Pelosi pledges compromise on assault weapons ban

[Tim01]

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/07/pelosi-pledges-compromise-on-assault-weapons-ban/

April 7, 2009
Pelosi pledges compromise on assault weapons ban
@ 10:29 am by Michael O'Brien

The ball is in Congress's court to craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged Tuesday.

During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners' rights last term.

"We have to find some level of compromise," Pelosi said, citing 53 victims of gun violence nationwide in less than a month. "And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means."

"Yes, it is," the Speaker said when asked if the ball is in Congress's court now that Democrats control the White House. "And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution."

Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines.

The Speaker also expressed displeasure at the attachment of a gun rights provision to legislation that would grant Washington, D.C. a voting member of Congress.

"Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That's a civil rights issue," she said, pledging to find "middle ground" on the issue. "And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don't — I don't think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House."

[anonymous171]

1. There is no compromise. Just forget about the bill and focus on Health Care. nt

[slackmaster]

2. What the fuck good would any of that do?

Criminals and psychos will just ignore any new laws.

The problem isn't weapons. The problem is criminals and psychos.

[Tim01]

3. Well, it would be good at putting the repubs back in charge. Who's side is she on?

[depakid]

4. The problem is proliferation

First steps in dealing with that are to {i}effectively{/i} define what needs to be taken off the open market- halt the sales- and then do buybacks.

[slackmaster]

6. Firearms do not behave like gas molecules

The probability of one being in any particular place at a given time is not proportional to the number that exist.

First steps in dealing with that are to {i}effectively{/i} define what needs to be taken off the open market- halt the sales- and then do buybacks.

The issue of what needs to be taken off the streets was decided and solved in 1934.

[depakid]

14. The issue will be up for review in light of new circumstances

which of course is how it ALWAYS works in public policy. 75 year old solution don't solve modern problems.

[slackmaster]

25. What new circumstances?

Present-day firearms function basically the same way as ones that existed in 1934.

[virginia mountainman]

27. The semi automatic arms have been around for more than 100 years.

[virginia mountainman]

9. Buybacks?!?!

Mine are not for sale......

[depakid]

16. The key is to reduce the prevalance

and thereby reduce the harm. With other public health problems has been though educational campaigns, cultural awareness and though economic incentives.

[Mojorabbit]

20. People are buying firearms at

a furious rate at this time. Why attempt a buyback and a loss of seats in 2010 now?

[depakid]

23. That fear tactic has little basis in historical fact

and I'm buying into that nonsense (propganda) any more today, than I have in past.

It takes time to study and implement programs like the one I describe- and it would an impressive undertaking in the states. That said, every population has its tipping points- where it reaches a critical mass. America's s likely soon to come....

[virginia mountainman]

26. You do realize,...

That HRC's, Holders, and now Pelosi's statement, and beginning to prove them right?

[depakid]

30. There's always a danger of reinforcement and feedback loops

politicians will be under increasing pressure to respond as the violence worsens- which in turn, may worsen the level of violence.

[rl6214]

31. You seem so sure of that

Have you got a date? Dosen't have to be and exact date, maybe a month and a year so I can do some investing in the stock market. Maybe make a few bets with some people over whether it will actually will happen or not. How bout you, care to bet on it?

[depakid]

37. I'm sure because I lived through it- and was in the trenches

Paul Loeb describes much of the dynamic that I saw (he misses out on the recurring Democratic scandals in Congress- which people I talked with on the ground were fed up with- just as happened with the Liberal Party in Canada).

Think about 1994. Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns. This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide. I spent that campaign season traveling to promote a book on campus activism, staying with friends long involved with progressive causes. Everywhere I went, critical races would go to the Republicans by the narrowest of margins. Yet my friends and their friends seemed strangely detached, so disgusted with Democratic politics that they no longer wanted anything to do with it. Surveys found that had voters who stayed home voted, they would have reversed the election outcome. Even a modest volunteer effort might have prevented the Republican sweep.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html

[Mojorabbit]

40. I will say that I personally got

15 votes for Obama from moderates worried about their second amendment rights from both parties. I told them it would be political suicide for the Dems to take this up. I showed them Biden's clip where he talked about guns. Now I am being proven wrong.

[depakid]

41. It's far more important in 2010 to get the base out

which I hope (but somewhat doubt) that the arrogant Dems in Congress or elements of the Obama administration take any more seriously than the Clinton administration and the Dems did in 1992.

The real issue thoug will be whether the economy improved-not whether a small, highly vocal minority is worried about not being able to purchase new assault weapons and such.

[Mojorabbit]

44. Actually I think you are wrong here

A lot of the base cares about the second amendment, as well as independants and Republican moderates.
He will get the base. This will be a deal breaker for a lot of the rest.

[depakid]

45. I guess we have to agree to disagree

Very few really care about the absolutists' takes on guns (or are disgusted by them the loud and very small minority)- but there's FAR greater number of folks on assorted other issues (especially young people) who might quite easily grow disillusioned- not put their boots on the ground or GOTV if they perceive that they're getting Republican lite.

Clinton and the Congressional Dems- and eventually Al Gore learned that the hard way by pandering to the right.

[Mojorabbit]

60. Yes we will

because I believe you are very wrong about this. This is no small minority and gun owning members of both parties have very firm views on this.

[rl6214]

52. It is not a small highly vocal minority

Just look at all of the new gun sales in the past four months. Those arent all purchases by people that already own guns. They are new gun owners who are worried about not being able to get guns n the future.

[depakid]

54. deny and rationalize away

It's a very small, vocal and paranoid subset of people accounting for the sales.

And the VAST majority of such folks aren't voting for Democrats in any case.

[Howzit]

66. "the VAST majority of such folks aren't voting for Democrats in any case"

I corresponded with a respected poster to the DU Environmental/Energy forum that voted for Obama because of his stance on the environment, and yet this person was in a hurry to buy an AK clone before January 2009 in case he could not get one later.

The idea that Democrats are pro environment and anti gun while Republicans are anti environment and pro gun, is BS.

[depakid]

67. Small subset

Wrap your mind that.

[Mojorabbit]

74. An interesting post on DU today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x212885
Gallop poll shows only 29 percent of the population is for increased gun control. That is the small subset.

[depakid]

75. You go on thinking that

The issue will ripen further as senseless violence cotinues- and gun proliferation folks will continue to be marginalizied into an ever smaller subset.

[Mojorabbit]

76. I will as it jives

with my own observations on a much smaller scale. The poll will probably change 5/6 percentage points or perhaps more but 71 percent is a large number and not the small subset you have described.

[depakid]

77. Not that you bothered to read or analyze what the poll said

but hey- that sort of denial or illiteracy is par for the course among this subset.

[Mojorabbit]

78. I did read the gallop article

and there is no need to be rude while discussing this.
Earlier in our conversation I said the Dems will get their base, but the independents and moderate republicans would not be so easy.

From the gallop article
"While Gallup finds broader support among Americans for stricter gun laws than for banning handguns, the demographic patterns in support for each policy are similar. Women are more in favor of each proposal than are men; Democrats are much more supportive than independents and Republicans; and gun non-owners are much more supportive than the 43% of Americans who have a gun in their household or on their property. There are only minor differences in views among residents of the four major regions of the country, as well as by age."

This jives with my experience. Fourty three percent of Americans have a gun in their household. This is not a small vocal subset of people. The caveat would be what the definition of stricter ends up being.

[depakid]

80. Come on now- the bit you cited had to do with blanket "handgun bans"

and the question frame included a second (poorly designed) variable having to do with attitudes toward police and other authorized persons.

This kind of deal is why college professors hold up Gallup polls up as examples of how not to do research.

[Mojorabbit]

82. I may havew threads confused

but I thought you said a public relations program would change attitudes re guns so that less people would want them?

[depakid]

83. Might be someone noticed and said few things

[DonP]

81. Subset? Can you identify any other group with over 4 million obvious members?

Like 'em or hate 'em.

The NRA alone has over 4 million dues paying members, not all GOP either.

Can you think of any other dues paying group that numbers that many people at the grass roots level?

[rl6214]

51. I was around back then also

The reason the assault weapon ban was passed was because nobody thought it could happen. Nobody took any action. Now every gun enthusiast knows it can happen because it happened before. We are mobilized to make sure it dosen't happen again.

[Tim01]

43. The gun issue will be the reason the Republicans regain control of everything.You will help them.

[Howzit]

65. "tipping points"

"Feedback loops"

Why don't you stick to global warming?

The fact that people are buying guns now at an accelerated pace because of anticipated restrictions suggests they won't take kindly to "buy-back" programs - talk about a political tipping point, all the way to the right...

[virginia mountainman]

21. Cultural Awareness is what seems to be lacking here..

You and a few others seem to have a total disregard to the family ties that some arms have.

I own firearms that have been in my family for almost 100 years, I also own my grandfathers Army pistol, that he carried into combat in WWII....

They will continue being in my family....Along with a few that I am adding to the "heirloom" collection.

I don't give a flying fuck what any politician says, or threatens to do.

[depakid]

28. Yep- it;s important in any public health and safety campaign

The first deal through your head is that no one's "grabbing" your guns- though at the same time, you'll also have to accept that the culture's going to change. Bona fide gun collectors are one thing- nations who've put these programs in place recognize that and accomodate. One the other hand, dysfunctional aspects need to be understood and slowly but surely modified.

Here's an example of a billboard that's part of a campaign aimed at stopping young male "hoons" from speeding:



Incidentally, last year's "road toll" was the lowest in many, many years- though it's too early to accurately attribute much to the campaign... we think it's probably made some difference.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. I don't think the DARE/"Just Say No To Guns" approach can work

For one thing, even though there isn't any broad coalition of drug dealers proclaiming drug use as a
civil right, the "nanny" approach has been found to be ineffective.

Think of how the NRA/SAF/GOP will crank up their rather efficient PR machines in response.
For one thing, trying to divide gun owners failed before. Telling someone they can only
have guns if they are "bona fide collectors" is rather classist.

And people will be able to smell the condescension a mile away, as well.

[DonP]

29. Brilliant solution!!!

It's working so well here in Chicago where we've banned all handguns and required annual registry of all long guns.

We have a Take Back the Night march about every two weeks, Mayor Daley laughed at the idea of educating Chicago school children on gun safety and the last two gun "buy backs" collected a pile of rusted junk, no gang guns. The Don't Snitch rule applies.

That why we've had the highest gun murder rate about every other year trading with DC for the "honor".

Let me guess, your plan will stop people from going to other states and buying the cheap 9mm, .38 and .357 revolvers that are used in over 95% of all murders?

Oh, wait they buy or rent them out of the back of a car now. Which laws will fix that problem?

I guess the 22,001st gun law will fix it.

[depakid]

39. That's why any effort needs to be standardized on the federal level

and coordinated and implemented with state and local assistance.

[virginia mountainman]

61. Thats rich...

Around here, the cops are extremely pro gun as well...Including the State Troopers...And the local sheriff.

I know this well, I am related to several.... The Local and State assistance you refer to will not exist

I doubt they will "hand them in too the buyback" neither..



The problem is, for YOU anyway..... Gun Control just is not popular, it is damn un populer... No matter what the polls say, the end result of "gun control" legislation is massive losses for those poor bastards that push it.

[depakid]

68. My guess is that you might want to have a look outside beyond the area

or perhaps, have a read of Joe Bageant. He wrote an interesting book that describes some of what you've expressed.

http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/030733936X

[slackmaster]

34. You haven't presented any evidence that prevalence is correlated with harm

Got data?

[Caliman73]

49. The key is to figure out WHAT is motivating the violence...

and work on reducing those factors. Your statement on education, cultural awareness, and economic incentives are fine. Your focus on objects rather than on behavior motivating factors such as desperation, poverty, isolation, feelings of persecution, and others is where your plan falls short.

[krispos42]

85. I'd love one

I've got a worthless beat-to-shit .22 rifle. I'd love to get $50 or $100 for it... so I could buy a NEW .22 rifle!

:evilgrin:





Ever notice the word "buyback" implies that the guns belong to the government in the first place?



Interesting language right there. Hmmm...

[jmg257]

10. Which ones need to be removed, once they were defined? What would be effective?

How much $$$ should be made available for the govt to buy them?

[depakid]

13. Those are all excellent questions

and should be determined rationally through a study on the issues. A method that might be effective is to set up a commission with experts and stakeholder to hash out the facts and analysis and look to other nations where programs have been successful.

[jmg257]

15. And an excellent answer. Experts instead of a few with great power,

but limited knowlege of the subjects involved.


ps. as typical, DK, your responses are intelligent and civil. Cheers!

[virginia mountainman]

32. Problem is the Experts agree with us...

And the people writing the gun control laws, literally don't even know what they are banning...

See this proof of a buffoon...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

She does not even know what her signature legislation bans....What a dunderhead, by ANY measure.

[rl6214]

35. Barrel shroud

The shoulder thing that goes up.

[depakid]

42. No, they don't

But then, you won't know that unless you read the literature or look at comparisons with other nations.

[rl6214]

17. They would have to have

An awefull lot of money to buy any of my weapons.

Let's see, I've got a hi cap 22 rifle that they can have for $10,000.00

[TheWraith]

59. That has absolutely no usefulness.

The overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with handguns. It's not any one model or some special property belonging to only certain guns.

[hendo]

64. yup, because criminals always follow the law

they would never dream of breaking any laws for thier own selfish gain.

[virginia mountainman]

5. What kind of Compromise??

Are they going to weaken the 1986 machine gun ban??

How about the 1968 Gun Control Act??

How about nationwide CCW???

I REFUSE TO COMPROMISE ON THINGS I ALREADY HAVE..................

Unless she is willing to give us something we don't already have, she can go suck eggs.

[Tim01]

7. I don't think we want nation wide CCW.

If the feds give it to the whole country, they can later take it all away at once.

[virginia mountainman]

8. Yes, I realize that..

I am sick of gun control "compromises", in which we are always expected to give, give, and give ground, and NEVER gain anything in return..

That is not a "compromise"

We need to make them give US, something that we don't have, they forget, the REAL majority in both house is PRO gun.....it is not the other way around.. So "Fuck'em" if they don't want to "compromise".

[Abq_Sarah]

58. The word "compromise" is a problem.

I thought this election was a signal we would no longer compromise on constitutional rights. The congress has no "right" to interfere where they have been prohibited by the constitution and I'm just a little tired of them playing lord and lady up on the hill.

[jmg257]

12. Hmm...they give 50 state CCW based on Vermont's method, I might agree not to buy another AR.

YMMV!

[slackmaster]

71. The word "compromise" is Orwellian when it comes from Nancy Pelosi on this issue

All she wants to do is restrict peoples' choices.

[Pullo]

11. I get the feeling her idea of "middle ground"

would label firearms covered by the '94 ban as Class III, and possibly extend the scope of firearms covered(no pun intended) by the previous ban.

Not a chance, Nancy. At least put something on the table for gun owners. Lifting the '86 machine gun ban sounds good for me.


I can almost guarantee the "compromise" she is seeking involves me giving up a smaller portion of my rights than she'd really like to take.

[Mojorabbit]

18. I fired off an email to

her speaker of the house website. This really pisses me off. It seems Dems do not learn from recent history. I will be furious if they attempt this and we lose seats in 2010.

[Tim01]

36. I'm willing to bet seats have already been lost.

But, it is time to crank up the email machine again.

[virginia mountainman]

72. I send certified mail.....

Really get the point across...

[SteveM]

19. Very disturbing that Nancy wants to drag this dead horse into the house again...

stinking and humming with flies, trying to sell it to her guests. She must really think that mass killings will somehow translate into greater political strength. I'm afraid she is so insulated by the Beltway not to understand that is not how the rest of the public thinks; it is not how many if not most Democrats think.
While the gun-control "movement's" pressure groups are weak as starving kittens, and MSM has toned-down its agitprop for prohibition, the old-line third-way Democrats which hold sway in the DNC must still exert some kind of power that causes Democratic "leaders" to rise like Zombies from the grave and walk into the sea.

Putting this on the front burner like she has done is doing the GOP's bidding for free.

[aikoaiko]

22. I'll compromise, if you do too (offer to repeal FOPA's Hughes Amend. & Sporting Clauses).

and then we can talk about registration and what not.

[SsevenN]

24. Here we go again

Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines.

Another 'born to fail' policy in the making.

What the hell would that accomplish? Other than making me have to pay some dim-witted shipping company to handle and possibly damage my guns when I move next?

You think any kind of criminal, that is already planning to, or who has commited a crime will give a shit about Registration?

You can't fix stupid.

[Iktomiwicasa]

33. Hopefully

the rest of the Democratic officials won't behave like a pack of lemmings and follow her over the cliff this time.

[Xela]

38. Registration, prohibitions? Nah, help us instead to ease noise pollution Pelosi

I'm all for allowing suppressors without the required tax.

Would help with hearing loss and the healthcare costs that come along with it.

And I bet it would also help me with fixing a bit of fliching and jerking the trigger that I've been suffering down at the range.

Xela

[aikoaiko]

46. Oy! the price of stripped lowers are going to jump another 10%.

There will be no end to the panic buying.

[Tim01]

47. Might as well get on the waiting list now. I wish I had a machine shop, a big one.

[Xela]

48. And it's only getting worse every time this leadership opens it's mouth.

So much for pursuing my interest in getting a nice Russian SKS collection.

Xela

[Statistical]

50. I swear Pelosi retirement plan is a basement w/ 2000 "scary black guns"

She is up 40% this year alone.

[rl6214]

55. those I only have one of but if you want

Albanian or Yugoslavian, I've got half dozen of each of those.

[Tim01]

57. I never had any intention of having one of these rifles.

But the first ABW fixed that. If I had the money right now I would buy some from you. I swear, I'll probably never shoot some of the semi-autos I have now. I'm afraid my son or his kids might need them though.

I wish this shit had never started.

[rl6214]

62. Actually the SKS

Has never been part of the AWB but they want it to be part of the next one. Fixed ten round magazine on an underpowered semiautomatic. Not even powerfull enough to be considered a good deer hunting rifle.

[Xela]

70. Oh....I'm not so sure about your comment about hunting with the SKS

The 7.62x39 round is generally placed about the same to the .30-30 round.

There is even some 150 grain SP ammo out there for that round.

In some parts, the SKS is a very popular hunting rifle, even for deer.

Xela

[X_Digger]

73. And white tailed deer in VA are much different than mule deer in tx etc..

'Deer' is a pretty broad term, especially considering the variance even in one species from one geography to the next, nevermind whole species' variance from each other.

[rl6214]

79. The hunting that I have done is normally

at a little farther distance than I think the SKS would be effective. Not saying it can't be used but I wouldn't use one.

[Xela]

69. Cool, thanks for the offer.

But I was (am) concentrating on Russians.

I have a couple of Tulas at the moment.

Thanks a lot though :)

Xela

[rl6214]

53. Thank god I have half a dozen of them

in my gun safe. Got them when they could still be found for $129 apiece

[FLAprogressive]

63. Let's not bring back a new Glass-Steagall act....let's take away guns!

[krispos42]

84. Why compromise with a flawed concept?

Pelosi, Pelosi, some things really are black and white. It's rare, but it happens on occasion. Trying to define an "assault weapon" is a lose-lose proposition. It will either be so broad as to be useless and inflammatory or so narrowly defined as to be easily bypassed.



Just because there are two sides on an issue doesn't mean that one of them is credible. I'm sick of Democrats compromising with bad ideas just because they're convinced that "the middle is where it's at".



If I walked up to an attractive woman on the street and suggested she get naked, what is the appropriate response? Negotiation to a bi-partisan compromise, or a faceful of mace?




Remember, Republicans would LOVE with all their little black hearts for Democrats to try this. Republicans are 100% behind Democrats trying stupid gun-control laws.