Assault Weapons Ban Dropped From Senate Bill - MSNBC

[WillyT]

Assault weapons ban dropped from Senate bill
By Kasie Hunt and Mike Viqueira, NBC News
3/1913

<snip>

The assault weapons ban won't be included in major gun legislation set to take shape this week -- all but guaranteeing it won't pass Congress.

The ban hasn't been expected to pass, but the way Democratic leaders have decided to handle Sen. Dianne Feinstein's proposal means that she might see a dozen or more Democrats vote against the ban.

Feinstein said she's "disappointed" that it's turned out this way. She said that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told her about his decision at a meeting Monday afternoon.

<snip>

Link: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/19/17373761-assault-weapons-ban-dropped-from-senate-bill?lite

[samsingh]

1. and yet the democrats run Congress

some of them are incredibly stupid

[premium]

2. The Democrats do not run the Congress,

Dems have the majority in the Senate, but the repubs have the majority in the House.

[samsingh]

10. sorry i meant the senate

[premium]

11. No problem.

[spin]

81. The problem is that each state gets two Senators. ...

While the majority of citizens in our nation may support strong gun control, the majority of voters in all states do not. Senators are elected to represent the views of their states in Congress and not necessary to go along with what voters in other states wish.

Senators from New York State and California may support the AWB but they are canceled out by Senators from Alaska and Louisiana. The fact that more people live in New York State and California is irrelevant.

[leveymg]

3. Just like the Public Option was dropped in the Senate HCR Bill. See a pattern & practice here?

Many of us do, and it will have consequences for the Democratic Party.

[Recursion]

4. Good. It was a pointless bill. Ban semi-autos, or don't, but who cares what shape their grip is?

Hopefully this means we can start talking about actually useful legislation, if this hasn't sucked all the oxygen out of the discussion.

[Mojorabbit]

77. +100 nt

[pipoman]

5. Since Heller and McDonald

when SCOTUS used the 1939 standard of "in common use for lawful purposes", I am guessing that the Judiciary committee knew their law couldn't be upheld, if it was even allowed to go into effect.

[gateley]

6. That to me was a no brainer (to ban assault weapons). As many have said,

there's no need for weapons of war in a society that's supposedly peaceful.

But those who are banging the "Obama's going to take our guns" drum, this would be an "I told you so -- next it will be revolvers!!".

So maybe, as a first step, this is okay. I'm hoping that this, like other issues, will be "won" incrementally, since we can't do it in one fell swoop. I guess I should be in the Senate -- better to get a passing vote on SOME good steps that have the whole thing go down in flames. I'm also thinking if it were kept in, they'd filibuster and Reid would cave again, and we might end up with less.

[Recursion]

8. The problem with that is it didn't "ban" them, it regulated what they can look like

If it actually banned AR-15's, that would be one thing; the bill Feinstein actually put forward just said their manufacturers have to make the grip look different and can't use names like "Bushmaster" (I can almost guarantee the ban-compliant model that came out would be called "Shrubmaster&quot .

[Lurks Often]

7. Harry Reid shows some common sense

Sen Reid knew that an AWB
1 Would never pass the House
2 Could very well jeopardize the re-election of Democratic Senators in red states leading to the loss of the Senate to the Republicans in 2014
3 Would probably cost him HIS seat
4 Probably wouldn't have held up in court

[Melon_Lord]

29. 5 - Would not prevent a Sandy Hook style shooting...

[aikoaiko]

9. The proposed AWB legislation included too much BS.

Banning rifles, shotguns, and pistols for having combinations of features is a deeply flawed approach to reducing gun violence. It appears to me to be more about culture war than saving lives.

A massacre with a DiFi approved Bushmaster AR-15 with a different grip won't be any less tragic or destructive.

I will admit that mag limits is a more debatable aspect of the bill in terms of gun safety, but even that was tenuous.

[Initech]

12. Fuck the NRA. That is all.

[smirkymonkey]

76. Ditto.

[talkingmime]

13. Assholes.

[XRubicon]

14. Thank you for posting a real issue for Democrats to discuss.

I can't believe we can't get this through the senate...

[badtoworse]

15. There really are pro-gun Democrats - lots of them.

[XRubicon]

16. I think the senate has senators who want reelection

So they are pro gun. At some point I would like to think they could do what's right instead of constantly calculate.

[badtoworse]

17. I don't think you get it. I was talking about their constituents

If the voters in those states wanted more gun control, they would have elected someone else.

I would expect a senator to respect the wishes of the voters who put him or her in office. Don't you?

[XRubicon]

19. Ever heard of the NRA?

It is a group financed by gun manufactures that has a small number of members that somehow has great influence over politicians. I wish I could figure out why...

[badtoworse]

20. It's not a mystery - many millions of voters agree with them.

They only have about 4.5 million members. What other explanation couild there be?

[XRubicon]

21. I forgot, politicians only do what the people want

They would never take money from special interests to get elected then do favors for that special interest. They take spare change from the regular folks then vote whatever the majority wants.

[badtoworse]

22. They might turn a few votes that way

But do you honestly believe that voters in states like Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Nevada and other similar states are screaming for more gun control and aren't getting it because the NRA paid them off?

[XRubicon]

23. Four states and the NRA membership that equals 1.4% of the population

Nobody is asking to ban guns, just restrict the types.

[badtoworse]

24. Feinstein's list had 160 firearms on it, including some of the most popular firearms in use today

There are many millions of gun owners in the US. I would say that most don't want popular firerms banned.

You seem to have trouble accepting that there is substantial opposition to what Feinstein, Lautenberg, Schumer, Obama and others of similar persuasion are trying to do.

[slackmaster]

26. I found the list of firearms that the bill "exempted" much more troubling than the list of...

...what it would have banned.

Most of the specific makes and models on the "exempt" list were bolt- and lever-action rifles, pump shotguns, single-shot weapons, and revolvers - IOW items that are not similar to semiautomatics in function, and clearly don't fit the general parameters that would have tarred a pistol, rifle, or shotgun as an "AW".

In addition to the prospect of having millions of existing firearms classified as AWs and rendered ineligible for resale, that (exempt) list gave rise to widespread suspicions about the long-term intentions of the authors of the bill.

[XRubicon]

27. You cant curb your hobby to make our country a better place

I can accept whatever happens, doesn't mean I have to like it.

[slackmaster]

25. The types of firearms that the general public can buy are already restricted per the National...

...Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). I and many others, in our party and outside of it, are in broad agreement that the line in the sand was drawn correctly in the NFA.

There is no meaningful classification of firearm that is available today that was not already in common use in 1934, including semiautomatic firearms that take detachable magazines.

[XRubicon]

28. This Democrat disagrees

And don't give me the minutiae of gun classifications that can't be extracted from the others.

I'm done arguing with you and your fellow gun hobbyist who care more about owning five guns instead of owning three guns than you do about the common good.

[slackmaster]

30. You don't want to be bothered with facts or any kind of details about what would and would not...

...be banned, or what effect it might have on public safety, or anything about predictable unintended consequences of a prohibition; you just want something banned. You want Congress to "Do something!" no matter what it is.

The propaganda pushed out through the TV sets of America has been very effective indeed.

[hack89]

40. Alaska, Montana, Arkansas, South Dakota, New Mexico, Virginia, Louisiana, North Carolina.

All Democratic Senate incumbents up for reelection in 2014. All Conservative pro-gun states.

Care to guess how they view gun control?

[spanone]

92. and MOST americans disagree with them

Poll: Majorities favor assault weapons ban, background checks
By Carrie Dann, NBC News

The public heavily favors universal background checks for gun buyers, and a majority of Americans approve of a federal database to track gun sales as well as a ban on "assault style weapons," a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows.

In the survey, 85 percent of respondents said they favor background checks for private and gun show sales, while only 12 percent say they oppose such checks.

Sixty-seven percent of adults surveyed approve of a federal database to track gun sales, the poll indicated. A majority -- 55 percent -- back a ban on assault weapons, with 40 percent saying they don't approve of the ban, a measure for which President Barack Obama again voiced support during a press conference today. (The partisan breakdown, however, is stark, with seven in ten Democrats backing the ban compared to just 44 percent of Republicans.)

A major gender gap also remains on the gun issue; women favor an assault weapons ban by almost 20 percentage points over men. Women are also far less likely to support the idea of encouraging more gun ownership among teachers and other school officials.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/14/16510092-poll-majorities-favor-assault-weapons-ban-background-checks?lite

[liberal_at_heart]

34. most pro-gun democrats do want some form of gun control

The majority of Americans want some form of gun control. Our politicians are bought.

[dairydog91]

35. Senators like Reid or Baucus do not represent "the majority of Americans"

They represent the states of Nevada and Montana. If the voters in those states want to elect a pro-gun-control Senator next time, they certainly could, though I think Montana will vote for a fiercely pro-gun-control Senator at about the same time that Bermuda invades the Crab Nebula.

[liberal_at_heart]

37. and Nevada and Montana do not represent the majority of the country

Hell, Montana is where most of the militia people go to live in quiet seclusion. The majority of Americans want some form of gun control so there should be a majority vote in favor of gun control in the Senate.

[hack89]

42. Alaska, Montana, Arkansas, South Dakota, New Mexico, Virginia, Louisiana, North Carolina.

All Democratic Senate incumbents up for reelection in 2014. All Conservative pro-gun states.

Care to guess how they view gun control?

[Niceguy1]

79. so you don't

Think that our representatives should vote inline with what the people they represent want?

[premium]

38. Same with Nevada.

Both of our Senators are very pro 2A.
Both Senators offices have been getting bombarded with calls and e-mails opposing the AWB and the mag limits.

[stevenleser]

88. 31.5% of households in Nevada own a gun unfortunately. nt

[premium]

91. You mean 31.5% households that admit owning a gun.

There are probably alot more than that.
I had a call a couple of years back from a poll taker asking if we had firearms in our home, I told them none of their business and hung up, which is probably what a lot of people did, so that percentage is probably off by a significant number.
In Nevada, except for Clark County, we don't register our weapons so there is no hard reliable data on gun ownership to go by, and that's the way Nevadans like and want it to be.

[stevenleser]

93. I dont have the data on how they did the study but I think they accounted for non-response

via the normal methods that polling agencies do so, i.e. no matter what you are polling, some percent of folks will not answer.

http://www.vpc.org/press/1006gundeath.htm

[premium]

94. That's possible,

probably most of the polling was in Clark County, the only county that registers guns, also the county that encompasses Las Vegas, once you get out of Clark County, the rest of the state is very red and rural, including Washoe County where Reno and Carson City are.

I've live in Nevada almost my whole life and I can tell you that we are a very pro 2A state and even though I don't have solid data, my sense is that there is more than what the VPC is reporting.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. disappointed, but not surprised.

Ugh.

[Honeycombe8]

31. Once again, Reid fails to deliver. SO disappointing! Ticks me off. nt

[jal777]

32. So guns with the shoulder thing that goes up won't be banned?

[liberal_at_heart]

33. They are ALL bought and sold.

[Fearless]

36. Surprise surprise.

Compromise away all content and get nothing. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. I'll say it again: COMPROMISE DOESN'T WORK. Particularly when you are playing with people who know you're willing to give away the farm.

[badtoworse]

39. Was there anything in DiFi's bill that would attract support from the pro-gun crowd?

If there was any compromise there, I missed it. Her bill deserved to go down.

[jal777]

41. I agree. Nothing at all. Nt

[Fearless]

44. Who gives a damn about the pro-gun crowd?

Excuse my English, but really. Military weapons have no place on Main St.

[Llewlladdwr]

45. An AR-15 is not a military weapon. nt

[Fearless]

46. What is it's designed purpose?

[beevul]

47. Use by civilians.

N/T

[Fearless]

49. That is not a purpose.

Be specific, what is it's purpose.

[Recursion]

57. Making money for ArmaLite (or its licensees)

That is it's one and only purpose.

It does this by appealing to the civilian market by being a highly-configurable rifle that is the "second best" style in every category of use. I do not own a rifle, but if I did, it would probably be an AR.

[Fearless]

61. What would you use it for?

[Recursion]

62. The only reason I would own a rifle was if I got back into competition shooting

Let me amend that: in a very circumscribed set of circumstances I would hunt; within the non-Zombie-apocalypse world, my only interest in having a rifle would be if I stopped playing croquet and fencing competitively and went back into shooting competitively.

[beevul]

58. You asked.

What is its designed purpose?

It was designed to be civilian legal, as opposed to real and true weapons of war, and is designed to be used by civilians for lawful uses - of which there are several.

Like all firearms, its purpose is to expel a projectile, propelled by the expanding gasses of a controlled combustion, at the target of the users choosing.

[Fearless]

60. "designed to be used by civilians for lawful uses - of which there are several"

What are these uses? Can they be achieved by other weapons of a non-military nature?

[Recursion]

63. This *is* a weapon of a non-military nature

And it meets those goals.

[Fearless]

65. Reread what I wrote.

And what are those goals?

[Recursion]

66. I didn't miss anything

The goals are being able to hit a target reliably.

The AR-15 is a civilian weapon that achieves that.

[Fearless]

69. Are other weapons able to do that

On or at a higher rate as this weapon?

[Recursion]

70. Ah, I think (bluntly) I see your misunderstanding

The AR-15 does not fire any faster than any other semi-automatic weapon.

[Fearless]

71. I was referring to accuracy to be fair.

And in comparison to all firearms.

[Recursion]

73. It's neither faster nor more accurate.

A gun is a gun is a gun. Seriously.

The military chose that shape because it's marginally safer and more accurate. Are safety and accuracy things you are against?

[Fearless]

75. If a gun is a gun and it is by your own words no more accurate

Or merely marginally more accurate or safe than another. Would you support restrictions on this weapon if it is found that it, unlike other identical or marginally identical weapons, contributes to higher levels of inner city and / or domestic violence?

[The Straight Story]

80. To answer your question:

" Would you support restrictions on this weapon if it is found that it, unlike other identical or marginally identical weapons, contributes to higher levels of inner city and / or domestic violence?"

No. Because one type of gun over another is not going to matter to people using it for that.

The people I know (and have known) with these types of guns use them primarily for target shooting, which is quite fun.

Their are many types of guns/calibers because there are many needs and desires (you don't hunt squirrel with the same gun/ammo you would a deer).

Think of cars. All cars do the same thing. We like different colors, body types, engines, etc. Guns are just like that.

If there was a defective gun model that was causing injuries (like back in the mid 1800's) I would say recall them (which is how JP Morgan got his start).

And like with cars there are some that are street legal and some that are not.

For 40-50 Million Americans guns are for home defense, hunting, target shooting, competitive. A tiny fraction do use them as weapons. My good friend spend 6 years in the pen because he intentionally ran over the man who killed his brother in a bar fight.

Punish those misuse something and not those who do not. It is a simple concept I think people agree on except on one issue. I don't look at all muslims based on the few, but right wingers do (and then they complain when people on the left blame all gun owners).

[LAGC]

83. Rifles (of all varieties) only account for less than 2% of all gun crime.

It's stupid to focus on them.

Handguns are real killer in America, and they aren't going away any time soon.

[Recursion]

84. Yes

But that would be handguns you're thinking of.

Street gangs don't use rifles.

[Fearless]

87. My point though is universal. What about handguns then?

Apply the same question as above.

[beevul]

86. Conversely...

" Would you support restrictions on this weapon if it is found that it, unlike other identical or marginally identical weapons, contributes to higher levels of inner city and / or domestic violence?"

If found NOT to contribute to inner city violence and / or domestic violence unlike other identical or marginally identical weapons, would you yourself be willing to leave them, and the people that own them, and support ownership of them, alone, and would you stand up to your peers who weren't so willing?

[badtoworse]

48. "Who gives a damn about the pro-gun crowd?"

How about someone who's interested in actually accomplishing something. DiFi has accomplished nothing, which is not unusual for her on the issue of firearms. Why? Because her approach is to just take and offer nothing in return. If she were willing to deal on the issue, we might wind up with legislation that everyone could support. Personally, I don't believe she really wants to solve anything; she's more interested in having an issue that keeps her in the political spotlight.

You are just as bad. The reality is that the pro-gun crowd has the political strength to stop any legislation from being enacted. The "who gives a damn" attitude might feel good in the short term, but in the long run you will walk away with nothing. How will that feel?

[Fearless]

50. If the pro-gun crowd wants to

Last edited Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Be seen as promoting military style weapons on the streets of America, then they should me made to stand on those laurels.

Reality is, the vast majority of Americans do NOT want to see military weapons on Main St. No matter how loudly the pro-gun crowd shouts.

[badtoworse]

52. So why coudn't DiFi even get 40 votes for an AWB?

[Fearless]

53. Because Congress is ineffective

At legislating the will of the American people. They are bought and paid for by a combination of lobbies for special interest groups.

[badtoworse]

54. Do you honestly believe voters in Alaska, Montana and West Virginia want more gun control?

[Fearless]

55. There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America.

The will of the majority is very clear on the banning of military weapons on Main St.

[badtoworse]

56. You are very naive

[Fearless]

59. No. I have facts.

[Recursion]

67. Military weapons have been banned for 80 years

That's what people don't seem to get?

[Fearless]

68. So militiary weapons have not advanced in 80 years?

That law is still useful today?

[Recursion]

72. The weapons available to civilians today were available to them 80 years ago

At least for all effective purposes.

[Fearless]

74. Then you would support

Restrictions on all guns designed after 1933?

[Recursion]

85. I don't think the problem is the kinds of guns available

But who they're available to.

[Clames]

89. The "will-of-the-majority" is what got Proposition 8 passed in California.

52.24%





Sometimes the "majority" can fuck up.

[Fearless]

90. It isn't a simple majority of people who support

Common sense restrictions on firearms. It is a super majority.

Incidentally, your point that Prop. 8 somehow negates my point is a form of argument called "special pleading" also commonly referred to as "stacking the deck". It is an argument where you pick a specific isolated incident and use it to try to negate a larger quantity of incidences in which your point or logic is shown to be incorrect. It is a false argument.

[Clames]

95. Maybe you haven't been paying attention lately.

The "super majority" isn't as much as it used to be. In a few more months it will be even less. Also, I used actual election results where a super majority of the voting population participated where you are citing polls that vary depending on who and what questions are asked. My logic stands, this country protects the minority opinion a well as the majority at times because the majority doesn't always have it right.

[smirkymonkey]

78. +10.000

[aikoaiko]

43. I think its time for the anti-gunners to turn this around and reframe it as brilliant strategy

Good story: The AWB was a distractor bill used to inflame gun rights advocates and it was always the plan to throw it away so that the pro-gun side would have their victory while the real goal of universal background checks (no private sales without NICS checks) was passed and signed into law.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[ZRT2209]

51. party of life!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. And, they wonder why approval of congress is at an all time low.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[Phillip McCleod]

82. GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH1111111H1fs@%dsfAK;LSDJF;A5924I