Reid: No rush to judge gun control laws

[oberliner]

Source: AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - After the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cautioned Tuesday against a "rush to judgment" on stricter gun control. A leading House supporter of restrictions on firearms conceded passage of legislation would be difficult.

"I think we ought to be thinking about the families and the victims and not speculate about future legislative battles that might lie ahead," said Reid, a view expressed by other Democratic leaders the day after the shootings that left 33 dead on the campus of Virginia Tech.

Democrats traditionally have been in the forefront of efforts to pass gun control legislation, but there is a widespread perception among political strategists that the issue has been a loser in recent campaigns. It was notably absent from the agenda Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled earlier this year when the party took control of the House and Senate for the first time in more than a decade.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/virginia_tech_gun_control;_ylt=AtSPonK.sBiaAWlPA_XPvGCs0NUE

[rodeodance]

1. umm. Wonder if Gonzo will come out with some new 'inititive"???

[rodeodance]

2. says Pelosi pulled voing in DC cause it was tied to repeal of gun law:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., was one of very few lawmakers to refer on gun control in the early hours after the shootings. "There will be time to debate the steps needed to avert such tragedies," he said on Monday, "but today, our thoughts and prayers go to their families."

By coincidence, Kennedy and Rep. Xavier Becerra (voting record), D-Calif., are scheduled to attend a demonstration Friday to draw attention to microstamping, a procedure by which serial numbers are placed on ammunition casings. The goal is to allow police and other investigators to quickly track ammunition to the gun that fired it.

The two lawmakers support legislation to require microstamping for all guns manufactured after 2009, and aides to both said they planned to go ahead with the demonstration.

Overall, though, said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (voting record), D-Md., seemed eager to predict Democrats would lead a drive to toughen existing laws.

Less than a month ago, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders abruptly pulled legislation to give the District of Columbia voting representation in the House. Republicans were using the issue to try to force a vote on repeal of the capital's handgun ban, and Democrats feared it would pass.

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. minor error in there

Carolyn McCarthy is my rep, and she's from NY, not Maryland. She was the wife and mother of two people who were on the LIRR massacre about a dozen years ago.

[Cass]

9. I saw her interviewed this afternoon on the news. She said the automatic weapons ban

that was allowed to expire two years ago by the Congress had a prohibition on the 15 round clip this gunman used.

I was reminded of her interview with the mention of her name. I hope the Congress will eventually look into reauthorizing that legislation.

[benEzra]

12. The "automatic weapons ban" is still in place, and has been since 1934.

I saw her interviewed this afternoon on the news. She said the automatic weapons ban that was allowed to expire two years ago by the Congress had a prohibition on the 15 round clip this gunman used.

Automatic weapons are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (possession of one is a Federal felony without government permission, i.e. BATFE Form 4). You're thinking about the 1994 Feinstein ban, which raised prices on over-10-round handgun magazines, but did not restrict their sale, transfer, or possession. My wife bought a 15-round Glock 19 magazine in 1997 or 1998.

FWIW, the primary weapons of the Columbine killers had capacities of 2 and 5-6, respectively, and the Trolley Square shooter was using a 3-shot shotgun (shoot 2, reload 2 with one still in the chamber).

I hope the Congress will eventually look into reauthorizing that legislation.

God, I hope not. Not just because of the fact that the Feinstein law handed Congress to the repubs (Newt Gingrich reportedly could've stopped it in conference committee, but let it pass knowing he'd ride the backlash into Tom Foley's seat). Not just because rifles of ANY type are almost never used in crimes, per the FBI. But because I and most of the people I know own guns that Sarah Brady calls "assault weapons."


Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, banned by name by H.R.1022

[saigon68]

15. You are so correct

A bunch of wimps in the city want to outlaw hunting

Around here the Democrats got their asses kicked in the elections by nut jobs like schumer wanting to take their guns away

[aquart]

22. Right.

We'll wait till it's your kids in your schools. Then. Maybe.

Nah.

[benEzra]

30. What, exactly, are you saying?

Do you actually think that automatic weapons aren't tightly controlled? Or that civilian rifles are commonly used in crimes?

Or are you saying that having the police kick in my door and empty my gun safe would somehow make my son and daughter (8 and 6) safer at school?

No, I disagree. I think building a better mental health care system, and making this country a better place to live, would make my kids safer. You can't have that AND fight for gun bans; as 1994 showed, they are mutually exclusive.

Huffington Post - It's Not About the Firearms (Bob Cesca)

Who or what is really to blame for the shameful level of gun violence in America? The focus has to be aimed point-blank at the cold, brutal reality that there exists a serious inability to cope with American pop, economic and social pressures; a criminal lack of understanding of mental and physical health issues; and the problem solving examples instilled upon us by our elected leaders in a time when visual and printed access to information is at an all time high. These are just some of the elements at play, and they each carry a significant amount of blame. Not the guns.

...

Millions of American citizens with an array of mental illnesses are walking around without the means to be diagnosed in the first place, much less to be treated properly -- and a growing number of those Americans are Iraq veterans. Health insurance carriers won't insure you if you have a prior history of anything from basic depression to full blown schizophrenia (2 million diagnosed Americans with schizophrenic disorders and counting), even though many mental illnesses erase the ability to discern between a first-person-shooter video game and a group of students on a college campus. Mental illness is the difference between keeping a handgun for self defense and using it to liberate human beings from their oppressive world.

Give a person with an untreated and severe mental illness a handgun and a target, and another Virginia Tech massacre waits in the wings. Take away the handgun, and it'd be homemade explosives. Take those away and it'd be poison in the cafeteria food (beyond the legal poisons already mixed in). What else can be taken away? Basic freedoms and liberties, maybe? Video games? The key, as best I see it, is to leave most of the guns alone (and the video games, Senator Clinton) and provide real health insurance for everyone, then to begin the slow process of rebuilding a viable middle class in America.

If the NRA, among others, truly wants to win this debate, it should dedicate a large percentage of its lobbying resources to promoting guaranteed affordable (free is better), comprehensive health care coverage for every American. Additionally, if you want to keep your firearm, tell your elected representatives that tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans should be rolled back in favor of serious tax breaks for the middle class. This will begin to close the divide between crime and earning an honest living. Proper health care will begin to tackle the rate of untreated mental illnesses which, at the very least, will reduce the numbers of gun crimes by those of us who aren't able to handle or fully process the torque of modern American reality.

[Cass]

34. Assault weapons ban expired in 2004. I mistakenly said "automatic" instead of "assault".

I apologize for that error.

Four presidents (Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton) passed and renewed the ban, which Kerry also supports, but Bush has successfully blocked the bill's renewal, despite its endorsement by every national police organization and the support of about 77 percent of the American voters, according to most polls.
...
The bill outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it. And now that Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert have announced that they won't even bring a vote on the matter, gun manufacturers are gearing up for the scheduled expiration by taking orders for semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines that may soon become legal again, according to the Washington Post.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow?pid=1794

I do hope this legislation is reauthorized. I have nothing against gun ownership for self-protection, sport and/or hunting (I myself am a gun owner) but is it necessary for the general public to have assault weapons, particularly when they can be purchased so easily by just about anyone? Maybe I'm out of the loop here but I think its sensible to place some restriction on certain types of ammunition and weapons and we should think about gun licensing also.

[benEzra]

40. What type of gun do you own? It may BE an "assault weapon."

I have nothing against gun ownership for self-protection, sport and/or hunting (I myself am a gun owner) but is it necessary for the general public to have assault weapons, particularly when they can be purchased so easily by just about anyone? Maybe I'm out of the loop here but I think its sensible to place some restriction on certain types of ammunition and weapons and we should think about gun licensing also.

What type of gun do you own, if you don't mind my asking? It may be an "assault weapon."

Here are some "assault weapons":


Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle


preban Marlin Model 60 squirrel rifle, caliber .22LR (bringing this rifle into New Jersey is a 5-year felony)


Benelli turkey hunting shotgun, 12-gauge


My wife's antique Russian Samozaryadniy Karabin Simonova, made in Tula in 1952 and very collectible, shown with her Glock.


Any shotgun holding more than 5 shells, any pistol or rifle holding more than 10 rounds, or any self-loading rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out is an "assault weapon." Plus the AR-15 platform (the most popular civilian target rifle in the United States), the M1 carbine and M1 Garand (the most sought-after 1940's collectibles), the SKS (perhaps the most popular civilian centerfire rifle ever sold in the United States, bar none), Ruger mini-14. And so on. They're almost never used in homicides, but this isn't about crime control, it's about whittling down gun owners until only the small hunting minority is left.

Personally, I don't care if I'm "allowed" to have high-powered hunting weapons or skeet guns; I don't hunt and I don't shoot skeet. I'd like to keep my small-caliber self-loaders, thanks.

[Cass]

55. I don't mind you asking. Its a .38 snubnose revolver. nt

[Speaker]

41. .

Four presidents (Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton) passed and renewed the ban,

Ummm....no. The assault weapons ban didn't pass 'till '93. That gave the House to the pubbies in '94.

[NickB79]

43. The shooter didn't use an assault weapon, though

He used two handguns, neither one of which would be regulated under the old AWB or the new one a few senators have proposed we reauthorize.

[Cass]

51. Yes, however, the 15 round magazine had been banned under the legislation.

Thats according to Carolyn McCarthy who was interviewed yesterday about this.

[Pavulon]

53. It takes 2 seconds or less to reload a glock

the difference in 10 and 15 is non existent. depress release with thumb, mag falls, slam new mag in. Pistol generally returns to battery.

That was never effective any way. All it did was jack up the price for magazines. Never banned the OLD ones.

Stupidest law ever.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

52. Anyone care to point out the absolute LIE in that snippet?

Yes its a LIE, not a misstatement. It is something even a 5min fact check would find. But hey, why let facts get in the way of good drama?

[virginia mountainman]

3. GOOD!!!

I don't want our party tossed out like a piece of garbage, much like 1994, especially over wrong headed legislation.

EDIT: I get sick of being hit with "They want our guns" when stumping for support..

[xxqqqzme]

5. Oh god please we wouldn't want to 'rush' into anything

like THAT. But let Janet Jackson have a 'wardrobe failure' or some soldier say 'fuck' in the middle of a firefight or some woman's brain turn to mush, then the heavens part and everyone rushes to save the childrens eyes and ears or save that woman in Florida....jeebus, her husband was practically called murderer on the House Floor.

Yes, please don't rush into anything that might actually save lives - maybe they can trot out a non-binding resolution - that ought to fix everything!

[divineorder]

8. Gun Prohibition Saves Nothing

All such laws do is make it harder for the sober and lawabiding. Someone like the shooter, so desperate that he wants to kill himself, will find a gun even if he has to go into the "bad section of town" and find it. Indeed, the "War on Guns" is no more successful than the "War on Drugs" have been. Indeed, there's a link. The heavy artillery didn't show up until dealers had to defend their homes against invasion because the cops obviously wouldn't do so, and when the millions from illegal drug sales made them a tempting target. Along with defending lucrative turf. And of course, the dealers could care less about who they sold extra guns to-they were going to jail anyway.

The truth is, there is no quick fix for stuff like this. Investing in mental health care could save a lot more lives in the long run, but the reason we don't do it is that results take time, and we would rather pass a law and leave it up to law enforcement to do "something" even if its wrong and awkward to do.

Also, millions of Americans own guns and are no trouble at all, and resent the notion that they are a minute away from snapping.

[xxqqqzme]

10. I just got off on a bit of a rant.

What I meant was when one absolutely stupid thing happens - like Janet Jackson's eyeblink nipple exposure, these halfwits will move heaven & earth to make a mountain out of that molehill. But god forbid, there should be a sane debate over anything else that impacts society. Heard of any hearings scheduled on the booming prison population and what needs to be done about that?

No, I haven't either.

[brentspeak]

14. Who said anything about "gun prohibition"?

Having the local police query about a handgun permit applicant's background saves a lot of lives in NJ, and doesn't prevent responsible gun owners from purchasing guns.

[Alexander]

29. Tell that to Chuck Schumer...

Who constantly tries to restrict various firearms despite knowing absolutely nothing about them.

Kind of like a few DUers.

[brentspeak]

37. What does Chuck Schumer have to do with the policy of local police researching

handgun permit applications?

????????????????

[saigon68]

42. Chuck's not the sharpest tool in the drawer

[samsingh]

48. what is this massive love affair that so many people have with guns?

guns are used to kill other people.

automatic guns and powerful guns make it easier and more efficient to kill people.

more guns more death.

less guns less death.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

54. But Virginia Tech already banned guns on campus.

How many lives did that save?

[iverglas]

64. gee, the state of Virginia already bans homicide

Fuckin' duh.

Straw flies thick and fast.

[benEzra]

33. The ban-more-guns lobby is pushing H.R.1022 hard in response to this...

Who said anything about "gun prohibition"?

Having the local police query about a handgun permit applicant's background saves a lot of lives in NJ, and doesn't prevent responsible gun owners from purchasing guns.

The ban-more-guns lobby is pushing H.R.1022 hard in response to this, which would ban the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, as well as all shotguns holding over 5 shells and all pistol and rifle magazines holding over 10 rounds.

BTW, in New Jersey, what do you do if you have a police chief who doesn't believe in people owning handguns, except in rare cases? Are there criminal penalties for a chief who wrongfully or arbitrarily denies a citizen the right to buy a handgun?

[brentspeak]

36. It's like talking to a brick wall

You've received the answer about your fantasy scenario of "a police chief who doesn't believe in people owning handguns, except in rare cases" a thousand times, but I guess you just want to repeat it in the hope that readers are gullible enough to buy into your fantasy.

To repeat (for the millionth time): 1) The local police interview the applicant, and query neighbors, friends, etc. about the applicant; 2) If the police discover that the applicant has been known to make threats, stalks people, etc., they will document that information in detail in their report, and likely reject the application; 3) the state police are then required to verify that what the local police department documented is correct; 4) the applicant may appeal the rejection to a state board, where the local police have the responsibility to justify their decision.

If, in your fantasy scenario, the "police chief" tried to discriminate against an applicant (i.e. could not adequately document aberrant behavior on the part of the applicant), it would be revealed by a) the state police; and, if necessary, b) the state board.

End of story.

[iverglas]

63. huh

1) The local police interview the applicant, and query neighbors, friends, etc. about the applicant; 2) If the police discover that the applicant has been known to make threats, stalks people, etc., they will document that information in detail in their report, and likely reject the application; 3) the state police are then required to verify that what the local police department documented is correct; 4) the applicant may appeal the rejection to a state board, where the local police have the responsibility to justify their decision.

Gee, that sounds familiar ... oh yeah, that's kinda how it works up here.

Actually, not quite that well. There isn't actually enough active investigation. But then, we're talking permits for long arms, and long arms here aren't quite of the same calibre (hehe) as some long arms down there. Handguns and those other long arms require special permits -- but they too are just a tad too easy to get.

And we don't actually have an appeal, we have a form of judicial review, as for administrative tribunals generally -- the court may review the process by which the decision was made -- whether something was improperly considered or something else improperly not considered, whether the rules of natural justice were followed, whether someone was discriminated against on unconstitutional grounds, that sort of thing -- but not the decision itself.

But yeah, all in all, it just ain't that damned hard to figure out.

I do like to think that you folks down there don't really live in a police state, where those local good ol' boys can just haul you off in handcuffs and do whatever else they might like to you and you have no recourse at all, eh?

I guess you just want to repeat it in the hope that readers are gullible enough to buy into your fantasy.

Lot of that goin' around, too.

[iverglas]

62. uh, I think that would be

the usual suspects. They've been piling the straw pretty high the last couple o' days, eh?

[samsingh]

47. i don't believe that

restricting access to guns will save lives.

and for those who say prove this, prove that restrictions will not save lives.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. Thousands of lives, not nothing.

"All such laws do is make it harder for the sober and lawabiding."

This is not true. Stricter gun laws would make it much harder for criminals to get hold of guns; they'd also reduce accidental shootings.


"Someone like the shooter, so desperate that he wants to kill himself, will find a gun even if he has to go into the "bad section of town" and find it."

This is not true. The mentally ill often won't be up to spending ages going from pillar to illegal post to get a gun; if they are then making them do so will make it *far* more likely both that they change their mind and that they get caught first.


"Indeed, the "War on Guns" is no more successful than the "War on Drugs" have been."

*America's gun policy* has been no more successful than the war on drugs. That's because it's a love affair, not a war. A genuine war on guns would save thousands of lives a year.



There *is* a quick, albeit partial fix, for things like this. Repeal the 2nd ammendment, and introduce federal UK-level gun control. It won't be perfect, but it would save thousands of lives a year.

That said, it's not going to happen. Too many Americans think (or rather, refrain from thinking) like you. Trying to introduce decent gun laws would be political suicide, and, sadly, I think the Democrats should sell out to you and yours and spend the political capital elsewhere.

[divineorder]

66. No One Is Going To Turn in Their Guns

Since when have we Democrats become the party of prohibition? Guns, Drugs, Offshore Gambling, Video Games we disapprove of? FDR became president on the strength of opposing Prohibition, and signing its repeal. Carter almost decriminalized marijuana. JFK and Eleanor Roosevelt carried guns without any problems, and never proposed any undue restrictions on its use. Indeed, it was the Republicans that usually catered to the prohibitionist impulse, starting with Prohibition itself, which was seen as a way to tame those unruly immigrants who preferred having fun on the Sabbath instead of being good Protestants who sat around all day in church. It was Republicans that usually had crusades about decency and the evils of racy stuff. Remember the Meese Commission?

We used to be the reality-based party on these matters, either honoring the individual right of adults to indulge privately, or noting that bans usually led to the enrichment of organized crime instead of a decrease in people purchasing whatever it is that was being banned. Twenty years of gun conrol hasn't reduced violence a lick.

Drug money is too lucrative not to defend with guns. The dealers won't stop owning, especially since dealers are going to get 20 years just for dealing-so what's a gun ban to them? Not to mention that rivals could kill you tomorrow for control of your territory. And cops can't give theirs up either. And many people have previously bought, inherited, or rented guns. Nobody there is going to give those up. And there are at least 1 gun for every American.

Indeed gun prohibition would simply, like drugs, take distribution out of the hands of responsible gun dealers who pay taxes and are peaceful, into the hands of gangsters that sell drugs-and guns and fight each other over turf and profits. And whatever minor restraints there are with a legal dealer regarding sales, there would be none on the black market at all. And there would be a black market.

You say that mentally ill people won't make that extra effort to buy illegally. With an illegal market, the market would be as close as the nearest kid with a very heavy backpack-or a fellow student supplementing his/her income. With legal gun sales, the mentally ill have to go somewhere and make purchases that are traceable, in a shop that keeps records, in an area that's not usually around the corner. With a seller that is legally empowered and reasonally prosperous enough to refuse a sale if it looks shady. Underground sellers have no receipts, and may be pressured to make money for higher ups who want a cut, so they can't refuse anyone who has the money no matter how problematical the sale.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. Actually I agree with Reid.

I firmly support much, much stronger gun control in America.

But I think you should wait until the dust has settled before you start drafting legislation.

[iverglas]

65. moi aussi

The immediate post-traumatic-event period is no time to do anything, including this.

Discussion needs to start, but policy proposals and decisions should wait.

[jody]

6. IMO prominent Democrat senators who are also rabid anti-gun will use their media pulpit to scream

"ban guns".

If that happens, we Dems will continue to be viewed as gun-grabbers and lose the next election for president, control of the Senate, and many seats in the House.

[aquart]

23. "Democrat senators"???

I wondered why this place was sounding so much like that place.

[jody]

50. What place is that?

[depakid]

7. No sense in even trying to enact gun control legislation.

It's a lose/lose proposition. Bush will veto it and it will simply energize the far right base.

[joldnir]

44. and not just the far right base.

There are many people that would and will vote for us and with us, as long as we do not try to take their guns away from them. While it will fire up the right wing base, it will also drive some of our supporters away.

[ingac70]

11. Democrats need to stay away from anymore gun legislation....

Do we want more Dubyas in our future?

[aquart]

24. Thank you for your concern.

[scavenger]

13. To hell with it.

I don't believe in any gun control laws, and those of you that do are nothing but unrealistic anti american cowards that would put yourself in a position to let your wife be murdered, and you daughters be raped by someone that has a gun, or a knife , or a bat, or is just an out right bad ass.]

I want to have the advantage when it becomes to protecting myself and my family, and for those of you that think I shouldn't have that right.....Kiss My Ass.....

[saigon68]

16. Amen

Imagine prohibiting honest citizens in Iraq not to have guns

The cops in this country would go crazy if honest citizens were unarmed and the thugs could just enter their houses at will.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

17. Let's Hope Mental Health plays into things...

... who wants an angry mental case out running with semi-auto pistols with 10 or 15 or 19 round clips?

[JCMach1]

18. Should people with green cards be allowed to purchase guns?

That's a legitimate question...

[entanglement]

19. I'd say yes to that

n/t

[aquart]

25. Why?

They're here to work AND shoot?

[benEzra]

35. Why, other than xenophobia, should people with green cards

NOT be treated like ordinary people? I work with two people with green cards, one a Canadian and one from the UK. Both would be entirely responsible with guns.

They are both here to LIVE THEIR LIVES, not just to punch a clock for some corporation. They live here because they want to live here, but becoming a citizen takes a long time.

[truthisfreedom]

20. Guns or no guns, in this case, the police were informed by his English professor that he was

seriously disturbed. If we had public health care with mental health included in this country, we'd be one step ahead of these kinds of nightmares.

[Alexander]

21. Good. Stay off this issue.

It will lose us elections.

It's like a circular firing squad. We wonder why more voters in the South and West don't vote Democratic, and it's because people who would otherwise vote for us also place great value in the right to bear arms. And many Democrats attack the very issue that they value so much, and as long as we as a party adopt that as our official stance, it will lose us elections every time.

[aquart]

26. Agreed.

Enough guns in southern and western states, enough school shootings...the depopulation will remove electoral votes and the sane north will run the country.

You buy those guns. And we won't.

[Alexander]

28. Newsflash: The campus was a "gun-free zone".

Obviously laws didn't mean shit to this kid. Otherwise he wouldn't have committed 33 murders, in addition to arson and harassment.

Do you really think these people are going to get their weapons legally? Hint: They are criminals.

Guns are not the problem, or the solution. Only extremists think they are.

[brentspeak]

38. How did he get his gun?

That's the only relevant question here.

Answer: In Virginia, they hand them out like candy. In states like NJ and RI, they actually do the responsible thing and prevent as many psychos as possible from obtaining them (while not preventing sane people from getting theirs.)

[Celeborn Skywalker]

39. But what about places like Camden and Newark?

These are two of the most gun violent cities in the nation, yet, as you say, NJ has strict gun control laws. Why isn't gun violence significantly lower in places like that?

[brentspeak]

45. Gangs in Camden and Newark have to get their guns from out of state

80% of the time, those guns have to be smuggled into the state.

[nolabels]

59. "smuggled into the state", wouldn't they just take their car and drive right in with them?

I say lets start an initiative to outlaw cars, that seems to be common denominator where all these problems start :shrug:

[benEzra]

32. "The north" is one of the most pro-gun areas of the country...

New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maine...

You know that Vermont is only one of two states in the nation that doesn't even require a license to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense, right?

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Connecticut aren't the only states in the Northern U.S., though some people seem to forget that when the topic of guns comes up.

[hogwyld]

61. Why do you keep repeating that myth???

If we follow your guidlines, we should moderate our position on a woman's choice so we don't alienate the pro-lifers. We should moderate our position on GLBT issues so we don't offend the homophobes etc. Hell, why don't we just adopt the GOP platform, that will win us a couple of more votes. No! I will not sell my soul to satisfy some narrow one issue voter. If they are not willing to vote Dem over a single issue, then they weren't strong Dems to begin with.

[pampango]

27. Governor Kaine said about the same regarding using the tragedy

for political purposes at this point by saying "if someone wants to make gun control "their political hobby-horse to ride, I have nothing but loathing for them."

I expect he will come forth with appropriate legislation after investigations and a "decent interval."

[benEzra]

31. Fantastic article on Huffington Post this morning...

Huffington Post - It's Not About the Firearms (Bob Cesca)

Who or what is really to blame for the shameful level of gun violence in America? The focus has to be aimed point-blank at the cold, brutal reality that there exists a serious inability to cope with American pop, economic and social pressures; a criminal lack of understanding of mental and physical health issues; and the problem solving examples instilled upon us by our elected leaders in a time when visual and printed access to information is at an all time high. These are just some of the elements at play, and they each carry a significant amount of blame. Not the guns.

...

Millions of American citizens with an array of mental illnesses are walking around without the means to be diagnosed in the first place, much less to be treated properly -- and a growing number of those Americans are Iraq veterans. Health insurance carriers won't insure you if you have a prior history of anything from basic depression to full blown schizophrenia (2 million diagnosed Americans with schizophrenic disorders and counting), even though many mental illnesses erase the ability to discern between a first-person-shooter video game and a group of students on a college campus. Mental illness is the difference between keeping a handgun for self defense and using it to liberate human beings from their oppressive world.

Give a person with an untreated and severe mental illness a handgun and a target, and another Virginia Tech massacre waits in the wings. Take away the handgun, and it'd be homemade explosives. Take those away and it'd be poison in the cafeteria food (beyond the legal poisons already mixed in). What else can be taken away? Basic freedoms and liberties, maybe? Video games? The key, as best I see it, is to leave most of the guns alone (and the video games, Senator Clinton) and provide real health insurance for everyone, then to begin the slow process of rebuilding a viable middle class in America.

If the NRA, among others, truly wants to win this debate, it should dedicate a large percentage of its lobbying resources to promoting guaranteed affordable (free is better), comprehensive health care coverage for every American. Additionally, if you want to keep your firearm, tell your elected representatives that tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans should be rolled back in favor of serious tax breaks for the middle class. This will begin to close the divide between crime and earning an honest living. Proper health care will begin to tackle the rate of untreated mental illnesses which, at the very least, will reduce the numbers of gun crimes by those of us who aren't able to handle or fully process the torque of modern American reality.

[samsingh]

46. can't risk the wrath of gun owners

[w4rma]

49. Extremely good. (nt)

[ProudDad]

56. My proposal, Harry...

A Federal law that mandates that every gun in the country will be registered. Every gun registered and sold will be test fired and the bullet markings included in a national database along with the owner AND SELLERS names and addresses and fingerprints.

That same law will create a Federal Felony for the owner AND gun seller if a gun is involved in a crime. I think 5 years would be enough for the first offense.

That along with a $15.00 per bullet tax should go a long way toward cutting down on gun violence.

No problem with any 2nd Amendment nonsense with these proposals. No gun ban involved. Fire away at all the deer, cows, goats, squirrels, Gila Monsters and all the other harmless little critters you want...

[hogwyld]

60. That's a great start

Then use the tax to fund UHC, and a gun buyback program similar to Australia's

[MisterP]

67. don't catch your hand in LaPierre's zipper, Harry

[IsItJustMe]

68. The Dems are slow. but they are learning.