Dems Have Not Dropped Gun Control Agenda


PDA






2dogs
June 21, 2003, 10:17 AM
Like we all thought they were.:barf:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90037,00.html

Dems Have Not Dropped Gun Control Agenda


Saturday, June 21, 2003
By John Lott, Jr.


Has the gun control (search) issue really disappeared?

Some think that Democrats, chastised by the loss of the presidency of 2000 and the loss of the Senate in 2002, have learned the risk of supporting gun control the hard way. Some even argue that there is a more fundamental change in Democratic beliefs on gun control.

Yet, as Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi (search) recently said, Democrats (search) will wait and revisit the guns “when the issue is ripe.”

New regulations are still being put forward, but legislation gets more attention, both from the press and other legislators, when there is a chance it will pass. There is surely no shortage of new gun control proposals at either the federal or state level.

— Assault weapons ban. In Congress, House Democrats are pushing for a vastly expanded ban (including all semi-automatic shotguns (search) that are widely used for hunting and skeet shooting) and, among other features, gives future U.S. Attorney Generals the ability to ban any semi-automatic rifle they classify as not for “sporting” uses. Senate Democrats propose slightly expanding the ban only because they acknowledge that their most desired legislation would never get passed.

— Judicial appointments. Just last week Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor (search), a Republican, nominated by President Bush for a judgeship on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, was criticized by Senate Democrats for supporting a court decision that requires judges to hold a hearing before they can order a person’s gun be taken away.

— Filibuster. Senate Democrats threaten to filibuster legislation designed to rein in abusive litigation targeting the firearms gun makers. The suits threaten the very existence of gun makers; law suits have already forced several gun manufacturers into bankruptcy, some before they even had their day in court. While moderate Democrats support the bill, most Democratic Senators appear willing to fight against this to the very end.

— New federal regulations. In June, Sen. Jon Corzine and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, both Democrats, put forward legislation giving the Department of Justice sweeping powers to regulate the design, manufacture and distribution of guns. Just at the end of May, Sen. Frank Lautenberg proposed banning large caliber guns and other new rules that regulate who can buy guns at gun shows.

— New state regulations. From gun storage laws (search) in New York to taxing gun show transfers in Illinois to banning large caliber guns in California to fining parents whose children play with toy guns in Maryland, Democrat state officials across the country are pushing for more gun control laws.

Even Howard Dean (search), the former Vermont governor and most pro-gun rights supporter among Democratic presidential candidates, wants to renew the so-called semi-automatic assault weapons ban (search) as well as regulate gun shows.

Surprisingly, the Bush administration has basically left most Clinton gun control policies (search) in place. True, Attorney General John Ashcroft decided not to keep long-term records of gun sales and President Bush supports important legislation to curb abusive lawsuits. But the Bush administration has taken few other actions. Clinton administration policies have simply been allowed to continue on everything from existing policies banning the importation of guns to no longer requiring that ROTC (search) military training involve how to fire a gun.

Even when it comes to arming pilots (search), the administration has twice thwarted congressional legislation. Now over 21 months after Sept. 11, the administration has dragged its feet so that only 44 pilots out of over 100,000 pilots are allowed to carry guns on planes and there are no additional approvals in sight.

In contrast, at the state level Republicans are slowly but steadily rolling back gun regulations. During the last couple of months, concealed handgun laws (search) have been passed in Republican dominated legislatures in Alaska, Colorado, and Minnesota. In Missouri, final passage is uncertain and depends upon whether the Republican dominated legislature can override the Democratic governor’s expected veto. The only exception to this Democrat/Republican divide was in New Mexico, which also passed a concealed handgun law this year (albeit an extremely restrictive one), and where Democrats completely control the state legislature and governorship.

The lopsided coverage of the costs and benefits of guns in the media and the government ensures that the push for more regulations will not go away. In 2001, the three major networks — ABC, NBC, and CBS — devoted about 190,000 words’ worth of national television news stories on gun crimes but not one single story about someone using a gun to defend themselves or someone else. Even those who follow the news the closest are unlikely to know that when surveys of crimes committed with guns are compared with studies of defensive gun use, the best estimates indicate that people use guns defensively to stop crime 4.5 times more frequently than guns are used to commit crime. The only news network that carried any defensive gun stories that year was the Fox News Channel.

Over the last decade it is simply impossible to find one study by either the U.S. Justice Department (search) or the Treasury that measures the benefits from people owning guns. For example, every year the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (search) puts out a list of the top 10 guns used in crime, but why not one time put out a list of the top 10 guns used by people to stop crime?

For congressional Democrats, the decision not to push new gun control as a top agenda item is simply because Republicans control both houses of congress. Their strong anti-gun sentiment has not abated. Just two more Democratic senators and 13 more Democratic House members and gun control legislation would go from fond dreams to reality.

>>John Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of recently released The Bias Against Guns (Regnery)<<

If you enjoyed reading about "Dems Have Not Dropped Gun Control Agenda" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Waitone
June 21, 2003, 11:11 AM
— Filibuster. Senate Democrats threaten to filibuster legislation designed to rein in abusive litigation targeting the firearms gun makers. The suits threaten the very existence of gun makers; law suits have already forced several gun manufacturers into bankruptcy, some before they even had their day in court. While moderate Democrats support the bill, most Democratic Senators appear willing to fight against this to the very end. Spinelessrepublicans have seen fit to not fight the filibuster WRT court nominations. So in the absence of any opposition the Democrats expanded the judicial filibuster to 3 more appointees. And now I see they feel safe enough to venture outside juicial appointments and go after gun legislation.

Dubya and Frist are making a huge mistake by not fighting the trend in filibusters.

Makes me so mad I could strip the bark off a nail.

aircarver
June 21, 2003, 11:29 AM
We, hyar in texas, are doin' our part by stampin' out Democrats wherever they're found ! :D

Sarge
June 21, 2003, 11:41 AM
if you believe in absolutes. Our approach to this has been to become 'priority issue' voters. Our priority issues go something like this-

1. religous freedom

2. no further incursions of our gun rights

3. we don't vote for people who support issues we believe to be detrimental to the moral fiber of the nation

Since no one is currently trying to make 'chicken worship' the national religion, we are pretty well freed up to concentrate on 2 & 3. #3 is subjective, according to your beliefs. What we believe makes this an absolute, just like the literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights makes #2 an absolute.

I don't care about perscription drugs, educational standards, affirmative action, social security or the economy. Having all these things guaranteed, in a slave nation ran by immoral thugs, wouldn't be worth spit. Give me my freedom, and then the rest is up to me.

Liberal elitists of all parties need to go. Warn them once, and if their record shows that they are against us, then get busy and remove them from office.

We have to mobilize the conservative element to accomplish this. Expecting the libs to change is like believing in Santa Claus at 15 years of age- a recipe for disappointment.

El Tejon
June 21, 2003, 12:23 PM
Sarge, anyway we can get you to run for the Senate?:D

Tamara
June 21, 2003, 12:27 PM
Yet, as Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi (search) recently said, Democrats (search) will wait and revisit the guns “when the issue is ripe.”

Translation: "As soon as more telegenic blood is available, we'll be dancing in it, just you wait and see!"

Glock Glockler
June 21, 2003, 01:16 PM
The fact that they're not pushing it now is indicative that they understand it will harm them if they try.

Conclusion: Even they will let gun control slide if the cost/benefit ratio is not in their favor.

Solution: Build numbers! Find a friend and take them shooting, let them have a good time, and hopefully they'll become a shooter and a RKBA activist. The side with the most numbers will win, so what are you doing to build numbers?

What have you done for RKBA today?

Standing Wolf
June 21, 2003, 01:19 PM
In 2001, the three major networks — ABC, NBC, and CBS — devoted about 190,000 words’ worth of national television news stories on gun crimes but not one single story about someone using a gun to defend themselves or someone else.

Why, how very surprising!

Sarge
June 22, 2003, 12:12 AM
Why, thank you Sir, but no thanks.... I got talked into running for Sheriff one time and found out right quick, that-

1) I am NOT a politician
2) even if they ask, people don't really want to hear what you will do when you take office, and
3) I sleep better at night knowing that I am not a politician.

I know it can't be easy being an elected official. I only ask theat they safeguard my rights, and tell the truth while they're doing it. This seems to be too much to ask from most of them.

KRAUTGUNNER
June 22, 2003, 07:18 AM
What exactly does "filibuster" a legislation mean? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Lone_Gunman
June 22, 2003, 07:59 AM
Sarge:

I don't care about perscription drugs, educational standards, affirmative action, social security or the economy. Having all these things guaranteed, in a slave nation ran by immoral thugs, wouldn't be worth spit. Give me my freedom, and then the rest is up to me.


Now that is a beautiful quote, and should represents the basic philosophy of all self-reliant free men!

Glock Glockler
June 22, 2003, 08:12 AM
Kraut,

It basically means to stall indefinately, for each congresscheisse to take the maximum amount of time for talk and talk. It means the bill never goes anywhere.

Waitone
June 22, 2003, 08:23 AM
What exactly does "filibuster" a legislation mean?


http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/filibust.htm


http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20010125.html


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=filibuster

KRAUTGUNNER
June 22, 2003, 09:07 AM
WEIRD! ABSOLUTELY CRAZY!!!

So albeit one Party has a majority in the senate, the minority STILL can obstruct every legislation?!? :eek:

That is NOT very democratic!!! :barf:

El Tejon
June 22, 2003, 09:22 AM
KRAUT, yes, exactly.:cool: We are not a democracy, thank Vishnu!!! We are a republic (at least were).

The Senate is the saucer that cools our tea.:)

Waitone
June 22, 2003, 09:36 AM
Those dead, European whiteguys (AKA Founding Fathers) constructed congress with checks and balances in mind. The House of Representatives was designed to reflect the demands of everyday voters and citizens of all the states. As a check against wholesale caving into the demands of the "rabble" they constructed the Senate so as to represent the demands of the states. Hence house members were elected by direct vote of the population while it the responsibility of the states to produce their won senators. How they produced those senators was the state's problem. In essence, house members were employees of the citizens while senators were employees of the individual states. Presto chango, check and balance in affairs legislative.

With the 17th amendment to the constitution all that changed. The senate was to be elected just like the house, by direct election of the citizens, not the states. In my view that was one of the more profound mistakes this country has made. The senate, rather than become just a second body just like the house, adopted rules which tended to delay action rather than make things happen. The senate is a brake on the legislature whose purpose is to obstruct. Therefore, filibuster rules are perfectly consistent with the senate's institutional purpose.

If I was king the first change I'd make is repeal of the 17th amendment and go back to the concept of the senate representing the interest of the states.

Sarge
June 22, 2003, 11:42 PM
Thank you, Sir. It ain't copyrighted my friend, so pass the word! This nation was founded on the spirit of individualism, which seems to have been lost in our new-age concept of civilization. We tolerate everything, and stand against nothing. The problem is that we eventually become desensitized to the issues of right and wrong- and we stand for nothing at all, as a predictable result.

You never know, there may just be enough embers of that American spirit left to fan into flames one day. I hope I live to see it. As horrifying and sad as the World Trade Towers attack was, the resulting spirit of patriotism and nationalism was something that eclipsed anything I have ever seen in my 47 years. Sometimes it takes a tragedy to wake people up. I think the responsibility to keep that spirit alive rests squarely upon our shoulders.

When the firearms owners of this nation get motivated to protect their rights, things start happening. We cleaned out the Congress in '94; we sent the anti's packing in 2000, and again in the '02 Congressional elections. But a majority means nothing if the individual legislators get away with voting like liberal elitists. I think the single most important thing we can do now is convince our elected officials on both sides of the aisle that we will make no allowances for either party if they infringe upon our second amendment rights, and that we will send their sorry asses packing if they do. The same goes for holding up the appointments of conservative Supreme Court nominees, who will safeguard the Constitution and Bill of Rights for years to come. If we can spead that sentiment throughout our ranks in the next year, and get 75% of the gun owners to send that message in writing to our congress-things, we are pretty safe.

Well, at least until the next electoin. We have to follow through, and empty a few seats just to keep them awake. We can't afford to be "all bark, no bite".

Thanks again- and haven't I visited with you on Sixgunner ?

If you enjoyed reading about "Dems Have Not Dropped Gun Control Agenda" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!