Weapons ban an early casualty
Advocates of meaningful gun control need to bring pressure to bear on reluctant senators.
An assault weapons ban may have been the most high-profile piece of gun control legislation to come out of the Senate Judiciary Committee this month. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision Tuesday to exclude it from the bill that will go to the full Senate will not cut the heart out of meaningful reform.
No, that threat comes from Reid’s signal that legislation to require background checks for private gun sales might not make it into the package, either.
March 21, 2013 - 6:16 AM
The failure of the so called assault weapons ban lies solely with the Democrats. They couldn’t even get enough votes to get out of Dem controlled committee, much less onto the floor.
Where is that groundswell of public opinion? Looks like it was more imagined than real, conjured up by liberal leaning polls! What a laugh!
I hope the Dems push hard for more gun control. Gun control legislation was largely responsible for the Dems losing control of Congress in 1994. Apparently there are still some Dems that have not forgotten that lesson!
Kinda like that Romney win “conjured up” by the right wing polls?
Too many pols are scared of the NRA and their smear tactics. We all remember how effective a “Willie Horton” ad can be.
I don’t think the Dems will “push hard” for anything. It does not seem to be in their DNA anymore. More’s the pity.
Rights have consequences, whether that is the slaughter of school children, or the death of a fetus. We just have to learn to live with it.
#2 So the “Willie Horton ad” was an NRA smear tactic? Glad I come here….learn something new every day.
As to today’s editorial, nothing new….and; ” An overwhelming majority of Americans — including 90 percent of current gun owners, according to a New York Times-CBS poll in January — want to weed out buyers who already are known to pose a threat to society.”
90 percent of of current grill owners would not want a sociopathic pyromaniac to flambe their steaks.
No, the Willie Horton ad was an example of a smear campaign ad. Sorry if I confused anyone.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2008/10/07/nras-anti-obama-willie-horton-style-ad/
#4 Are you aware of who first, for political purposes, brought up the “revolving door” Mass furlough system?
Please, do not attempt to justify the Willie Horton ad, I am not in the mood to go apoplectic with anger. That kind of crap is wrong, Lee Atwater even came to see that.
“In 1988,” Mr. Atwater said, “fighting Dukakis, I said that I ‘would strip the bark off the little bastard’ and ‘make Willie Horton his running mate.’ I am sorry for both statements: the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/13/us/gravely-ill-atwater-offers-apology.html
In either party, “political purposes” should have a modicum of decency. And should be rebuked when they don’t.
#6 Sandi, Willie Horton ad, sort of like the ad blaming Romney for a woman dying of cancer, don’t you think?
At least the Horton ad was true, and it was not the reason Dukakis lost the election.
John R, the “cancer” implication ad was put out by one of the great “Citizens United” unlimited, untouchable PACS, not the Obama campaign. The Horton Ad was put out by the Bush Campaign. Why would Atwater take the blame for a PAC ad? He wouldn’t need to.
I am no supporter of the PACs but until Citizens United is repudiated and stopped, it is what it is.
While Dems/Libs march in lockstep on a lot of issues…gun control is a notable exception.
A substantial number of Dem voters treasure their Second Amendment rights – especially in flyover country and in rural areas. For a sizable portion of Dem senators and representatives, coming out in favor of gun control laws would be political suicide.
Public opinion, and congressional majorities, are unlikely to ever be in favor of gun control.
#7, Dukakis lost because he was really just not very inspiring. He had it easy as Massachusetts Governor because at that time a Democrat just could not lose — that was Ted Kennedy’s heyday. Dukakis came across as cold and indifferent. And, the nation felt it had done okay under Reagan (even in spite of him, hence the term “Reagan Democrat,” we didn’t start paying for his policies until later). The primary field in 1988 was relatively unimpressive (Jesse Jackson came in second), although Biden and Gore later wound up as VPs. Nobody decent wanted to risk it all against Bush. The best thing about Dukakis’s campaign was Lloyd Bentsen, who put Quayle in his place during the debate, something none of us will forget — a door prize for us liberals.
Mrs. Saunders…..apparently the answer to the question in my #5 is “no” or “I don’t care”.
The answer is Al Gore, in his primary run against Dukakis.
I don’t recall Obama or anyone in his campaign repudiating the ad connecting Romney to the cancer death. It sure got wide play in the media and whenever an Obama spokesperson was asked about it, they would sidestep the issue.
The Dems were the ones bringing up the gun ban issue. Maybe next time they should take a head count before putting up such a bill. What a bunch of stumble bums! They will be lucky to get even a watered down version passed.
13 – the liberals are big on symbolism over substance, but Reid ultimately realized that re-election is not merely symbolic (for most, anyway). Look for Feinstein’s bill to be added as an amendment to an unrelated bill that has overwhelming GOP support (such as a tax cut), and for the GOP senators to lack the courage to vote no.
I don’t recall Romney or anyone in his campaign repudiating Donald Trump’s birther nonsense either. Not sure what that has to do with anything but apparently this discussion is merely tit for tat.
Win or lose, I am proud that the Dems did not just throw up their hands and tell schools to lock and load after Newtown.
#14 ‘Hoo….politically speaking, knowing the House has their backs, maybe, but still doubt. Too hot.
Now, let’s bring the issue up to date.
As far as; “An overwhelming majority of Americans — including 90 percent of current gun owners, according to a New York Times-CBS poll in January — want to weed out buyers who already are known to pose a threat to society.” (Again)…..
……the problem with the “universal” background check(s) is the infringment on private sales, inheritance, etc. And what has already been acknowledged (by leaked docs) that it is bit a pre-curser to registration of such privately held arms.
Even so, if we really were talking only about retail sales, including gun shows, I would support. (But we are not).