Just Curious - Will The GOP & Boehner Have To Do Something With Respect To Gun Control Now?.......

[global1]

given how much impact this shooting & killing has had on Congress and the American People - do you think that Boehner and the Repugs are going to have to acknowledge that something is needed with respect to 'gun control'?

I believe that the polls and the sentiment of the American People will be so overwhelming that something be done to restrain future shootings that the Repugs are going to have to support something - whether it be a ban on clips of 30, ban on automatic weapons, codes on bullets, tighter registration, taxes, etc.

I don't think that the Repugs will be able to talk their way out of this one. Even some Repugs will be pushing for something to happen with respect to 'gun control' - case in point is Peter King's lame solution.

I'm thinking that Boehner will be at odds with some people in his own party - and I don't think he is smart enough as to how to deal with that and still keep his base and financial donors in check.

I don't think that Boehner and the Repugs thought they would have to address something like this. This will force them to move off their plan and have to really deal with some serious issues that impinge on the American People.

What do you think they'll do? How will they handle this situation?

[HopeHoops]

1. Absolutely - they'll fight it.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Do something for the sake of looking like they're actually doing something?

I hope not. One thing I hate about politicians are the token actions they take for no other reason than to appear like they're actually doing something.

[Tippy]

3. K&R They will play the waiting game.......then back to business as usual

[Imajika]

4. There isn't even hardly any Democratic support in Congress...

...for Gun Control, so no, Boehner and the Republicans will not have to do a thing.

Gun Control is going nowhere. Period. There will be no new Federal Gun Control legislation as a result of this assassination attempt at all.

[Demoiselle]

5. HAH. To clarify that a bit: HAH HAH HAH. Not likely.

[Upton]

6. I think you're wrong..

the vast majority of people in this country will still support the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is a loser for the Democratic party..

[Statistical]

7. Do something for the purpose of doing something?

ban on clips of 30, ban on automatic weapons, codes on bullets, tighter registration, taxes, etc.

1) New automatic weapons are banned have been for 20+ years. The shooter didn't have an automatic weapon.
2) Codes on bullets? You can make ammo. Still wouldn't do much about this issue.
3) Tighter registration? What does registration accomplish. If one can buy a gun they can register. IF they can't buy a gun they have no need to register.
4) Taxes? Taxes. Really? That is what is going to make thing safer.

The only thing that possibly would be useful would be ban on high capacity magazines. Personally I think it is next to useless but many disagree. Still even that chance is being eliminated because McCarthy wants to ban all mags with 11+ rounds while exempting Police. Never going to happen. I wouldn't cry about a limit on magazine size of 20 for pistols and 30 for rifles but 10 is never going to happen. She has proposed that same bill for a decade.

So your belief is they should pass something for the sake of passing something? Kinda like how we got the TSA and Patriot Act and that made us safer.

[global1]

9. So We'll All Just Sweep This Under The Rug And Just Say Move On......

nothing here to deal with. Now lets repeal Obamacare.

This is what's going to happen?

[Statistical]

10. We could work on mental health system.

We could work on mental health system.
We could make sure it is easier for people (like teachers, and Police) to flag potentially dangerous mentally ill persons.
We could make the mental health -> NICS system far more transparent and automatic.

These are things we could do and most gun owners would support. To do "something" because otherwise we are "Sweep This Under The Rug" is the height of stupidity.

You don't do something just for the sake of something. You take a cold hard calculated look and find a solution.

None of the gun control bills proposed in the last two decades do anything to reduce violent crime. The two proposed since this attack don't either. I am not going to support doing something because we have to do something.

Not again. Iraq, Patriot Act, TSA, Warrantless wiretaps, detainment w/o due process, secret no fly list, etc.

[global1]

13. I Take It You Are A Gun Proponent.....

I asked you a question about bullets in another thread and got your answer - thanks. As you may have surmised - I am not a gun owner. I never felt the need for a gun nor the desire to hunt with anything other than a camera.

I don't understand the need to have a gun. Can you help me here and tell me why you like guns? Are you a hunter and sportsminded? Are you a collector? Are you making your living off the gun market? or is it something else that makes you want to own a gun and use a gun.

Now please don't think I'm taking a swipe at you or your desire for gun ownership. I'm not. I just sincerely want to try and understand what it is about guns that is so fulfilling.

Am I missing something here by not being a gun owner or wanting to have a gun?

[Statistical]

14. No you aren't missing anything.

If you don't want to own a gun then don't. Hopefully that didn't come off as snarky. It is simply a fact. It is a personal decision.

As for me; firearms are an effective method of self defense. Average 911 response time is 10 minutes, if you live in rural area like me it is more like 20-30 minutes. Burglar in the house 30 minutes is an insanely long time. My primary reason for owning firearm is self defense. I used firearm effectively in self defense once without even firing shots. I didn't even need to draw. I prevented myself from becoming yet another victim so it is unlikely anything will change my personal opinion. I am not saying it is for everyone and I am not trying to "convert" anyone either.

Outside of self defense I like to shoot firearms. Effective use of firearm requires a significant amount of skill. When I take "newbies" to the range the most common first comment is "this is hard", usually followed by "can I shoot again". I shoot competitively in IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association). I enjoy the competition and it keeps my skills sharp.

If I never need to use firearm defensively again then that is great, if I do then it is there. Unlike the strawman argument I know it won't help me in all situations. It doesn't have to be 100% effective to be useful.

I am law abiding citizen who responsibly keeps and bears arms I would ask other respect that. If they don't want to use/own/carry firearms that is fine but don't limit my choices. Don't deprive me of the most effective method of self defense. Don't tell me to call 911 when response time is 30 minutes and Police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT. Self defense is a human right. It is immoral to deprive someone of self defense and then not provide protection.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

18. It's a very personal choice, and gun ownership is not for everyone.

Someone asked me a similar question a while back, and my response is here, if you're interested.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2870636&mesg_id=2877892

For background, I (like most gun owners) am a nonhunter, and (like most) own guns for defensive purposes and target shooting. I hold a North Carolina handgun carry license that is recognized by ~35 states, and shoot competitively (USPSA) with that handgun and an "assault weapon," i.e. a civilian rifle with modern styling.

[benEzra]

19. Oops, double post. (n/t)

[kctim]

8. Guaranteed lose in 2012 if they do

[X_Digger]

16. *nod* President Clinton mentioned it in his autobiography..

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

[OHdem10]

11. More Guns since VA TECH Massacre.

[Statistical]

12. and a lower homicide and violent crime rate. n/t

[damntexdem]

15. If they do anything about it, they will probably try to relax gun control laws.

To them, the gun-control landscape in Arizona is likely the ideal.