements I made such as 'the really bad stuff is obviously done by people who are mentally ill' were intended as my representation of what I consider to be common, everyday reasoning of most people faced with the news of mass shooting events, not necessarily my own personal view.
I agree with some of your points. Yes, the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are caused by persons with substantial mental health issues.
However, firearms are vastly easier to come by in our country than in virtually all others with similar socioeconomic characteristics. I exclude from this group countries such as Venezuela, Iraq (post-invasion), Brazil, Somalia, Sudan, etc... Seriously, just show up at a gun show and if you have the cash, you get the gun. No questions asked.
As to addressing social and economic issues - I'm all for it. I'm all for a vastly more equitable society with much less severe income equality, no racism, no demographic environments where financial opportunity is much more accessible through criminal enterprise than legal, legitimate trades or simple labor. I'd love to see people magically transformed into non-jealous, possessive, occasional nut jobs where intimate relations are concerned, so that there would be no domestic violence (although the unintended result might render the species nearly incapable of procreation).
The thing is, regardless of how equitable a society is, in all such respects, people will still get into fights. I was a divorce lawyer for two years - it was all I could take... When people get into squabbles, feuds, and fights, and there are guns around, violence that may erupt from such circumstances tends toward gun violence. The simple fact is that guns in a home vastly increase the probability that a member of the household will, through accident or intention, be injured or killed by firearm.
We human beings are easily swayed by power or the promise of power. It's part of what we are. Merely holding a gun provides most with a considerable sense of increased power. The gun itself modifies human perspective on power, and possession tends toward use. Gun violence has gone down slightly in most regions in the United States, but that won't always be the case - not with the vast numbers of guns in circulation and the kind of political and economic fluctuations we will face in the future.
If you want to reliably reduce gun violence, you must reduce the number of guns available to generate that violence. Anything else is just papering over the cracks.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)to 1-4, you are probably right, although there should be a way to make it work.
People have been getting into fights and killing each other for thousands of years before gun powder was even invented. Until we evolve past that, nothing will change.
If you want to reduce gun violence, make the penalty for using a gun in a crime so stiff, that a criminal will no longer risk it. Don't penalize 80+ million gun owners for the actions of a very small percentage of the population.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)is utterly wrong. So... we should therefore let people drink and drive so long as they don't harm anyone's person or property while impaired, right? All the people who can drive effectively at or past alcohol limits would prove it by not getting into accidents. For that matter, speed limits should only be for people who have been in accidents while speeding.
Then you punish the ones who do have accidents while impaired or speeding by revoking their driving privileges for life.
Makes sense - after all, driving a car is an inherently dangerous activity. The moment you start driving a car, your probability of violent injury or death (or causing someone else's violent injury or death) increases dramatically from the level it was at when you were not driving the car. However, lots of people can handle their liquor much better than others, and many can handle a car far better at higher speeds than others. Why should they be 'punished' by a legal limitation on their behavior, just like the car criminals who've run over kids while drunk or lost control of their cars at 90 mph and caused a high-speed collision. That's wrong, isn't it?
How many people, would you think, would buy that logic?
Hm... the moment you pick up a gun, loaded or not ('cuz an unloaded firearm sometimes really isn't), your probability of violent injury or death, or of causing someone else's violent injury or death increases dramatically, compared to when you were not holding a gun...
Sorry, but there are many, many more direct parallels, and there's no logic that changes the outcome. A limitation on all persons' behavior concerning inherently dangerous activities is justified by the simple reality that it's inherently dangerous. You can't predict exactly who will or will not be unsafe enough to engage in the behavior by the the simple fact that they haven't shown themselves to be yet.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)in theory we punish the ones that do when they are caught, although perhaps not as severely we should. (I routinely hear horror stories from people in MA about people with 7 or 8 or more DUI's getting their licenses back).
You commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail.
And I don't buy into the dramatic increase in the chance of violent injury or death by simply owning or handling a gun. The FBI & DOJ crime statistics don't support that theory and neither does my own personal experience.
To use your analogy, it would be like banning cars with fancy rims and spoilers because they "look" fast.
It's amazing how inept our representatives are on both sides.
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)From the article:
"The five Democratic senators from traditionally pro-gun states who have recently expressed skepticism about the bill are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who is caucusing with Democrats, also said he opposes a ban."
They all need to be primaried.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)These states are not likely to elect someone who supports further gun control. So you either get a pro-gun Democrat or a pro-gun Republican. Which would you prefer?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...The false-consensus effect is not necessarily restricted to cases where people believe that their values are shared by the majority. The false-consensus effect is also evidenced when people overestimate the extent of their particular belief is correlated with the belief of others. Thus, fundamentalists do not necessarily believe that the majority of people share their views, but their estimates of the number of people who share their point of view will tend to exceed the actual number.
This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.
Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way. There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the availability heuristic, self-serving bias and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying factors.
About the bolded sentence in the excerpt above- note the reaction from certain people on threads like
this on and these others
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172106236
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172106162
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172105918
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002210317790049X
Lee Ross, David Greene, Pamela House
Stanford University USA
Abstract
Evidence from four studies demonstrates that social observers tend to perceive a “false consensus” with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses. A related bias was shown to exist in the observers' social inferences. Thus, raters estimated particular responses to be relatively common and relatively unrevealing concerning the actors' distinguishing personal dispositions when the responses in question were similar to the raters' own responses; responses differing from those of the rater, by contrast, were perceived to be relatively uncommon and revealing of the actor. These results were obtained both in questionnaire studies presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and choices and in authentic conflict situations. The implications of these findings for our understanding of social perception phenomena and for our analysis of the divergent perceptions of actors and observers are discussed. Finally, cognitive and perceptual mechanisms are proposed which might account for distortions in perceived consensus and for corresponding biases in social inference and attributional processes.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)assault rifles with huge magazines and hunting rifles. Apparently the constituents don't know.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)or perhaps one of these for smaller game.......
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So we have broad support for an assault weapons ban which doesn't even remotely do what the supporters think it does.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Disappointed that Hagan is absent from this list. Will call her on Monday to ask her to oppose the AWB as well. Otherwise, her reelection chances in NC are basically nil.
I expect my Senators (reps, etc. ) to support all of the Constitution.
-app
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I would much rather we risk those seats in favor of something more than a cosmetic ban.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Good.
If the perceived problem is semi-automatic rifles fed from detachable magazines, then banning future sales of only those rifles with protruding pistol grips is not a solution.
The people demanded something be done in response to a situation that really has no solution, and our politicians responded by blustering about "assault weapons". Of course, the rifle used in Newton was not an "assault weapon" by Feinstein's old or Connecticut's current definition, but that fact has been largely buried by the corporate media.
So the response was to expand the federal definition of "assault weapon" to include the rifle used at Newtown because, yanno, it had a protruding pistol grip. Yay, they did something.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Since 7-8 Democrats act like conservatives. First filibuster reform, now the AWB. What's killed next? (no pun intended)
alp227
(32,024 posts)But I expect ANOTHER boooooring, do-nothing session of congress, with an approval rating nearing 5% by year's end. I wonder if Keeping Up with the Kardashians will become more educational than CSPAN live coverage of Congress?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It has nothing to do with Obama and more to do with the fact that we need to get rid of some of the old hat people who have been around for decades.
My two senators from Oregon finally are getting some seniority (19th and 65th).
Blandocyte
(1,231 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Who am I to fight anybody on this?
Enjoy the funerals.
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Start with universal background checks for all sales. I'm much more concerned about who has guns than what those guns look like.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)what's next on a list of things we'll never get?
nick of time
(651 posts)that Dianne Feinstein refused to vote for the talking filibuster thereby pretty much scuttling any chance, however slim, of pushing her AWB through the Senate.
I swear, you just can't make this shit up. 
