HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Assault Weapons Ban Likel...

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:10 AM

Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die In GOP-Dominated House

By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 19:07 EST

The assault weapons ban proposed by US President Barack Obama on Wednesday faces quicksand in Congress, where Republicans are in a position to defeat any such a measure.

Instead, lawmakers in the House and Senate could address some of Obama’s other proposals, including a universal background check for all gun purchases and a ban on high-capacity magazines.

The debate comes in the aftermath of last month’s tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that left 20 children and six adults dead.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein is preparing to introduce a bill next Thursday that would ban assault weapons like the one used in Newtown.

MORE...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/16/assault-weapons-ban-likely-to-die-in-gop-dominated-house/

23 replies, 2199 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 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die In GOP-Dominated House (Original post)
Purveyor Jan 2013 OP
Scuba Jan 2013 #1
zipplewrath Jan 2013 #2
Scuba Jan 2013 #3
zipplewrath Jan 2013 #6
LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #7
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #8
Cosmocat Jan 2013 #11
Cosmocat Jan 2013 #10
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #13
Recursion Jan 2013 #17
Scuba Jan 2013 #18
Recursion Jan 2013 #19
Scuba Jan 2013 #21
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #4
hack89 Jan 2013 #5
Cosmocat Jan 2013 #12
BlueDemKev Jan 2013 #9
davidpdx Jan 2013 #14
Recursion Jan 2013 #16
Paladin Jan 2013 #20
Recursion Jan 2013 #22
Paladin Jan 2013 #23
Recursion Jan 2013 #15

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:21 AM

1. Then we'll try again in January, 2015. Should be a snap then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:23 AM

2. Uh, no.

Not saying it won't happen, but even with a democratic congress it would be difficult. There are many a "red state" democrat that won't particularly enjoy voting for such a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:25 AM

3. Then they'll be identified this time around, replaced in November 2014. Anyone trying to ....

... put up barriers to ending our gun violence problem - of either party - is in serious trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:33 AM

6. Not in "red" states

There are significant areas in the country where Sandy Hook hasn't changed a single mind on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:33 AM

7. That is exactly what will need to happen!

Target the message to mothers especially that the weasel dicks they generally support don't care if their children are killed. One more demographic that Republicans overall should lose. And put the fear of GOD in the DINO's. Hopefully replace those DINO's with better Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:36 AM

8. There are great swaths of Dumbfuckistan represented in Congress

that value assault rifles over the lives of children.

It's a religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:11 PM

11. They will be replaced by REPUBLICANS

I know a lot of people don't get it, but there are A LOT of democrats in split or right leaning districts who, if they were to vote for ANYTHING even remotely related to gun's, that will face millions of dollars in ads two years from now, when Sandy Hook will be a VERY distant memory. Also, sorry, mid term election ... They will push the HE/SHE took our GUNS to stoke their crew to coming to vote while democrats sleep walk through it.

You want to EXPAND the republican majority in the House, have a vote on any firearm legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:08 PM

10. I have been telling people this and they just don't want to hear it

There are A LOT of democrats in the House who want NOTHING to do with any kind of gun legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:18 PM

13. Which is why Reid has taken the position he has

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:24 AM

17. Why is it so important to you to regulate how a gun can look?

I still don't get the impulse here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:02 AM

18. It's not about looks, it's about firepower. The "looks" argument is the NRA's diversion.

You really need to stop falling for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #18)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:05 AM

19. No, no, it's not. It's really not. Seriously.

You complain about gun people inundating the board with technical details, but this is one that we do actually know, and is kind of important.

The AWB is specifically not a ban based on firepower. It does not say "you cannot have a weapon that can fire more than X rounds in Y seconds".

It says "if you have a weapon that can fire X rounds in Y seconds, it must look like this."

You really, really are just factually wrong here.

That's why Lanza's rifle was legal under the 94 Federal ban and the current Connecticut ban, and will be legal under Feinstein's proposed ban if they put a differently-shaped grip on it. It's a stupid law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:42 AM

21. "The AWB is specifically not a ban based on firepower." May have been true in the past ...

... but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

Many gunners argue that the AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" while advertisers claim that it is. The NRA can't have it both ways.

Frankly nobody except gunners cares what you call them. Hopefully future legislation will be crafted so that the hair-splitting over definitions is put to rest. Why are you keeping it alive?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:26 AM

4. Unpopular People, Sir, Should Be Given Every Opportunity To Do Unpopular Things....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:30 AM

5. It will die first in the Democrat control Senate

Washington (CNN) -- Unlike most issues these days that divide along party lines, the immediate fate of President Obama's new gun proposals will depend not as much on Republicans as his fellow Democrats in the Senate.

Senate Democratic leadership sources tell CNN that passing any new legislation will be extremely difficult because more than a dozen vulnerable Democrats from conservative states will probably resist much of what the president is pushing.

These Democratic sources say the most likely legislation to pass will be strengthening background checks, since it is the least overt form of gun control and it also appeals to gun rights advocates' emphasis on keeping guns away from people with mental health and criminal problems.

Democratic leadership sources say they intend to spend next week -- the first week the Senate is in session -- canvassing red-state Democrats to see what, if anything, is doable. Democratic senators who advocate various gun control measures will be lobbying their colleagues as well.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/senate-democrats-gun-legislation/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:13 PM

12. that is just the senate

the House will be worse because they ALL will be up for election in two years.

They likely would have at least 30 or more Ds in the House whose worst nightmare is a gun related bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:21 PM

9. Truthfully, the Senate won't approve it, either.

Too many Democrats from red states where gun ownership (and thus NRA membership) is astronomical. West Virginia, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Nevada...the list goes on and on.

This isn't a battle we can win (God knows we've tried again and again over the past 50 years) and pursuing it will only result in a galvanized right-wing and a weakened President Obama. While I totally support anti-gun laws, I'm not willing to sacrifice everything else we've worked so hard to achieve just to try and get a half-dozen types of weapons temporarily banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueDemKev (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:21 AM

14. I was thinking the same thing

Even if the filibuster rule was changed enough Ds in the Senate will side with the Republicans and kill it. It's DOA on both sides.

It is sad if absolutely nothing comes out of this. Obama has done what he can, but with Congress holding us hostage at gunpoint (literally) there is nothing else to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueDemKev (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:23 AM

16. Particularly since it doesn't actually ban anything, just makes them change the grip shape

If this were a ban of guns that can fire a lot of rounds very quickly, I'd be for it. What this is is a set of rules about how those guns can look. I don't care. Not worth spending any energy on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:38 AM

20. The Way The Guns Look Is Absolutely Critical.


We're talking about the looks of guns designed for killing game animals, and guns designed to kill people, and the vast difference in the emotions that the two sorts of firearms set off. A venerable Winchester Model 70 bolt-action hunting rifle, with its conventional wooden stock, comparatively slow action, and limited magazine capacity, does not trigger the sort of sick fantasies as does a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle, with its military styling, rapid semi-automatic action, plastic stock, large-capacity magazine, and history of usage in mass shootings. For proof of this, you need look no further than DU's very own Gun Control/RKBA group---lotsa luck finding anything remotely like regular discussions of hunting guns, as opposed to the non-stop concentration on guns designed to kill human beings. For an overpowering dose of the sort of dangerous thinking I'm talking about, check into the online sites dedicated solely to AR-15's or AK-47's. You'll want to take a shower after exposing yourself to the dialogs in such places.

Recursion, I think you're fully aware of what's going on, and that you're doing your part to spread the new "Cosmetics Don't Matter" gun activist talking point. That's alright---just don't assume that you're fooling everybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:09 AM

22. Why are you comparing a bolt-action to a semi-automatic?

We're talking about a law regulating how semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines can look. Nobody's worried about bolt action rifles.

So we're talking about a wood-finished semi-automatic with a traditional grip vs. a black-finished semi-automatic with a pistol grip, both of which take detachable magazines. Both can fire at exactly the same rates. Your claim is that the appearance of the black one with the pistol grip inspires people to use it criminally, while they wouldn't use the equally-capable traditional-looking rifle that way. I personally find that difficult to believe. I could be wrong (it seems stupid that putting a suicide barrier up on only one side of a bridge stops suicides from both sides, but empirically we see this), but I'd need some sort of evidence for this and I don't see any (mass shooters prefer handguns, just like every other class of criminal shooter).

For proof of this, you need look no further than DU's very own Gun Control/RKBA group---lotsa luck finding anything remotely like regular discussions of hunting guns, as opposed to the non-stop concentration on guns designed to kill human beings

If by "hunting guns" you mean bolt-action guns, I'll grant that, but nobody in the country is worried about them. I'm asking why you think it's worthwhile to try to make semi-automatic guns look more like hunting guns (which, let's be honest, is what you're trying to do).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:28 AM

23. You're So Far Off-Beam, It's Not Worth Much In The Way Of A Response.


I stand by my original comments. How you misinterpret and twist them is your burden to bear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:22 AM

15. Good. That less us focus on laws that actually do something

Sounds good to me. I have no interest in regulating what a rifle can look like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread