Democrats face tough fight on gun control after Tucson shootings

Democrats face tough fight on gun control after Tucson shootings

This is a discussion on Democrats face tough fight on gun control after Tucson shootings within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Now Running on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/...ex.html?hpt=C1 Washington (CNN) -- Bring back the ban on assault weapons, or tighten enforcement of existing gun control laws and regulations? ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Democrats face tough fight on gun control after Tucson shootings

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array JonInNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mid-Hudson Valley New York State
    Posts
    4,207

    Democrats face tough fight on gun control after Tucson shootings

    Now Running on CNN:
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/...ex.html?hpt=C1

    Washington (CNN) -- Bring back the ban on assault weapons, or tighten enforcement of existing gun control laws and regulations?

    Those were two options for strengthening gun control offered Sunday by Democrats in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona, shootings last week that killed six people and wounded 13, including Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

    The limited range of ideas showed the power of the pro-gun lobby in Washington, with Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York acknowledging that passing any gun control legislation was "hard."

    "Let's be honest here -- there haven't been the votes in the Congress for gun control," Schumer told the NBC program "Meet the Press."

    While outgoing Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania called for restoring the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, Schumer instead proposed "looking for things where we can maybe find some common ground and get something done."

    Republicans stuck to their traditional pro-gun stance, arguing that the Tucson incident involved a mentally unstable assailant rather than a symptom of lax gun control laws.

    "If you have somebody that is a criminal, that wants to get around the law, they're going to get around the law," Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said on the NBC program. "The problem with gun laws is they limit the ability to defend yourself, one. But number two, is that people who are going to commit a crime or going to do something crazy aren't going to pay attention to the laws in the first place."

    Possible steps outlined by Schumer and other Democrats included limiting to 10 the number of rounds for ammunition clips in semi-automatic weapons like the one used in the Tucson shootings, which had clips holding more than 30 rounds.

    The 10-round limit was part of the assault weapons ban, which was passed in 1994 under Democratic President Bill Clinton and allowed to expire 10 years later under Republican President George W. Bush.

    Schumer also called for stronger steps to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing guns, and ensuring that the military notifies the FBI when it rejects candidates based on excessive drug use.

    He said Tucson shooting suspect Jared Loughner was rejected for military service because of excessive drug use.

    "By law that's on the books, he should not have been allowed to buy a gun, but the law doesn't require the military to notify the FBI about that," Schumer said. "In this case, they didn't."

    Schumer defended both the constitutional right to bear arms, as well as the power of Congress to put some limits on weapon ownership and use.

    "There is a right to bear arms. It's in the Constitution. And you can't ignore it, just like you can't ignore the others," Schumer said. "But like all the other rights, it's not absolute."

    Citing the success of previous gun control efforts, Schumer said that "smart, rational gun control laws that protect the right to bear arms, but have reasonable limits are the way to go."

    Coburn, however, said approaching the Tucson shootings as a gun control issue would miss the central problem -- the failure to properly intervene in a case of obvious mental instability.

    Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a possible Republican presidential contender in 2012, made the same point on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

    "It would seem to me that you'd address this with the most relevant problem first," Giuliani said. "The most relevant problem was the lack of an ability to deal with what was apparently paranoid schizophrenia that should have been treated."

    He also said political civility must return so that a legitimate debate on gun control could ensue, free of the hyper-partisanship emblematic of Washington.

    "I think we could take a look at gun laws and see what can be done that doesn't affect the constitutional rights that people have to have guns, the right they have to protect themselves," Giuliani said. "I mean, there are people that would argue that, if more people had guns, this may not have happened because somebody might have been able to take action immediately and stop him before he inflicted either damage or as much damage as he did."

    On the same program, Rendell also said the issue required a thorough and reasoned debate free from excessive politicking.

    "We need a rational discussion on guns where we put aside the pressure from interest groups and we take a look and say, does any citizen protecting themselves or their home or using a handgun to hunt, do they need a clip that has 33 bullets in it?" Rendell said, adding that in his mind, the answer was no.

    "I think the nation's spirits would be lifted if the Congress acted quickly with the president and reinstated the assault weapons ban, which also had the ban on these large magazines, these clips that carried 30-plus bullets," Rendell added.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
    -- Benjamin Franklin


  2. #2
    Member Array Rightwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    231
    "There is a right to bear arms. It's in the Constitution. And you can't ignore it, just like you can't ignore the others," Schumer said. "But like all the other rights, it's not absolute."

    This is the defect with the Liberal brain. Everything to them is temporary and for sale.
    "You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." CS Lewis

    S&W .41 Mag - Colt DS - Ruger Single Six - Ruger Security Six - Buckmark-Beretta 21A - S&W 351PD 22 Mag- Spfld XD 9mm -- Plenty Of Long Guns--- Dry Powder and RCBS.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array Gun Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    759
    "There is a right to bear arms. It's in the Constitution. And you can't ignore it, just like you can't ignore the others," Schumer said. "But like all the other rights, it's not absolute."
    Why do I have a huge problem with that statement? Rights that are given to us by God, but regulated by government? I just don't understand the mindset!
    Kahr CW9
    Sig P239/9mm
    Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)


    "First Duty is To Remember"

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,112
    Dick needs a reading lesson..."shall not be infringed" wasn't a suggestion....but it is the most infringed upon enumerated right. I wish he would dry up and blow away.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Rightwing View Post
    "There is a right to bear arms. It's in the Constitution. And you can't ignore it, just like you can't ignore the others," Schumer said. "But like all the other rights, it's not absolute."

    This is the defect with the Liberal brain. Everything to them is temporary and for sale.
    We just went through this in another thread. Scalia (no liberal) wrote the majority opinion in Heller. He went out of his way to indicate that regulation is not necessarily unconstitutional infringement. Its easy to blame folks who have different opinions than yours and call them names, but at least be factual. The Heller ruling allows for regulation. And also be factual about which side of the spectrum of judicial thought wrote that opinion.

  6. #6
    Member
    Array Coder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    446
    They say "rational discussion" which sounds good to me. But then they say "assault weapons ban". At this point I know that this person is ignorant and has not taken the necessary 5 minutes to review the data from the last time. The reason it got dropped was because it was TOTALLY USELESS. This is obvious to any reasonable person and was begrudgingly acknowledged by the anti-gunners at the time. Duh.
    We're all in favor of reducing violent crime. It's just that pro-gunners have a method that is proven effective. Anti-gunners don't.
    ---
    John Moses Browning day is January 24th, 2011

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Well, I'm just hoping the new conservative majority in the House will tamp down any unreasonable efforts to make more bans on anything. Then, in 2012, we better be voting for more conservatives and hopefully regain control of the Senate.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by JonInNY View Post
    Schumer instead proposed "looking for things where we can maybe find some common ground and get something done."
    Funny how people like him keep looking for "common ground" that involves us losing ground.

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,382
    Quote Originally Posted by JonInNY View Post
    "We need a rational discussion on guns where we put aside the pressure from interest groups and we take a look and say, does any citizen protecting themselves or their home or using a handgun to hunt, do they need a clip that has 33 bullets in it?" Rendell said, adding that in his mind, the answer was no.
    - Or someone would realize that handguns don't need clips at all.

    But then again, why educate yourself on guns at all if you're against them?

  10. #10

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,841
    ""We need a rational discussion on guns where we put aside the pressure from interest groups and we take a look and say, does any citizen protecting themselves or their home or using a handgun to hunt, do they need a clip that has 33 bullets in it?" Rendell said, adding that in his mind, the answer was no.

    "I think the nation's spirits would be lifted if the Congress acted quickly with the president and reinstated the assault weapons ban, which also had the ban on these large magazines, these clips that carried 30-plus bullets," Rendell added."


    How about this. Instead of a "rational" debate about gun control, let's have a "factual" debate about gun control. The part where this stuff is used in less than 1% of crimes and such. I would hate to see facts run roughshod over their emotional attempt to pander to fear. Oh wait, no I wouldn't.

    I think their idea of meeting in the middle is to cross the isle and stand by them. How about this for an idea. Punish the criminals. You know, the ones that break the law. I'm not really for mandatory sentencing, but I am all for getting tough in sentencing. Somehow, sending folks home with anklets on does not seem tough to me.
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Tucson tragedy unlikely to advance gun control legislation
    By Skippys in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 14th, 2011, 11:15 AM
  2. WTS Glock 27,Trijicon, 3 Mags, Face to face
    By anchor44 in forum Member Buy, Sell & Trade
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 8th, 2008, 06:50 PM
  3. Other shootings and gun control
    By obxned in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 26th, 2007, 11:42 PM
  4. Democrats getting gun control fever
    By paramedic70002 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 29th, 2006, 03:11 PM
  5. Face to Face Sales - Could they be Your Worst Nightmare?
    By AKsrule in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 15th, 2006, 11:42 AM

Search tags for this page

tucson shooting strengthening gun control

,

we need to tighten gun control laws after the tucson shooting

Click on a term to search for related topics.