E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWaiting on specifics… “While pressure from the public and some gun-control advocates mounts in the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting, the White House hasn't laid out any specifics on how President Obama plans to tackle the scourge of gun violence that he declared has become far too routine,” USA Today writes.
“Private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management announced early this morning that it plans to sell Freedom Group, a firearms conglomerate that produced the .223 Bushmaster rifle used in last week's elementary school massacre,” Fortune reports.
Pro-gun Democratic senators are speaking out. Incoming Democratic senators in red states -- Heidi Heitkamp (ND) and Joe Donnelly (IN) – say they’re open to possible changes in gun laws.
And Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): "I've been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights. I've got an A rating from the NRA. But the status quo isn't acceptable. I've got three daughters. They asked me on Friday evening, 'Dad, what are you gonna do about this?' There's got to be a way to put reasonable restrictions, particularly as we look at assault weapons, as we look at these fast clips of ammunition."
Charlie Cook: “Although it’s easy for liberals on cable shows to predict that the mass killing in Newtown will lead to a dramatic tightening of gun laws, the simple arithmetic of the House and Senate suggests that action will be very difficult. According to Cook Political Report House Editor David Wasserman, only 15 of the 234 Republicans who were elected to the House last month are in districts also carried by President Obama, presumably the more-liberal districts and more likely to be open to tighter gun laws; 219 House Republicans represent districts won by Mitt Romney, one more than the 218 majority. Nine of the 201 districts in which Democrats were elected to the House voted for the GOP nominee. With 94 percent of House Republicans sitting in Romney districts and 96 percent of Democrats in districts won by Obama, it’s clear that the House is pretty much sorted out on the issue, with not that many “fish out of water” members (Republicans occupying Democratic-leaning districts or Democrats in Republican-oriented districts). Arguably, this means that while fewer Democrats would have to worry about incurring the wrath of the NRA in so called pro-gun districts, relatively few Republicans would be endangered by opposing a gun-control measure.”
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent makes the point that the Democratic coalition largely backs gun control. “What’s really striking is that opposition to stricter gun control is largely driven by white men — blue collar white men in particular. By contrast, college educated whites, white women, moderates, and minorities all show majority support for stricter gun laws. These are the emerging pillars of the Democratic coalition.”
The New York Times: “Even when the N.R.A. is silent — as its Web site and Twitter feed remained Monday, after the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history — it wields one of the biggest sticks in politics: A $300 million budget, millions of members around the country and virtually unmatched ferocity in advancing its political and legislative interests.”
“The Facebook page of the National Rifle Association disappeared this weekend in the wake of the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut; the page’s former location now redirects users back to the home page,” Wired magazine writes. “Press accounts speculate that the staunch anti-gun-control group deleted its page amid a growing and impassioned debate over whether gun laws need tightening. A woman answering phones at the NRA’s public affairs office declined to immediately comment on the Facebook page Monday. … The NRA’s Google+ and YouTube pages remain intact, but the NRA “locked” its most recent Google+ post, decrying a surge in federal background checks, preventing the post from being shared with others or commented upon. On YouTube, the NRA appears to have similarly disabled comments on its most recent upload. So it would appear that the most famous Second Amendment advocacy group is not nearly as keen on people exercising the First Amendment.”
NBCNews.com’s Technology blog wraps that as well.
USA Today: “‘When there is a large-scale mass shooting like this, the NRA plays duck and cover,’ says Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at the State University of New York-Cortland and author of The Politics of Gun Control. ‘They are waiting for the storm to subside,’ Spitzer says. ‘They know that, historically, what happens is great public outrage (after mass shootings) until the political storm passes. And once that happens, then they resume standard procedures. They will work to defeat any proposed laws.’”
Here we go… “As residents of Newtown, Conn., began burying the 20 children and six adults killed in Friday's school shooting, a South Dakota legislator is drafting a bill that would allow teachers, administrators and even janitors to bring guns to school. Rep. Betty Olson, R-Prairie City, told The Associated Press on Monday that she believes armed school personnel could have mitigated the Newtown massacre.”
Leave a Comment:
time to do something. Good luck, Mr. President
The arguments for unrestricted gun rights - and yes, that's what the rabid gun lovers are talking about; UNRESTRICTED - are worthless. Indeed, they aren't even arguments. They are tantrums.
They would have us believe they are noble American patriots. They're brave. They're tough. They'll defend us against an oppressive government, against terrorists in malls, against invaders. That's pure crap. They are neither patriots, nor are they brave. Just for a moment, consider their bravery and courage. When given the opportunity to "protect our freedom", they manage to find a way to avoid military service. Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that these very brave souls are NEVER at the scene of one of these massacres? The odds say that these courageous defenders are there. For me, I have no problem picturing them curling up into a ball and hiding, or running like hell.
The truth is, these courageous, brave stalwarts are brave ONLY at a distance. That's the reason they love their guns. That's their advantage. You can't hurt them, but they can sure as hell hurt you. The irony is that handguns do not meet that need. Handguns as defensive weapons are almost worthless, except in very close quarters, and even then they have very little value.
Do we need a starting point for a debate on handguns? Damned right we do, and the gun nuts have deflected, denied, diverted every point with shrieking rhetoric. The "guns don't kill people; people kill people" nonsense ignores the reality that those people HAVE GUNS. They are too cowardly to do damage up close. The starting point, but certainly not the endpoint, is to deal with handguns.
Let's play the gun nut "Cars kill people" game. For this little game, let's pretend that cars equal handguns. Let's also pretend that handguns have some valid purpose besides killing human beings. Let the game begin.
Before you can drive, you must demonstrate proficiency behind the wheel. Same requirement for a handgun. You must have a driver's license and it must be renewed. You must have a hand gunner's license. You may not drive your car in a school, mall, church and many other venues. In fact, you may not bring your car into a school room, etc. You may not shoot your handgun in a school, mall, church and other venues. You may not bring your gun into a school room, etc. You may not conceal your car. You may not conceal you gun. You must register your car. You must register your gun. You must insure your car. You must insure your handgun. You may not drive your car under the influence of drugs. (Alcohol is a drug.) You may not operate a handgun under the influence of drugs. There's more, of course, but you get the picture.
Now, about the fuel for the auto. That's gasoline. Many taxes. Ammunition is the fuel of a handgun. Much tax. Very much tax. Someone has to pay for the ranges at which gunners must practice. Someone must pay for the murders that will continue regardless of restriction. We must remember, bullets don't kill people. People with bullets kill people. We should make killing people very expensive for the shooters.
So, for responsible American citizens, who have the audacity to think they should be safe in their homes, schools, stores, and just about any place we go, we can beat these idiots, and we don't need guns to do it.
DW, I am a gun owner, retired soldier and currently a corrections officer. I agree with you on your post. I would gladly prove my proficiency in order to get a license to carry as everyone should. If you own a gun that was used in this sort of sensless tragedy you should be held liable, both financially and criminally. The only out for you would be if it was stolen from your home and from a locked safe. I carried an M16 and truly believe no one should own any assault weapons nor high capacity magazines. Those are for the military only. And last, we need to not only address mental health issues, we need to fund it. Whatever it takes to stop this senseless slaughter of innocents.
Mark: What you have posted is all that the majority is asking for. I pray that the leaders of this nation have the courage to act.
As usual , what the hell are you talking about? I hate guns, wish we could get rid of all of them. Is that a possibility? NO! What gun law that you could think of would have stopped this from happening? Idiots? How many guns are out there now? Close to a billion. Sadly in America, a country founded by guns there is little to do! Why is it when 500 people a year are killed by guns in Chicago this President dosen't say a word? Where was his gun legislation before not after? Chicago has some of the strictist gun laws in America. Has that helped? Are they registered? Do you think taxing bullets will stop them? How many of those guns are stolen? If ammunition is stolen how do you tax it? The frustrating part about this is the helplessness and lack of a real solution.
geo - lotsanumbers, who is some village's missing idiot, writes:
No geo, we are not helpless. There are solutions as is made abundantly clear by the much lower rates of gun violence in other countries.
What is frustrating is know-nothings like you, who make noise. Like all right-wingers all you can do is say this solution or that solution doesn't work. You NEVER come with solutions.
Yeah Genius, you dont have a solution! Other countries that you talk about, I presume, are Germany and Canada don't have minorites killing each other, do they? Again, what law would have stopped this? As I stated before there are no solutions to this, because our country was founded by killing with guns! I HATE guns! You can not come up with a solution.
Mark said, "Whatever it takes to stop this senseless slaughter of innocents." and while I understand and relate to the emotion I don't understand how one prepares for something that follows no rhyme or reason.
A drunk man drives the wrong way on a highway and kills a bus load of kids..... A religious fanatic puts poison in the kool aid.... a person loads a truck with anfo and blows up a building killing 168 including 19 children.... How does any government or society construct a plan that eliminates these possibilities?
I am concerned because I fear that in a rush to find a solution we will assume that there is a solution and constantly blame society for something that society can't control and has too much "agenda" to accept.
This is not to say that weapons designed for assault and not defense should be available to unqualified individuals or that we should not strengthen regulation designed to mitigate the damages resulting from the irrational acts of man. This is not to say that an improved mental health program should not be created. But in so doing we must all understand that no one can foresee what is unforeseeable or make sense of what is irrational.
All guns have one purpose, to KILL.
No other thing (other than possibly arrows/bolts) has KILLING as the reason it is designed.
When used as designed, guns KILL.
Calling a gun a "tool for defense" is just an euphemism for KILLING.
A person who uses a gun as it is designed is a KILLER.
A person who owns a gun is a potential KILLER. You have the intent, just not the opportunity to KILL.
True words DW....
Vary true David. When ever there's a terrorist attack or a threat, heck even when someone says boo. Where do the gun loving republican representatives and senators go? They hide in the bunker in the capital basement till they know it's save to come out. Most gun loving republicans are scared of their own shadow. How can we expect the gun loving republicans to stand up for America, when they won't even stand up for themselves.
Do these nuts like Louie Gomert and Bill Bennett not know the whole country is laughing at them. Well everybody but the Fox lemmings.
I oppose gun control laws. Most of them penalize law-abiding gun owners and does NOTHING to remove weapons from criminals who won't make an insurance payment nor register their guns.
These schemes are all attacks on lawful gun owners.
People should have reasonable background checks beore they are eligible to purchase. But, there it should end. I also think gun collectors should be able to do their thing, but any assault-style weapons should be made non-functional and licensed.
One final thing: The Democratic Party and this Administration should not go overboard managing this issue. This is a LOSING proposition for the Democratic Party if they try to push through gun control. There are enough Independents and Moderate to Concervative Democrats, combined with the Republican constituency, to badly damage Democrats' electability if they try to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.
I voted for President Obama and a straight Democratic ticket. But, I wil vote AGAINST ANY politician, or President Obama himself, if they try to curtail my right or ability to own a firearm.
Just don't try it!
Michael, It is not an attempt to restrict your 2nd ammendment rights. We need a reasonable solution to the problem we have. All I am asking for is reasonable people to look into the problem and find solutions to fix it. I have one question for you. If by giving up your right to own a bushmaster ar15 with high capacity magazines could have saved those children, would you?
I may be open to them restricting certain weapons if they VOW (i.e., enshrine in law) not to later come after other arms the next time something happens. Are you willing to do that? It's a slippery slope with lawmakers. Give an inch, they take a mile.
I don't think taking weapons from law-abiding citizens keeps cirminals and the deranged from killing people.
Anything the Libs can do to take your eye off the failing economy, and the proliferation of more taxes and regulations....
The NRA is hiding? Who would have thought? That just can't be. The NRA is the outspoken leader in firearms, right? They just would not hide. They are, though. LOL!
What needs done, here, is to go after all the crooks and thugs out there with guns. Gun shop owners should be given a list of names of all the gang pussy's, and a picture of them, so they won't sell guns to them. Family members, neighbors, anyone who knows a gang pussy, should inform the cops, and they can go and take the guns away from them. THAT, is the only gun control that is needed!!!! Take the guns away from the crooks, gang pussy's, mental people, and then you have no worries, Mate!!!!
The NRA, unlike Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Bloomberg, and the other gungrabbers, is allowing a period of mourning for the victims... Liberal cretins, on the other hand, are beating their "burn the Constitution" drums...
How come there's no outrage when the Obamabots in Welfare Ghetto Plantations murder each other every night??? Guess there's no political leverage to ban guns from law-abiding citizens when it's Liberals killing Liberals.... and the violence robably has nothing to do with generations of people being born and raised with no work ethic or values, or the glorification of pop culture violence....
Since Obama is attempting to violate the constitution, is this not grounds for impeachment?
He took bribes from the heads of FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC. Is this not grounds for impeachment.
He bribed a university in Illinois to obtain a seriously high salary for his wife who was employed there. Isn't this reason for impeachment.
Actually, the last two are not grounds for impeachment. Rather, they are grounds for imprisonment.