HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warre...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:44 AM

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren vows to back gun control measures

Source: Associated Press

BOSTON U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has met with Boston Mayor Thomas Menino to push for tougher gun control measures in the wake of the recent elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Warren said Friday that she supports three proposals including one requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales.

The Massachusetts Democrat said she also backs a ban on assault weapons and another proposal to make gun trafficking a federal crime.

Read more: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/01/us_sen_elizabeth_warren_vows_t.html#incart_2box

14 replies, 2668 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren vows to back gun control measures (Original post)
SecularMotion Jan 2013 OP
krispos42 Jan 2013 #1
BainsBane Jan 2013 #2
krispos42 Jan 2013 #4
BainsBane Jan 2013 #5
krispos42 Jan 2013 #7
BainsBane Jan 2013 #9
BainsBane Jan 2013 #6
krispos42 Jan 2013 #8
BainsBane Jan 2013 #11
Paladin Jan 2013 #10
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #14
DanTex Jan 2013 #3
bunnies Jan 2013 #12
samsingh Jan 2013 #13

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:37 AM

1. We all agree that Elizabeth Warren is smart

So then why does she back a ban on assault weapons?

Understanding that an assault weapon is defined as "a semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, or handgun; that is fed from a detachable magazine; AND that has more than an allowable number of secondary features on a list".

Does she not understand that people will still own and be able to buy and sell semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns after a ban is passed?

Or does she know this, but sees this as good PR? Is she counting on this (perhaps cynically) to make her look good to those not aware of such details?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:34 AM

2. Because she's a DEMOCRAT

Consider trying it sometime.

Do you understand the current AW ban isn't going to be as toothless as the old one?
Or is that what you're afraid of?


60% of the America public supports an assault weapons ban, and an even higher percentage supports a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. That includes a majority of Republicans and gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:43 AM

4. So, then the Democratic Party is stupid?

And it is going to be as toothless. Sorry. Not addressing the function of the guns in question, but the appearance, is by definition toothless.


And what percentage of Americans can define what an assault weapon is?

It's common knowledge that the corporate media grossly misinforms the general public; do you claim now that those same corporate giants are now accurately informing the people? Really?


And a magazine capacity limit is not a ban on assault weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:46 AM

5. Not at all

You insist the party position is stupid. You have made it clear you despise the Democratic Party position.
Assault weapons are what the legislation defines them to be. Enough with your pathetic NRA talking points. All that corporate money and you can't come up with new material?

Is it somehow new to you that the President proposed these measures? If you care how Americans defined assault weapons in public polls, look them up yourself. Asking me is pointless and nothing more than a mindless effort to repeat NRA talking points. Your blatant immorality is repulsive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:53 AM

7. Yes, assault weapons are what the LEGISLATION defines them to be.

Just like any other PR term. Like, say, "terrorist".


And in 1993, Congress created the definition of "assault weapon", then proceeded to ban them. Now, in 2013, Congress is REDEFINING "assault weapon", and working again on banning them.

Just like... oh, I don't know, "free speech". "Jury trial".


"ll that corporate money and you can't come up with new material? "

If I was taking corporate money, I probably wouldn't be living with my parents again. That's point 1.

Point 2 is that a fact is a fact. You can call it a "talking point" if you want, but it is a fact.


The talking-point that Social Security is responsible for the budget deficit and the national debt is just that... a talking point.

Does she not understand that people will still own and be able to buy and sell semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns after a ban is passed? That's a fact. A cold, hard fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:06 AM

9. Nothing you say is remotely surprising


You stand with corporate interests. Your views are identical. You privilege gun profits above human life. Your BS about the corporate media aligned against assault weapons is absurd to say the least. What money is there in that? All of the money is in gun profits, which means the more dead children the better. Sandyhook has been fantastic business for the gun industry. You stand with an industry that gleefully profits from dead children. As they say, you are what you eat.

Your contention that there is anything related to freedom about assault weapons is thoroughly repulsive. I understand this comes as a shock to you. but your right to equip yourself to be a pretend mass murderer or play solider does not trump the rest of our right to live. I understand minor issues like the right to life mean little to you, but some of us are actually attached to our bodies. And we get especially concerned when our 6 year old children are killed. I guess that's just how authoritarians roll: caring about the lives of children--what selfish bastards.

I've never seen so much bull shit from one person. No one buys your crap.
You've made it clear several times today that you despise Democrats and the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:50 AM

6. the GuN Lobby is a huge corporate interest

and you carry their water. Give me a fucking break. There is no one more closely aligned with corporate interests than gun zealots. It's all about profits above human life, and you do everything in your power to ensure their profits each and every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #6)


Response to krispos42 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:15 AM

11. Yawn?

This is what you find so inconsequential:

[link:?w=634&h=808|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:10 AM

10. No, The Democratic Party Is Civilized.


At least it's a hell of a lot more civilized than gun obsessives and their legions of right-wing enablers. In the long run, your side is going to lose. You've got Rush Limbaugh, we've got Gabby Giffords. Game on.

And by the way: The definition of an assault weapon is whatever the New York Times says it is, on any given day. The era of having to conform our vocabulary to what Ted Nugent approves of, is concluded.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:55 PM

14. Worked in Canada, Australia, and the U.K.

The theory that assault weapons cannot be legally defined and strictly regulated is just another tired old stupid right wing NRA troll talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:41 AM

3. Maybe she thinks it is a step in the right direction.

Like Obamacare, it's not perfect, a lot of progressives wanted much more, some even said it was all a giveaway to insurance companies. But, on net, it was much better than the status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:26 PM

12. Gun trafficking is NOT a federal crime?!

wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:49 PM

13. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread