Dem Senator Pessimistic About Passing Major Gun Control Legislation
- Posted on January 17, 2011 at 9:28am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) appeared alongside Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” to debate gun control laws. But host David Gregory didn’t get the must-see TV he wanted, as Schumer came across as a cautious, even slightly pessimistic, politician instead of fiery gun control advocate.
During the interview, Gregory was taken aback by Schumer’s lack of enthusiasm, saying, “Senator Schumer, I have to say, I detect some caution from you on this, that it might be the right direction, but you don’t really expect much traction here.” That prompted Schumer to admit, “look, let’s, let’s be honest here, there haven’t been the votes in the Congress for gun control.”
When Coburn weighed in with, “the 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,” Schumer went on to declare his support for the Second Amendment:
Well, let me say this. 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.
The lack of enthusiasm is surprising considering the renewed hope of gun-control advocates in the wake of the shootings in Tucson:
Transcript via NBC:
MR. GREGORY: Senator Schumer, I have to say, I detect some caution from you on this, that it might be the right direction, but you don’t really expect much traction here. It’s not…
SEN. SCHUMER: Well…
MR. GREGORY: …the normal enthusiasm I would expect from you on this issue.
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, look, twofold. First, we want to be civil in the debate, so we’re making every effort here. Second — and respecting somebody’s views who are different than ours. Second, look, let’s, let’s be honest here, there haven’t been the votes in the Congress for gun control. We’ve had some victories, the mental illness bill that I mentioned. There was a proposal by Senator Thune that said if you were — had a concealed carry permit in one state, you could use — you could walk into another state. So laws like Arizona, someone could buy one there and come into New York and not even notify the police. That was defeated. But make no mistake about it, the changes are hard.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
SEN. SCHUMER: Senator Feinstein tried to bring the assault weapons ban back on the floor and it didn’t pass.
MR. GREGORY: Well…
SEN. SCHUMER: So we’re looking for things where we can maybe find some common ground and get something done.
MR. GREGORY: Senator Coburn, look, the politics are tough on this. And Senator Schumer reflects it because Democrats know it’s a difficult fight. Look at the public attitudes about stricter gun control measures just since 1990, at that point. We have a graph we can show you. Seventy-eight percent favored it, down to 44 percent in 2010. That being the case, even as a supporter of gun rights, as Congresswoman Giffords is, can you not look at, at areas of access to weapons, but also looking at limiting the scope by these magazine clips and say there may be something that’s common sense here?
SEN. COBURN: Well, I — again, I would tell you that — let’s say you pass that. If, if you have somebody that is a criminal, that wants to get around the law, they’re going to get around the law. The problem with gun laws is they limit the ability to defend yourself, one. But number two is, the 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. And there’s numerous examples over the last few years where concealed carry has, in fact, benefited people, especially in, for example, in Colorado Springs, where a individual with a concealed carry stopped somebody who was going to kill multiple people in a church, and, and, and wounded them so that they could not continue to do that. So it’s a controversial issue. The fact is, I’d go back — let’s fix the real problem. Here‘s a mentally deranged person who had access to a gun that shouldn’t have had access to a gun. Now, what is the — how do we stop that? And, and there’s a hole in what we need to do. And I’m willing to work with Senator Schumer and anybody else that wants to make sure people who are mentally ill cannot get and use a gun.
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, let me say this. 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. But like all the other rights, it’s not absolute. First Amendment, you can’t — we have laws against pornography, you can’t scream “fire” falsely in a crowded theater. And there should be limits on gun laws, as well, that still protect the individual’s right to bear arms. And just one point about your little survey that showed that the support went down. One of the reasons is because of the success of gun control laws. The Brady Law has been a huge success. Gun violence went down, the number of people killed by criminals who have guns has declined. And so to me, it’s a vindication that smart, rational gun control laws that protect the right to bear arms but have reasonable limits are the way to go.
(H/T: Mediaite)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 679 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 530 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 430 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 285 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 290 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 174 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 285 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (186)
Dustoff
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:57amWe have a failing econ, High unemployment and this jerk wants to talk about guns.
Jezzzzzzzz Typical lib.
Report Post »TX Progressive
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:12pmget a job
Report Post »normbal
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:55am“Schumer went on to declare his support for the Second Amendment:
Well, let me say this. 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.
Support? More light damning with faint praise. I’ll go you one better Chuckie, THIS is what our founders believed:
“Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon — rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — any time, any place, without asking anyone’s permission.”
The Atlanta Declaration by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org
WeaponsCon I, Atlanta, Georgia, September 1987
Future of Freedom Conference, Culver City, California November, 1987
THAT, is what “shall not be infringed” means in plain language and it’s not up to you, the president, the courts, to redefine this right and its application.
Go back to work and close the southern border to the invasion that is destroying our country, our language, our culture. Guns, bullets, gun control are off the table.
Report Post »BUSHMASTER 223
Posted on January 18, 2011 at 12:04amAmen!
Report Post »Bluefish49
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:51amLet’s face it….abolishing the 2nd Amendment right to defend yourself is the “Holy Grail” to the progressive movement. They are going to ride this Arizona tragedy until they can make gun ownership so expensive I.E.-massive tax on new handguns and ammo etc. that a gun owner will just stop purchasing. Thank God for the black market.
Report Post »tblrk2006
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:45am“TX Progressive
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:08am
Do you think we should have unfettered access to automatic weapons? How about grenade launchers? If not, where do you think we should draw the line? No bumper sticker answers, real only.”
At least know what your talking about. “Automatic weapons” as you call them (and all Class III) have been highly restricted since the National Firearms Act of 1934. It takes a FBI background, fingerprint, several month wait, and $200 tax stamp……to obtain any of them. No newly manugfactured machines guns have been available for private ownership since 1986. And no legaly obtained class three weapons have been used in any crimes. And also please differentiate between arms and artillary. If your ignorantly trying to refer to semi auto guns (as automatics) than your wrong on that too. They are no different than any other gun, just as dangerous, and they are controled just as any other gun is. Bolt action, pump, single shot….etc. You can reload, pump, or cycle the action on any weapon in a seconds time. The founders gave us the second so that we would always have a heavy hand when fighting a tyranical govt. Placeing restrictions on indiviuals options puts limits on the militias abaility to fight. Try controlling the insane liberal left psychos before you punish those not guilty of anything, by taking their guns.
Report Post »Boojer56
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:44amSane Citizens Owning Guns is paramount to out national security. Japan did not invade the US mainland in WWII as they were in fear of the largest unnamed army in the world, The Armed American Citizen They knew they would be decimated as they would have no idea who has a weapon and who doesn’t nor where they are. Plus the armed american citizens would be unpredictable. Look what happened to the British Army during the revolutionary war. This is why we are still a Democracy.
Report Post »Endstatism
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:12amBoojer, you are correct. A Japanese military leader was quoted as saying if they invaded American soil there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass shooting at their troops
Report Post »5410amh
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:51am@boojer56
japan did invade the U.S. mainland during world war 2 they invade alaska the alution islands more specificly
Report Post »gunkgy
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:51pmA reminder, we are a Republic, not a Democracy.
Report Post »takingonissues.com
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:41amThere goes the left again, doing what they’re great at …. scaring, threathening, spinning, exaggerating. That’s all they are taught how to do. They wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them in the butt. http://www.takingonissues.com
Report Post »REVENANT
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:39amThe Brady law did precisely crap to cut gun crimes. More weapons in the hands of good citizens is what is responsible for the drop of crime rates, as it is responsible everywhere the crime rate goes down. More Guns equals less crime.
Report Post »Evileye
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:38amTo Tex Progressive
Report Post »Do you think that a native Alaskan that was given a joint restraining order 30 years ago in a divorce
can never Owen a firearm.
Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey & Summer from New York think so.
Of course there are no 800# bears in new Jersey Maybe the Zoo.
I don’t think to many people are in the market for an RPG.
We do have laws since 1934 for machine gun saw off shotgun, ETC.
We used to have law to commit people that are certified nut cases
Not anymore,now it self commitment.
The only guy that I can think of whom might want a usable RPG
would be the dude don on de conr with the whit ho that sell de crak.
TX Progressive
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:16pmi would reply if i could understand…
Report Post »casey1
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:37amLooks like David Gregory could not get his agenda going with Schumer, he kept trying though. Gregory just was besides himself.
Report Post »Buck Bagaw
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:44amGregory is a DH, and I’m not talking baseball here!!
Report Post »5410amh
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:36amI dare them to try taking away are guns completly I wonder how of the people sent to collect them would die in the first hour.
Report Post »5410amh
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:30amhere is the perfect example of why gun control does NOT work. In Britian citizens are not allowed to own guns unless you are a police officer or in the military, but they still have a lot of gun related crimes. if you ban them like dems want to do you will end up with a black market for guns. but we should be like the swiss everybody owns at least one gun over there becuase all of the men are in the national militia and yet even though everybody has guns they have very few gun related crimes and also one of the lowest crime rates in the world, why you might ask becuase if you try to rob a house or rob a deli there is a extermely high chance you will be shot. guns are there deterent against crime and it’s very effective. here in U.S. we just need to teach everybody how to handle firearms properly and safely whether they own a gun or not.
Report Post »missmarie
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:30amGun control is one of those “hot political topics” that keeps our elected elite on camera and little else. Our people are unemployed, our products are being made in other countries, our businesses are moving to other countries, our federal budget and subsequent related debt is unsustainable, our states are quickly following the federal lead on unsustainable budgets and debts, and in my humble opinion our politicians now spend the entire year “campaigning” and allow their special interest groups to write the current onslaught of unwanted and unnecessary legislation they will eventually shove down our throats.
Report Post »west1890
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:29amGun control does nothing but take away the ability of law adiding citizens to defend themselves. The bad guys always find a way to obtain weapons and ammo. They have gun control in Mexico and it doesn’t seem to be working out real well down there, does it?
Report Post »KATBAB
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:27amMy argument about reducing magazine size, or an assault weapons ban, is this… if there’s a criminal coming through my door, I want to have a BETTER weapon than he does. Sure, you can hunt with a bolt action 22 cal. rifle, but it’s very doubtful you could survive defending yourself with that 22 if your assailant has an AK47.
Report Post »lketchum
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:19amCorrect.
Also, and not well published is the fact that home owners in the NO area after Katrina had to fire hundreds and in some cases THOUSANDS of warning shots over the heads of looters in defense of their property.
Now, if those home owners had not had batteries that included high-capacity magazines and ammunition stores with thousands of rounds for each weapon, they would not have had the choice to fire “warning shots” – they would have had no other choice but to use lethal fire, or abandon their homes. It has been proved that high-capacity magazines and battle rifles (largely M4ergy variants of the Mil-Spec Colt M4) saved lives after Katrina – the lives that were saved were criminals and looters, because home owners had a choice. Home owners with optical sights were especially accurate, and they were able to carefully place their fires so as not to wound, or kill criminals and looters. The looters moved on to easier targets well down the road. Once the government came in, confiscated home owners’ weapons and flex-cuffed them in front of their homes, the criminals and looters came back and robbed them – at gun point! That last part is particularly sad, in my view.
Report Post »Chasvs391
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:27amProgressives. don’t they know the largest modern day massacres occurred at GUN FREE ZONE?
Report Post »Chasvs391
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:26amWhat does this have to do with anything? The biggest modern day massacres happened in their beloved “gun free zones”!
Nothing makes sense, but they keep trying to disarm a free people! Hitler did this and what did we get?
Report Post »lketchum
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:05am“Gun free zones” do not work. Not at all. You’re right to question the logic about them.
Criminals prey upon the weak and madmen know that in gun free zones there plenty of targets that are unarmed. It is why they choose those areas to attack. Criminals never hit the person that is prepared with their head on a swivel. Criminals attack those that do not pay attention, or those that are weakest. While I understand the idea behind gun free zones, in reality they do not work.
Report Post »awizard
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:23am@ TX Progressive
That’s a “bumper sticker” question. Schumer is [for once] showing a little sense, you can’t take my guns and he knows it … look how well “Gun laws” are working out, the less the better.
By the way I can get you a good deal on a machine gun or a rocket launcher if you want one …
Report Post »Dustoff
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:30amLOL,,,,,,,,,,, great answer.
Report Post »crossdraw
Posted on January 18, 2011 at 9:08amAWIZARD
Report Post »Comments like that will see black suburbans in front of your house. Comments like that can get your rights to a gun taken away. Watch your words so you can stay in the fight. Good luck
old white guy
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:21amdems like schumer are all about control.
Report Post »Helldogger
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:11amCain rose up & slew Abel with a stone. So lets register all rocks. But don’t pay any attention to WHY Cain Slew Abel.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:10amThe right to bear arms is an individual right that no government, federal, state, or local can infringe upon.
Report Post »Lesterp
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:54amHate to break it to you but they have already trampled on them. 2nd amendment is nowhere near what it was written as!
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:09amThe re/pro/gressive war on our liberties will not stop even if we the people win the day in 2012, these progressives are an ideological infestation dug in deep, I trust none of what they say and see no reason to ever compromise with them.
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:51amBumper sticker “Gun control= two in the chest, one in the head”
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:24amNo, the war shall continue onward for a long time; it took the progressives decades to build up the structure of theirs, we shall dismantle it one part at a time and win in the end. The fight will always continue, for the wages of freedom is vigilance eternal – by the defenders of the nation, of the law, of the constitution, and of the citizens. Everyone is of the defenders who loves this land and her future that we build for the children to come.
Report Post »jcteaman
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:09amI have the right to have my gun and the people dont want that change because a screw ball goes around shooting people randomly makes me want my guns more not less ill vote against any one who denise me these rights and any one who doesnt follow the constituition get voted out too, manditory health care by goverment is not following peoples rights so expect some of you to have short carears because again i have the right to vote and talk to people about how your taking our freedoms by not doing what the people want ill vote you out and campaighn against you.
Report Post »Marcobob69
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:06amIsn’t it just like Congress to go off half-cocked and try to change gun laws in the wake of the Tucson shootings, that were done by a MENTALLY DISTURBED man with NO AFFILIATION TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY!!! “We don’t need no leg-is-lation, we don’t need no gun-con-trol”, to parody Pink Floyd! C’mon, man! Just let things cool down and think it over before changing existing laws the don’t need changing!!!
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 9:57amHas Chuck been listening to Conservatives and has had an enlightenment or is the 2012 election coming and he sees the big picture? That‘s two sane topics he’s weighed in on.
Report Post »912828Buckeye
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:30amI believe you may be on to something Grandma.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:52amAgreed.
Goodmorning Grandmaof5.
Weather here is suppose to hit near 78 or so, no rain for a week – if you trust the weather channels. Hope the day goes good for you, the weekend here was nice; listened in on a international radio I had been given, got to hear some British guy down in Antarctica complaining about ‘running out of the bloody tea already…’
Those Brit’s – go figure.
Report Post »FedUpAlready
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:53amHe surely hasn’t been enlightened, and definitely, doesn’t listen to Conservatives. This is just another example of talking out of both sides of your mouth, not standing up for your convictions, in order to win votes! Pathetic at Best! He doesn’t deserve the vote of either party, or Independents, he goes whichever
Report Post »way the wind is blowing!
Buck Bagaw
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:53amBeware of Greeks bearing gifts and Chuck U Schumer exhibiting apparent sanity.
Report Post »JollyTrooper
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:54am10 bux says he has a CCW.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 9:55amSecond amendment guarantees the right to the bearing of arms.
Guns do not kill people, only people using said guns kill people.
Enought said.
http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:04amMorning, Snowleopard, I trust you had a good weekend. Raining cats and dogs here – hope your weather is better, although we need rain desperately so no complaints (maybe one, gotta go feed stray cats later). Enjoy a hot cup of tea!
Report Post »TruthTalker
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:04amGun control? I am in complete control of my guns. That is how it should be and that is how it will remain.
Report Post »TX Progressive
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:08amDo you think we should have unfettered access to automatic weapons? How about grenade launchers? If not, where do you think we should draw the line? No bumper sticker answers, real only.
Ironmaan
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:14amEven if you don’t own a firearm, you should join the NRA. They are the ones doing the heavy lifting protecting the 2nd amendment and they need the support of the people to continue that fight.
Report Post »http://guerillatics.com
grandmaof5
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:20amTX PROGRESSIVE, I think that the bad guys are going to get any type gun they want because they have the sources to buy them, no matter how many gun laws are passed. Reasonable people act reasonably, they don’t go out and buy grenade launchers. I consider myself a reasonable person (actually boring) who doesn’t own a gun, but should I chose to buy a gun, I would like the freedom to do so and become proficient in using it safely.
Report Post »What-A-Joke
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:26amMaybe…………. there is hope yet? Maybe?
http://timnbettyp.blogspot.com/
Report Post »912828Buckeye
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:28am@TX……I really don’t have a problem with automatic weapons
Report Post »(In the right hands of course)
but grenade launchers may be a bit excessive.
HillBillySam1
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:32amWill somebody tell Chuck Shumer that the reasons that there aren’t enough votes in Congress to abolish (restrict is a nicer word, but “abolish” is the Progressive agenda) gun rights for American citizens is that they STILL work for US!! I know that having to be accountable to the American people is such a pesky problem for them. This is why the Progressives, and some RINOs, hate the Tea Party movement. We ain’t going away, however. Somebody tell that to Harry Reid.
Report Post »TexasCommonSense
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:38amTX Progressive, yes. Opponents of the second amendment like to point to the portion stating “A well regulated Militia”. A well regulated Militia is comprised of ordinary citizens using their own weapons. If ordinary citizens don‘t have access to the proper hardware they won’t be able to form an effective, well regulated Militia. Considering the fiscal path our government has taken, a government collapse, or at least shutdown, is very plausible. The normalcy bias prevents many from seriously considering this fact, but it is possible. It’s happened over and over in history to societies that never thought it would happen to them. We’re no more immune to it than they were. If a government collapse or shutdown does occur, we’ll most certainly need a well regulated Militia. Considering the strength of many of our adversaries, Mexican drug cartels included, a well regulated Militia will absolutely require these types of weapons. That’s way too much to fit on a bumper sticker.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:40amIf the government has access to it, the public should also, after all the 2nd amendment is there so citizens can protect themselves from the government, not each other.
Report Post »hifi74
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:45amTxprogressive
Let me ask you a question, if someone is planning on going out an gunning someone down or maybe a school or whatever it is that he’s planning on shooting do you think they are going to follow laws governing the ownership of certain guns? The laws are not stopping criminals from being criminals, I‘m not saying we shouldn’t have some regulations but your argument is disingenuous. It’s a straw man argument. Now if you want to have a real discussion about gun control and not these contrived arguments that really has no merit, then I am all for it. But please do not bring a baseless disingenuous argument like that here.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:45amI think we should have access to nuclear arms, so that we can lay to waste this tyrannical government.
Flagwaver
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:47amIf a murder can be blamed on a gun, then a misspelled word can be blamed on a pencil.
Don’t regulate the too, look closer at educating the people. That’s the only way to ensure the tool is used correctly.
Report Post »civilunrestnow
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:56am@TxSocialistliberal…That argument is as old as the cheese in Obama’s speeches. There are already permit and background checks in place that go over and above what is required when purchasing a fully automatic weapon. Grenade launchers are NOT guns and no they should not be part of anyone’s home defense arsenal.
@ironmann I won’t join the NRA and in fact called and canceled my membership after they endorsed several Democrats in the last election including the man who was my congressman. Simply being pro 2nd amendment isn’t enough to endorse anyone. In most cases, GOP candidates need to be pro 2nd amendment to garner enough support to be elected. The NRA only cares about who supports the 2nd amendment. If they support a completely socialist agenda their 2ns amendment support is at best worthless and probably suspect…The NRA simply gives their support blindly to anyone who “talks” pro gun. The Democrats are not pro gun and none of them should be supported by the NRAs backing.
Report Post »Luckywon
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:57amTexasProggie,
Report Post »First of all Fully automatic weapons are where the line was drawn. They are illegal to own in the United States, and that law is strictly enforced. (lets not forget about the unfortunate young man in the news a few years back whos gun malfunctioned on the gun range and it fired off a 3 shot burst of automatic fire. He went to jail for that.)
Grenade launchers are also illegal in the US. If they were legal, you would be able to purchase them at Sportsman’s Warehouse. So you question is just plain silly, the line has been drawn, and nobody is complaining about that line.
The Arizona shooting was not done with an automatic weapon, nor was it accomplished with a grenade launcher. It was committed with one of the most common weapons in the world. A 9mm pistol. If a line was ever drawn to make a 9mm also illegal, that would have to encompass pretty much EVERY gun out there, and that would infringe on EVERY American’s rights.
Hope this answers your question.
C.ChristieJ.Bolton2012
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:58amSpeech and guns – the more the better. An armed society is a polite society.
Report Post »KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:02amThat’s why we are a Government of the People. If we want Grenade launchers then we could vote to have them. If we feel that Grenade launchers are a bit excessive for self defense then we can vote to ban it too.
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:06am@TXProgressive
If one accepts the premise that, at least in part, the 2nd amendment is to protect us from the possibility of a tyrannical government, then you have to ask what weapons might that tyrannical government have at their disposal if that sort of scenario were to occur. I don‘t think it’s a stretch to think that they might try to use the military, the National Guard, any one of the dozens (hundreds?) of Federal Police agencies and other state and local police agencies against us.
If that were to happen could the populace with it’s much larger numbers adequately, but inferior weapons, defend itself against a much smaller potential government force that has automatic weapons, grenade launchers, air power, and many many other weapons at their disposal? My guess is probably not.
I believe this scenario is very, very unlikely to ever play out. But, I’m old enough that I could have been one of the students at Kent State. I believe a thinking person has to at least admit the possibility, even while praying that it never happens. If I were going to attempt to make an argument for totally unfettered access to weapons that is probably the direction in which I would go.
Report Post »bigbud
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:28amThe states that have the strictest gun control laws, have most gun crimes. The states that have the least restrictions on guns, have the least gun crimes.
Report Post »The old adage, ” When you out-law the guns, only the out-laws will have guns”.
chuck
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:32am@TX PROG – most people who own guns are responsible people, who have no intention of using them on another human being. The criminally insane, would obtain guns on the black market, while gun control, could disarm Americans, if taken too far, thus making them easy prey to the vultures! It also would eliminate our 1st amendment rights, remember, the framers gave us free speech, yes, they also gave us the right to bear arms, to protect that free speech. AND to be able to reproach our Gov’t of inequities, AND even throw them off, if WE THE PEOPLE, can show cause. NO, our 2nd amendment rights ARE the linchpin of ALL of our rights, pure and simple. Please do read the Declaration of Independence as reference.
No one needs a grenade launcher, unless they are preparing for war? With all the rhetoric flying around, I am getting very concerned about where America is heading these days, divided as ever?
Let me say this much, gun control will seem like a MINOR issue, when our economy collapses, that is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Like it or not, we aren’t paying our debt off in the first place! Even if we are taxed 100%, all private sector jobs and businesses, 100%, we would still be in debt, and running deficits. If we make it to 2012 economically, and civily, IMO, it will be a wonder, STAGFLATION will occur, all the pundits say deflation or hyperinflation, they are both wrong. Go look it up and see what it means. The window for prep is closing, fast. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best, There are MANY reason for our economic destruction, not just the above, amd more bad news is coming mid-2011, watch.
God Bless America
Report Post »P C BE DAMNED
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:40amPlease see below for Supreme Court Rulings that have never been overturned which plainly show our rights have already been taken from us concerning our right to bear arms. The government needs to back up. We are soon to regain all our freedoms as we are at a choke point in history in which we will either go into chains or be free. What a great time to live.
Second Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Definition Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition; “People, As generally used in Constitutional Law, the entire body of those citizens of a nation.”
Infringement, “ A breaking into; A trespass or encroachment upon: A violation of a law, Regulation, contract, or right.”
Supreme Court ruling: The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any Law that is repugnant to the Constitution is Null and Void of Law. Marbury Vs. Madison 5 US 137
Supreme Court Ruling not yet overturned thus the Supreme Law of the Land;
“ A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. No State shall convert a Liberty into a privilege, License it, and attach a fee to it. Murdock Vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105
Supreme Court ruling not overturned is Supreme law of the land;
“If a State converts a Liberty into a Privilege, the Citizen can engage in the right with impunity. Shuttlesworth Vs. Birmingham 373 US 262
Supreme Court Ruling; “ If you have relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court, You have a perfect defense for willfulness.” US Vs Bishop 412 US 346
Supreme Court Ruling; “An Unconstitutional act is not a law; It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; It affords no protection; It creates no office; It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed.” Norton Vs. Shelby County 118 US 425
Supreme Court Ruling; “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” US Vs. Miller 230 F2d 486
Supreme Court Ruling; “ Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. The Court is to protect against any encroachment of a Constitutionally secured Liberty.” Boyd Vs. US 116 US 616
Supreme Court Ruling; “ Officers of the court have no immunity from liability when violating a Constitutional right and may be held personally liable for damages under 42 U.S.C.A., 1983; For they are deemed to know the law. Knowing that they will be liable for all injurious conduct creates incentive for officials to err on the side of protecting citizens Constitutional rights.” Owens Vs. Independence 445 US 621, 100 SCT 1398
Report Post »Main Vs. Thiboutot 448 US 1, 100 SCT 2502
Hafer Vs. Melo 502 US 21, (1991)
Diamondback
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:46am@TX Progressive:
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, AND EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER [emphasis mine], are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people — Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS OF EVERY DESCRIPTION, AND NOT SUCH MERELY AS ARE USED BY THE MILITIA [emphasis mine], shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
I hope the above help clear up your confusion. Oh, and before you start with the “it’s only for the militia” BS, please take time to look up and read the Supreme Court decisions in Heller v. D.C. in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.
Thank you.
Report Post »Diamondback
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 11:54am@IronMaan:
Quite frankly, it’s more the Second Amendment Foundation that has done the heavy lifting and the hard in the courts work successfully. The NRA has tried to “hijack” their success.
I belong to the NRA only because I must to be a member of my local gun range which is approx. 15 minute drive from my home. And donations I make for effective legal fights against usurpations of the Second Amendment (of which there are thousands) go to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).
The NRA compromises our fundamental, preexisting right to bear arms TOO MUCH AND TOO OFTEN. Think about it, if gun control goes away, the NRA no longer has much value does it?
Report Post »TX Progressive
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:11pmGrandma and a few others – how do you respond to the fact that this nut in AZ got all his hardware legally? Also, a few years ago that extended magazine was illegal, now its legal and it allowed this dude 15 extra shots before he had to reload and get stopped.
HIF, not sure how my argument is disengenuous when I am using the AZ incident as the basis. A guy got his guns legally and commited a crime. I don’t disagree with you that most guns used in crime are procured illegally (although i’d love to see stats).
Civil Unrest – i think you missed my point. There is a continuum leading from legal guns to illegal guns. Why is the line drawn where it is? Why is it that six years ago the extended magazine was illegal and now its legal?
Report Post »ChuckN
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:18pmTX Progressive – the shooter did not have an automatic weapon and people do not have unfettered access to them.
A grenade launcher is not a small arm, it is a weapon of mass death and does not discriminate.
Maybe people would take you seriously if you stopped using bumper sticker phrases and asked questions with an informed premise as opposed to an uninformed one.
If Pam Goreman was the shooters member of Congress the shooter would have been gunned down in short order, but instead he want to a meeting of the most left wing people in the state, so it might as well have been a “gun free zone” – the preferred location of mass killers.
Report Post »MozarkDawg
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:21pmSWAMPY
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 10:40am
>If the government has access to it, the public should also, after all the 2nd amendment is there so citizens can protect themselves from the government, not each other.
*****
Swampy, the reason the Founders placed Amendment II where it is in the Constitution is for the time when the government forgets Amendment I. The purpose of Amendment II is not so that people can shoot bunny wabbits or have fun at target practice, as you correctly point out it is to protect the right of the citizen to defend himself from an overzealous government.
Report Post »chuck
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:27pm@TX PROG – this guy was trouble walking on two legs, and the law enforcment missed several opportunities to have him on psyc evaluation (like Fuller), and from that point in time, could not have purchased a gun legally. The form as the question, Are you under psyc evaluation or have ever been committed to a mental inst. in your life? So, had the Sherrif done his homework, his duty, this guy (aka nutcase), of Independent (political registration), would never have been able to get the gun legally. However, with his drug connections, he could have purchased a gun on the black market, IMO. If more people had been armed at that horrible event, I am willing to bet less people would have been hurt or killed, but any violence, I abhor, and this was a tragedy.
Guns do not kill people by themsleves, it takes a person to pull the trigger, so if the laws on the books are enforced as they are, then we would have less of this type of terrible event in AZ. I don’t have a crystal ball, just my opine
Report Post »JLP188
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:49pm@TxProgressive – I’m sure the AZ whacko would have gone to the gun store in the highly restricted environment which you imagine and said to himself “Oh jeepers!! I can‘t be a homicidal maniac today because the good progressives just won’t allow it. I guess I will have to find a peaceful and civilized way to make the rest of the world agree with my insanity!! How about a sing-in of hate speech ballads?!”
Report Post »I heard a gun rights advocate make a good point that you should ask yourself, but think about it first . . . If the Jews had been allowed to own guns do you think they would have walked to the gas chambers, or do you think they would have fought for their lives? Hitler knew what he was doing when he took the guns away.
DirectlyUnPCman
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:51pmYou cant use the tragedy in Arizona to trick us into believing that gun control is the answer. All that will do is ensure that when some whacko decides he wants to kill people, and he shows up where ever I am at, that I am powerless to defend myself. I reject your stupidity for what it is. My guns are mine. If you violate my 2nd ammendment rights, and try to take them from me, you can have them when I run out of bullets.
Report Post »bullcrapbuster
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 12:54pmNew progressive strategy,try to make it appear that they are the ones defending the constitution. Spineless snakes,all of em.
Report Post »TX Progressive
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:10pmA few of you tried to answer me with civility I appreciate it.
ChuckN…reading is fundamental…I AM NOT SAYING THAT HE HAD AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON. HE HAD A MAGAZINE EXTENDER THAT WAS ILLEGAL SIX YEARS AGO.
JLP – I will think about your argument about the jews but on the surface it seems pretty absurd.
Directly – I am not using the incident for anything other than dialogue…there is nothing wrong with that. I am not saying we should ban guns, I am saying we should be more thoughtful about how we permit guns. And for calling me stupid, you can fu&k off. You too Bull Crap Buster.
Report Post »Paralax
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:14pmTXProgressive,
Report Post »If as a law abiding citizen you owned a fully automatic weapon would you posed a threat to other law abiding citizens?
tobywil2
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:16pmSenator Schumer gives an excellent imitation of an intelligent human being, until he opens his mouth!
Report Post »http://commonsense21c.com/
P C BE DAMNED
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:31pmTxprog
Liberty is a lively exercise and has costs. We all bear these costs and they are well worth it. Yes bad things can happen by being so free but we will be free because to be safe we would have to put everyone in chains and we will not . If you can’t understand that then lock yourself up and be safe. But as for me and mine we will walk free and use our arms to gurantee this walk of freedom. God I love america!
Report Post »ninetoesjudd
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 1:41pmTX – The cost to practicality ratio for grenade launchers is prohibitive. It would be fun to have one, but where could you use it? Full-auto? They are already legal in most states, but incredibly expensive to own and feed. You just need to jump through some licensing hoops. Besides, there is a lawyer attached to every bullet you fire, so be extra careful.
Report Post »P C BE DAMNED
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 3:40pmdrgonz
You answer the question, Why can’t we all just get along? and you will then have your answer why we need guns. I know why we need guns. My question to you is are you an imbicile or just willingly ignorant of these answers. Your mind seems set on genitals.
Report Post »independentvoteril
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 4:03pmThey can pass whatever bill they want, NO ONE IS LISTENING.. people have been watching for this and are prepared.. the SC said we can bear arms end of conservation.. smart people bought extra’s to sell..
Report Post »avenger
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 5:01pmthe answer is simple….they do not want to look like rabid idiots when the house kills any bill they propose…Hey Peter King ….are you listening ?
Report Post »taebaggranny
Posted on January 17, 2011 at 5:33pm@SNOWLEOPARD3200 What about the joke Schumer made about our porn laws?? There‘s almost nothing on TV or at the movies that isn’t a form of porn!!! Gun control? HUH I always controlled my own guns…I always had a loaded shotgun by the front door when my kids were young and they never touched it..These libs just want to control the masses..Then they can get the rest of their agenda put in place to set up their dictatorship…I’m a 75 yr old woman and a darn good shot….
Report Post »Sam I am
Posted on January 18, 2011 at 7:38amWell, duh!
Report Post »Sheriff does nothing, nutcase goes on rampage, and citizens decide to protect themselves.
Who would have seen that coming?
wherewastthou
Posted on January 18, 2011 at 12:04pm@TX PROGRESSIVE
Report Post »Automatic Weapons, Grenade Launchers, M1-Abrams if you can afford one. See The Second is not about self defense. It is about defense of liberty frome all enemies foreign and domestic. It is in the Constitution not as an ordained right or contractual privilege to own and be seen publicly with a weapon, It is about the peoples ability to arm themselves and remove (when necessary by force) a corrupt government.
Force of arms of course is always a final resort. But as history has shown us time and again evil will raise its head and will attempt to corrupt the noble process of government (whether self, local, state or national) through lust, gluttony, greed, vanity, sloth, wrath, envy, or pride.
When it does it is incumbent on the citizen who loves his country to be ready willing and able to stand up and say NO. Not farther than this. You Shall Not Pass. The heart and mind make the citizen ready and willing and able. The role that The Second plays is to enumerate the action as honorable and justifiable or contemptable and condeming in the court of history.
Our founders had good reason to want whatever government was put in place to fear its citizens. They understood from long hard fought bloody battles the necessity of limiting the actions of any government even through force of arms if it become necessary, as the humans who eventually would take the reigns would not all be honorable men. They gave the duty to protect the Ideal of America to the Individual Citizen to remove them, peaceably when possible, by force when necessary, should such a government become corrupt to the point of failure or indenture.
exdem
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 10:10amPass gun control laws and lose your next election. Its that simple.
Report Post »