Partisan Politics and Gun Violence

[SecularMotion]

Three months after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, the Senate Judiciary Committee has finally produced three major bills that could each make a significant difference in lowering the number and firepower of guns on the street and keeping them out of the wrong hands. But they have a deeply uncertain future as they head to the Senate floor, underscored by the utterly partisan split in the committee votes.

A bill to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines: 10 Democrats voted yes, eight Republicans voted no. A bill to require background checks on buyers in all gun sales, including from private sellers: 10 Democrats voted yes, eight Republicans voted no. A bill to stop illegal trafficking of firearms: 10 Democrats and one Republican voted yes, seven Republicans voted no.

Many Republicans claim to share the national concern over unabated violence, but, as the committee hearings showed, whenever there is an opportunity to do something about it, they find a way to object.

During Thursday’s committee discussion of the assault weapons ban, Senator John Cornyn of Texas tried to get an exception for anyone living along the border with Mexico, or anyone living in a rural area, or victims of sexual assault. These amendments — all of which were rejected — were just for show, since he had no intention of voting for the overall bill even if one had been accepted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/opinion/partisan-politics-and-gun-violence.html?hp&_r=0

[hack89]

1. The opposition is bi-partisan in the Senate as a whole

There are a bunch of Dems from pro-gun conservative states that will not support measures like the AWB - starting with Harry Reid.

It is a kabuki dance - throwing a bone to a vocal Dem constituent group without actually passing laws that will jeopardize Dem reelection chances in 2014.

[SecularMotion]

2. Please stop spewing NRA myths

Passing gun control legislation that has wide public support will not jeopardize Democratic reelection chances in 2014.

[hack89]

3. Except a bunch of Dems won in conservative pro-gun states on pro-gun platforms

Alaska, Montana, Arkansas, South Dakota, New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana . All Democratic incumbents. All Conservative pro-gun states. All up for reelection in 2014.

You really think their constituents will be happy if they changed their minds and supported gun control?

[SecularMotion]

4. Most polls show wide public support for specific gun control legislation

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1147a2GunControl.pdf

[hack89]

5. Politicians only care about those that can actually vote for them

do you think the voters in those states support an AWB?

Read your poll more closely. The no brainer proposals like universal background checks and making illegal gun sales a federal crime get a lot of support. But an AWB only gets 57% support - and that support has fallen since Newtown. And while your poll does not have a state by state break down, it is unlikely that in those conservative states I listed there is popular support for an AWB.

So there is a good chance for some gun control laws to get through Senate but an AWB is dead on arrival. As well as any law that smacks of registration. I give the magazine size limit a 50/50 chance.

[rrneck]

8. Most people don't pay enought attention to the issue to be informed about it.

Those people who are informed about it are more likely to be motivated to harass their legislators about it and consider the issue in the voting booth.

Lots of people will click a link on an online petition or respond favorably to terms like "sensible regulation", but the constituency that matters most is the one who understands the ramifications of the proposed legislation and it's actual workability.

The most motivated and engaged voters are the ones that have invested time and more importantly money in the issue. And those voters will have the most impact on other voters around them to motivate them to vote likewise. So who do you think will have the greatest impact - someone who clicked a link and then went about their day, or someone who has spent thousands of dollars on shooting sports and self defense equipment?

[krispos42]

9. They also show wide public support for angles and unicorns, too.

The universal background check concept is fine. I understand there is a Constitutional issue to be resolved on that (intra-state private sales), but maybe they've figured out a way to accomplish that.

But the assault-weapons ban is just a dumb idea, and not much less imaginary than angles and unicorns. People don't want guns that can be used to slaughter lots of people in a short period of time, but don't realize that that is pretty much ALL guns sold in the US.

They want to strike back at the sort of person that would own a military-styled gun, but that's a culture war, not something concrete. Or useful.

[SecularMotion]

10. I thought you read the NRA memo.

They aren't called "military" or "assault" weapons anymore. They are now known as "sporting" rifles.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117295365

[rrneck]

12. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel

and unthinking partisan loyalty is the path to get there.

[krispos42]

14. That's the stereotype you want to put on me.

An AR-15 optimized for hunting or target shooting can accurately be called a "modern sporting rifle"; an AR-15 optimized for self-defense can accurately be called a "tactical rifle".

[SecularMotion]

15. So it all depends on the cosmetic features?

[Clames]

17. Barrels, bolts, and trigger parts aren't cosmetic.

Not that you would understand that.

[Pullo]

19. And this bill does nothing to regulate firearm parts that actually affect functionality

It's simply poor, ineffective legislation.

[krispos42]

20. Barrel length is not cosmetic, it's functional.

But the rest of it... pretty much. It does not affect the mechanical function at all.

Hunting and target guns tend to have larger scopes with more magnification, and to not have things like backup iron sights or mounting rails for flashlights, but those items are secondary.

The differences between a tactical AR-15, a hunting/target AR-15, and a sniper AR-15 are fairly minor.

[av8r1998]

6. These bills....

1) Do NOT have wide public support.

2) Will be ineffective. They are feel good measures proposed by people who know better but who's agenda is the elimination of RKBA
They are voted for by people who do not know how these objects work.

3) RKBA is NOT a party issue. There are MANY pro-gun Democrats. I also think that the "Fat Middle" of legislators aren't really that interested in the issue, so they vote with party leadership.

[SecularMotion]

7. That's what the NRA keeps telling us

[Clames]

18. Fixed.

That's what reality keeps telling us.

And the DOJ.

[av8r1998]

23. no...

Its a fact.
Hi cap mag ban? Just carry more mags.
Pistol grips, collapsable stocks, barrel shrouds, bayonett lugs, flash hiders and any other "military" feature are cosmetic and do nothing to increase lethality.

Hell I know guys that can run a revolver over strings of 20+ rounds better and faster than I can run a semi auto.

Has it occurred to you that the NRA may be right about some of these things?

[Pullo]

16. However, in the current Senate, the AWB proposal does, in fact, face bipartison opposition

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)

That's not some NRA myth. Whether or not the public backs the idea of an AWB, according to polls, does not change the reality that, in this Senate, a majority of Senators oppose DiFi's AWB. Those opposed include Republicans, some Democrats, and at least one Independent.

This bill will not make it to the House. Stick a fork in it. It's done.

[jimmy the one]

11. Gun registration has widespread support

Some people are so immersed in 2nd Amendment Mythology they actually come to believe the nonsense that wayno & the gun lobbies spew out.

av8trL These bills.... 1) Do NOT have wide public support.

The bills he's talking of: A bill to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines .. A bill to require background checks on buyers in all gun sales, including from private sellers.. A bill to stop illegal trafficking of firearms..

Av8tr claims those bills don't have wide public support. What world have you been living in the past 2 months av8tr? Each of these measures indeed has wide public support, & the latter two have overwhelming public support.
This kind of reasoning is the tail trying to wag the dog. The squeaky wheel. The boy crying wolf. The pain that just won't go away.

av8tr: 2) Will be ineffective. They are feel good measures proposed by people who know better but who's agenda is the elimination of RKBA They are voted for by people who do not know how these objects work.

Such specious nonsense. This is a democracy where, like it or not, the majority has the final sayso (tho it's easy to abuse these days due the 'rightwing' filibuster tactic).
Who are these incessant whiners to tell the silenter majority that just because a small percentage of them take umbrage at a modicum of gun control, THEIR side of the issue should prevail & supercede the majority's?

The current whine & placation attempt by the gunnuts, is that they would support universal background checks as long as no subsequent records kept, since that would lead to 'gun registration', tin soldiers & hitler comin'. And it supposedly infringes on 2ndA, tho militias kept records of members & who owned guns & what kind, & nowt a negative word was heard about infringements, nowt.
The gun lobby wants no records kept, which would weaken any bg check system since it could be more easily skirted & difficult to ensure compliance or prosectution for violations. But THAT, is what the gun lobby actually wants, a weak bg check system which could be easily skirted, & hard to prosecute violations thereof.

1 An August 2012 poll found that 76% of respondents favor requiring gun owners to register their guns with local govt.
2 A January 2011 poll of registered voters found that 66% of respondents favor requiring every gun owner to register his or her firearms as part of a national gun registry.2
3 A poll conducted after the 2008 presidential election found that 68% of voters, including 60% of gun owners, support the registration of guns.
4 A national poll conducted for Mayors Against Illegal Guns in the spring of 2008 found that 70% of Americans favor requiring every gun owner to register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry.
5 An earlier Mayors Against Illegal Guns poll, conducted in January 2007, found that 73% of respondents, including 54% of gun owners, favor a requirement that every gun owner register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry.
6 2008 CNN/OpinRes poll found that 79% of Americans favor requiring guns to be registered.
7 A poll of likely 2004 presidential election voters found 67% of Americans support requiring individual gun owners to register their firearms with the federal govt.
8 A nationwide poll conducted in May 2001 found that 70% of respondents mistakenly believe that a registration system already exists in the US That poll showed 83% of respondents, including 72% of gun owners, favor registration for newly-purchased handguns.
9 Another 2001 poll conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the Univ of Chicago found that 76.9% of Americans desire mandatory registration of handguns. Close to 70% of poll respondents also favor regular re-registering of handguns.
10 A poll of high school students on firearm-related policies found that almost 96% of such students support mandatory registration of guns
http://smartgunlaws.org/polling-on-registration-of-firearms/

So readers, when pro gun QUACKS tell you that these measures haven't widespread public support, tell them to go wag their tails someplace else, cause the silenter majority votes in this country too.

[DonP]

13. What a shock! A gun grabbing organization has a poll showing results that they want!

We've been hearing your long sad song for over two decades now. It's still not in the Top 40.

"The majority of people want more gun control", "The majority demand reguistration", "The majority want these weapons of war off the street", "the majority don't want concealed carry", et. al.

The only problem is "the majority" never seems to come out and actually vote that way. The only poll that the law makers care about, is the one on election day and they care about the which of their constituents actually come out and vote.

With over 200,000 new gun owners in Illinois alone (200,000 new FOID cards since November of 2012), it's not likely they are all going to show up.

[Homerj1]

21. I thought our system of government

protected us from the tyranny of the majority? so you are alright with slavery if the majority is ok with it?

[jimmy the one]

22. R lawmakers don't give a whit of majority opinion

DonP: . What a shock! A gun grabbing organization has a poll showing results that they want!

There were ten separate polls, not just one, a few from cnn & one from uni of chicago. Evidently you didn't click the link & think the polls are all biased; my link shows the pollsters at the bottom.
Feel free to post some of your own polls which show solid support 'against' gun registration, I haven't seen any. I'd sure like to see where they emanate from too.

The only problem is "the majority" never seems to come out and actually vote that way. The only poll that the law makers care about, is the one on election day and they care about the which of their constituents actually come out and vote.

.. rightwing republican lawmakers don't care what popular opinion is, haven't you read the newspapers lately? or the committee votes in secmo's OP? Those 4 guncontrol measures all have solid support & who's blocking all of them? republicans in congress. Republican legislators almost to a man vote party line - pro gun - once they get in regardless of what their state's opinion on guncontrol is. Were you born yesterday?
.. in missouri in 90's, had a referendum on shall issue RTC & nra spent over 5 million dollars & guncontrol well under a million, shall issue failed by 52-48, they voted it DOWN, yet a few years later republican legislatures rammed it thru once they had the legislative votes to do so. Don't preach your nonsense above & expect knowledgeable people to believe you (the vote was not representative either, just that more rabid gunnuts showed up than would normally, inflated their vote 'up' to 48.)

Homerj I thought our system of government protected us from the tyranny of the majority? so you are alright with slavery if the majority is ok with it?

This is another false dilemma, stop with the 'still beat wife' routines, please?
I believe greeks, inventors of democracy, had slavery & majority favored it, & in the 1790's the US constitution condoned slavery - pls advise me of any founding fathers who filibustered/argued against slavery when the constitution was written (perhaps there are some) and how it turned out with that 'tyranny' called the US constitution.

You say our system protected us from the tyranny of the majority? can you cite something on this? perhaps you mean the federal system protecting against tyrannical state or lesser govts. But then state(s) wouldn't really be the majority (review war between the states, 1861-65).
Our system as it was designed was to protect the interests of the minority by having adequate congressional hearings about their concerns, but what the majority decided generally became the law, not what the minority wanted, excepting compromises to protect short shrifting.

[beevul]

24. Ever heard of the bill of rights?

"You say our system protected us from the tyranny of the majority? can you cite something on this?"

The bill of rights stands, as an example of enumerated rights protected against the tyranny of the simple majority.

You left that out when you mentioned our system.

[Eleanors38]

25. Whoo-WEEE! You whiffed Federalism 101 on the first exam.

The RIGHTS (not the "interests&quot of the minority are protected by the CONSTITUTION, not by some jowl-flopping congressional hearing.

Short shift indeed.

[Jenoch]

29. There are only two real reasons

for gun registration...taxation and confiscation.

[jimmy the one]

26. short shrift

beevul: The bill of rights stands, as an example of enumerated rights protected against the tyranny of the simple majority.
Eleanors The RIGHTS (not the "interests&quot of the minority are protected by the CONSTITUTION, not by some jowl-flopping congressional hearing.

A bill of rights is (in our case) both a limitation on congress & also designates individual rights, the latter defines rights which cannot be denied.
But this is a red herring, rules of congress defined that majority votes elected officials or enacted laws.
Homer was conflating proper constitutional legislative voting procedure with a possible denial of rights emantating from 'tyranny', different concepts. You all are conflating it too, now. Within the 'proper voting procedure' a minority was allowed to be heard & compromises reached so as not to be short shrifted, but the majority votes held in the end, as long as the bill of rights guarantees were not violated.

eleanors: Whoo-WEEE!You whiffed Federalism 101 on the first exam. Short shift indeed.

Actually it's short shrift, as I wrote it; you whiffed english 101 on the first exam. Either that or typing, I suspect the former.

[Eleanors38]

27. Oh! He got me. On a typo. But not the substance, as usual.

[hansberrym]

28. What's that -the BOR recognizes individual rights?

You sing a different tune on this side of the divide. Why just yesterday you were claiming the second amendment does not protect an individual right.