Gun Control and the 110th Congress: "You Can't Always Get What You Want"

[derby378]

It's very interesting to sit back and see both the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence declaring victory in the 2006 Congressional elections. While the Brady Campaign claimed a success rate in excess of 95% in getting its endorsed candidates elected, the NRA stated that "Americans cast their votes for record numbers of pro-gun candidates, both Democrat and Republican." So, is there some truth in what both sides are saying? Is there a renewed call for sensible gun legislation that can crack down on violent crime while still respecting the rights of gun-owners?

Maybe. But it's likely that a reauthorized ban on semi-automatic firearms will not be part of the picture, at least for the next two years.

For starters, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) voted against renewing the semi-auto ban in 2004 when it came up for expiration. Incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) voted in favor of reauthorization. But even if the House votes on a new ban, it still has to pass through the Senate. Once on the Senate floor, Dianne Feinstein's "Aye" will be countered by Russ Feingold's "Nay," John Kerry will likely be neutralized by Jon Tester, and so on - provided that the Majority Leader even introduces it to the floor for debate.

In light of this new political reality, maybe it's time for the pro-RKBA camp and the pro-gun control camp to sit down and discuss what they actually agree on in terms of legislation that can cut down on gun-related crime. Neither side is going to get everything it wants - while the Brady Campaign may have wanted the semi-auto ban reinstated, many pro-RKBA activists were probably hoping to negate portions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and/or the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. The recent shift in political power has rendered both "wish list" items all but unattainable.

It's dialogue time. As some English guy named Mick once sang, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find you get what you need."

Amendment II Democrats

[rpannier]

1. Nice post

Very reasonable.

Now stop it before the Purity Police find out about you!!!
Then you'll be send for "Re-Neducation!"

Seriously, It is a good idea.

[billbuckhead]

3. First off it needs to be framed properly.

It's those for stronger gun regulations vs those for unlimited gun regulations. The NRA wants any type of guns in schools, churches, hospitals courthouses, everywhere. Further they don't want the gun industry or gun owners to pay for the billions of dollars in damages and hospital bills, the rest of us have to pay. The NRA spent big money running against candidates they gave high ratings to such as Webb, Casey and Tester. One thing the gun lobby doesn't want is referendums, they just got their butt's wiped in Cook County and San Francisco. The gun lobby is vehemently against democracy and does everything it can to subvert it. They famously say that Americans absurdly high gun death rate is the price we must pay for their version of freedom while ignoring that rest of the advanced nations in the world have moved on to much stronger gun regulations and enjoy far lower homicide rates and higher qualtiy of life. Nothing will satisfy the gun lobby by defintion as they are the cutting edge of fascist politcal action in America.

[loyalsister]

5. Case in point

A conceal\carry referrendum was defeated in Missouri.
2 years later Republicans picked up a few seats in the House and legislated it then overrode a veto.
I was just talking to someone unfamiliar with government about this the other day.
She is still horrified by it. She feels robbed.

Before the referrendum, the pro conceal carry felt like they were being bullied by the people who were opposed.
Now, those of us who voted against it on a popular vote referrendum feel like we have been overruled and democracy failed.

[gorfle]

11. In fact...

Of course, we don't have a democratic form of government, but rather a democratic republic. In fact, you were overrulled because our legislative process worked just as it was intended.

[loyalsister]

25. So you say

But, they reality of it here is the cities are being run by the NRA and a rural minority.
The only urban Republicans to vote for that bill were on the take from the NRA and had districts that voted against it.
Are you sure that's what the founders had in mind?

[derby378]

13. Fascinating - I think I just saw a meltdown in progress

First, I'm told that the "gun lobby" is anti-democratic. Then, I'm told that we demand a high death rate from firearm-related crime as a sort of "tribute" for keeping the Second Amendment. Finally, I'm told that pro-RKBA activists are actually fascists. As in Hitler and Mussolini, who were big into gun control last time I heard.

I extend an olive branch, and you effectively rip it out of my hands and belt me across the cheek with it. Why am I not surprised?

[billbuckhead]

16. NRA board member Norquist says bipartisanship=date rape

The "gun rights" side was smashed on election day along with their neoCON hosts. Tell me again, how Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer are big victories for the gun lobby and it's minions?

Here's some observations from the Brady Campaign.

"The NRA lost races in which it endorsed candidates many months ago, as well as at least one major race where it made its endorsement literally at the last minute. Governor Bob Ehrlich of Maryland received the NRA’s endorsement some time between midnight Monday, November 6 and 11 AM Tuesday, November 7 - and then lost to Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley anyway. O’Malley strongly supports passing a state assault weapons ban.

In New York State, a longtime leader in the fight to pass tougher gun laws returned to public office, as former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo crushed his opponent to be elected Attorney General. Appearing with Cuomo in New York last week to deliver the Brady Campaign’s endorsement, Helmke said “rarely in the history of the gun violence prevention movement has there been a candidate for public office who has so thoroughly earned the movement’s support.” In California, former Governor and former Mayor of Oakland Jerry Brown, who aggressively challenged his NRA-backed opponent on the gun issue, was easily elected Attorney General. Martha Coakley, endorsed personally by Helmke in Boston last week, was elected Attorney General in Massachusetts.

In state legislative races, the trend continued. In Maryland, Jim Rosapepe unseated State Senator John Giannetti, who single-handedly blocked the state legislature from passing an assault weapons ban. “I couldn't have won this race without the help of Sarah and Jim Brady and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,” Rosapepe said. Brady backed candidates lead in a number of other races that have not yet been called.

In some contests, the message from the voters on whether they favor tougher gun laws was quite unambiguous and specific. In Cook County, Illinois, voters were asked whether they believe the State Legislatures should pass a ban on military-style assault weapons. The referendum passed with approximately 78 percent of the vote."

<http://bradycampaign.org/media/?pagename=release&release=851>

[derby378]

18. Now all they have to do is define the term "assault weapon"

Easier said than done. Not even Josh Sugarmann himself could pull that off.

Cook County might yet get its "protruding handgrip" ban. Rod Blagojevich got reelected, and he's been promising to make this a top priority. Chicago residents seem almost unanimous in their support of the ban. The rest of Illinois, including rural areas? Don't be too sure - Danny Stover's unsuccessful bid for IL-19 on the Democratic ticket in 2006 carried a strong pro-RKBA theme.

[slackmaster]

36. Rarely has so deep a crock of shit been posted, even in a DU "gun" thread

It's those for stronger gun regulations vs those for unlimited gun regulations.....

Straw Man.

[derby378]

37. I agree wholeheartedly

We want the Constitution upheld, not a "Mad Max" scenario.

[jody]

2. "legislation that can cut down on gun-related crime"? Enforce exist laws, prosecute every offense, &

maximum sentence upon conviction.

There is zero evidence that additional federal laws would reduce crime, see "FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE" and "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws".

[billbuckhead]

4. Total bullshit, Japan, Ireland have almost no guns and almost no gun crime

Compare the US with the rest of the world and be embarrassed. "Gun rights" is code for race. White people in the south vote overwhelmingly for the Republicans and rather than say it's about rascism, in the interest of political correctness, they give credit to guns.

<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms>
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita>

[gorfle]

12. Ugh...

I'm offended with the racial insinuation. I have never equated firearms rights to anything to do with race.

Homicides are tragic, but crime rates do not matter. They are the means by which we may resist tyranny should it befall us. It's all well and good that other countries may enjoy more safety for their lack of such tools. But what will they do should they face tyranny?

The ability to resist tyrannical federal power is an essential liberty that must not be compromised in an effort to gain they safety of less homicides.

[billbuckhead]

14. Duh, The USA has the highest prison population, hard to say we're very free

Beside's it's hard to be free if you're dead.

[gorfle]

19. Prison population is irrelevent...

I would say that the outcome of the recent election demonstrates just how free we truly are, and trying to tie prison populations to this conversation is a red herring.

Beside's it's hard to be free if you're dead.

I'm assuming the point you are trying to make here is that it is pointless to resist tyranny with civilian small arms because such insurgents could never possibly stand up to a modern military force. I would direct you to observe Iraq to see just how effective poorly armed insurgents can be. Doubly so when you consider that their insurgency is destroying their economy. A rebellion at home would destroy our own economy, making such insurgency even more effective.

[billbuckhead]

20. Prison population is irrelevent? Up is down, north is south, prison is freedom

BTW, saying the civil war in Iraq is some sort of success for the gun lobby is really reaching. Iraq has been a failure for small arms. A mere 150,000 troops defeated a nation of 26 million and continues to keeps them under their thumb. The featured weapons of the insurgency haven't been guns, but car bombs, IED's, RPG's and mortars.

[gorfle]

33. Doesn't look that way to me

Prison population is irrelevent? Up is down, north is south, prison is freedom

Since you seem unwilling to debate this topic using more than a handful of words, I can only assume you are trying to make the assertion that, because of our prison population we are not a free society. You are free to believe that if you like, but it's not particularly relevent to the discussion.

BTW, saying the civil war in Iraq is some sort of success for the gun lobby is really reaching. Iraq has been a failure for small arms. A mere 150,000 troops defeated a nation of 26 million and continues to keeps them under their thumb. The featured weapons of the insurgency haven't been guns, but car bombs, IED's, RPG's and mortars.

In addition to IEDs and other heavy munitions, our soldiers also continue to be picked off by sniper fire, so that in itself is evidence enough for me that small arms are an essential part of any armed resistance. They are also the means by which more sophisticated arms could be aquired. They are certainly better than nothing. In any case, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count ( http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx ), out of 3110 casualties 296 of them list small arms or sniper fire as a component of the cause of death - about 9.5%. On top of this, an additional 522 casualties are listed simply as "hostile fire" or "hostile fire - ambush" which I would think would be safe to say that at least some of these also had small arms as a component. Now you are up to as high as ~26%.

Further, I don't see Iraq as defeated or under our thumb. Their will to wage war and resistance against our occupational forces is as strong now as it ever was, if not stronger, and, in the end, I believe they will succeed in driving us out as Americans grow tired of the war. I very much want us to pull out of Iraq, as the occupation is a huge waste of our resources.

[mainegreen]

28. That has zero to do with guns and 100% to do with cultural homogeneity and social nets.

And in what world are there no guns in Ireland?

:rofl:

[Romulus]

35. see you two+

#1)
In addition to being home to a stifling, repressive, collectivist culture that enforces peer pressure against law-breaking, Japan is also a police state http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/japan/document.do?id=80256DD400782B84802570190034F3DA">where the police routinely torture people into false confessions.

While welcoming the recent legislation to improve the treatment of prisoners, Amnesty International cautioned that there remain major deficiencies that need to be addressed urgently.

"Secrecy prevails under the Daiyo Kangoku (pre-trial) detention system. Unmonitored interrogations and forced confessions are unacceptable," emphasized Ms Khan.

"Daiyo Kangoku is a blot on Japan's human rights record and must be abolished immediately."

"The number of persons sentenced to death in Japan last year reached a 25-year high, bucking the international trend on the abolition of capital punishment," stated Ms Khan.

#2)
Ireland is ranked #55 for homicides in your Nationmaster link, but behind safer, gun-happy Switzerland (where handguns and AR-15's are legal) that is ranked #56.

Equally "gun free" UK is ranked #46, behind gun-happy #52 New Zealand (where handguns and AR-15's are legal).

Gun-banning South Korea is also ranked #38, well behind the gun-happy #41 Czech Republic (where CCW is fair-issue, and AR-15's are legal).

[geek tragedy]

6. The Dems are total idiots if they try to renew that damned AWB.

I hope they learned their lesson from 1994.

[jody]

7. "The Dems"! To which party do you belong? n/t

[geek tragedy]

24. I'm a Democrat, and I hope they keep the majority

past 2008. The quickest way to lose the majority would be to pass a gun-grabbing bill.

[jody]

26. Thanks! n/t

[Paladin]

8. I'm Willing To Dialogue With RKBA Democrats.....

...as long as you aren't one of them.

Not after the claims you recently made about the 1966 Charles Whitman shootings, and certainly not after your part in the Michael Moore "plagiarism" controversy of the last couple of days.....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Gun control would greatly benefit America, but isn't worth trying for.

I'm from the UK, and the gun laws, or rather than lack thereof, is one of the things that makes my jaw drop furthest when I look across the Atlantic. It's fairly obvious that introducing UK-level gun restrictions would safe thousands of American lives a year.

However, it's equally obvious that if the Democrats tried to introduce sane levels of gun control then a) they would fail, and b) they would hand 2008 to the Republicans on a plate.

I'm what Americans call a "gun grabber" of - by American standards, which are admittedly massively out of phase with most of the rest of the first world, especially here - a fairly extreme variety, and even *I* don't think the Democrats should be supporting much in the way of tighter gun control, alas.

And when they meet the 30,000 Americans shot to death every year in the next life, they should shrug, and say - honestly - "I'm sorry, it was a price worth paying". Which is not a pleasant position to be in, but politics seldom has an easy option.

[billbuckhead]

15. Over 95 Percent Of Brady-Backed Candidates Victorious

A National Momentum Shift: Supporters Of Common-Sense Gun Laws Win Races From Coast To Coast


Over 95 Percent Of Brady-Backed Candidates Victorious


Washington, DC - In election races across the country yesterday, candidates who support strengthening America’s gun laws to fight gun violence defeated candidates backed by the gun lobby in U.S. Senate, U.S. House, gubernatorial and other statewide races and a number of high-profile state legislative races. The results should have a profound impact on the ability to fight illegal gun trafficking and gun violence in the coming years.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence won five out of five races for Governor and four out of four races for the U.S. Senate in which the group endorsed and went head to head with National Rifle Association endorsed candidates. In all, the Brady Campaign appears to have won 95 percent of the races where it endorsed candidates. In the U.S. House, it appears some 109 candidates either endorsed or A rated by the National Rifle Association went down to defeat, along with 18 candidates for U.S. Senate.

The shift in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, coupled with a U.S. Senate that will either see a control shift or be exceptionally close, will make it hard for the gun lobby to weaken gun laws and creates opportunities for passage of common sense gun proposals, according to Brady officials.

“In this election, the gun issue was in play, gun violence prevention groups won while the gun pushers lost, and there is now a shift in momentum on the issue of common sense gun restrictions,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
----------------------snip---------------------------------
<http://bradycampaign.org/media/?pagename=release&release=851>

There has been a momentum shift. It's like Iraq, they can't cover up the casualties and costs forever.

[derby378]

17. How does the 95% win rate for 2006 compare with past Brady election pushes?

Considering the candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign and the demographics of the candidates' districts and/or states, I'd expect a consistent 90-100% win rate in terms of Brady endorsements.

[DaveinMD]

23. its not likely

they backed many candidates in areas where the pro gun vote is a factor.

[billbuckhead]

30. Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin ?

I guess the progun(whatever that means) areas must be shrinking to hardcore red states and western states with populations less than most urban counties.

[DaveinMD]

31. where in those states?

The link didn't provide the links to candidates. I know many of the Dems in Colorado are not for gun control.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. That's an irrelevant statistic.

Because all it implies is that the Brady campaign picks winning canditates.

What would be more meaningful would be to look at e.g. the proportion of candidates who the Brady campaign would back if it had to back one in every race who won.

[billbuckhead]

29. Pelosi has an "F" from the NRA and so does Hoyer

Now tell me how again those for stronger gun regulations lost last Tuesday?

[derby378]

34. Simple - Pelosi and Hoyer may not be able to pass anti-gun legislation

Even if it clears the House, it'll likely stall in the Senate.

Within 10 years, we'll probably forget all talk of banning semi-automatic rifles and instead concentrate on sensible gun regulations. Like banning "junk guns," for example.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. The chance of America introducing sensible gun laws in the forseeable future is negligable.

"Sensible gun laws" would be something along the lines of:

:- a ban on keeping any gun capable of firing rapidly or being easily concealed, except under lock and key in a gun club with a licence.

:- strict background checks (including a ban for those with any but the most minor criminal records) on owning even the remainder.

:- a requirement to store guns securely, under ultra-tight security, and unloaded.

And probably some other controls, too.

Guns should be a priviledge, not a right. The second ammendment explicitly states that they're a right, and there's no chance whatsoever of it being repealed. I'm not *proud* of being British, because it's not something I achieved for myself, but our gun laws are one of the reasons I'm most *grateful* for it.

[greeneggs708]

10. Here's The Format

Get rid of illegal guns. Get guns off the streets in inner city neighborhoods.

If someone wants a gun, go for it.

Personally, I hate guns. But I ain't going to stop some farmer in Texas from having one.

Like impeachement. Getting rid of guns, ain't gonna happen.

[sendero]

21. Passing laws..

... against things that people want and especially that criminals will ignore, isn't going to help anyone. No truer aphorism has ever been spoken than "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

It must be nice to live in some kind of la la land where you pass a law and everyone just obeys and we all fly off into the clouds singing kumbaya. Sorry, it didn't work for alcohol, it hasn't worked for pot, heroin, vicodins, methamphetamines, cocaine, acid, X or anything for that matter. It won't work, it cannot work and all it ever does is lose more Democratic votes.

[DaveinMD]

22. I am personally pro gun control, however

as a political strategist, I believe Dems should stay far away from this issue. Economic justice, health care reform and sensible foreign policy are too important to lose because of this issue. And its an issue that clearly hurts us with some voters that would normally be with us. Its just not worth it.

[T Town Jake]

32. Opposition to gun control is now solidly bi-partisan...

...I was talking to a pretty influential Democratic Party insider on election night at a watch party a couple of weeks back, and she told me that the higher ups in the party now look on the gun control activists the way the muckety-mucks in the GOP look upon the "pro-life"/anti-choice crowd in their party: as folks who should be indulgently listened to, then ignored.
And who can blame them? The gun control crowd cost us the House and Senate back in 1994; why would leaders of our Party listen to such disastrous advice as the Brady campaign is peddling now that we've won Congress back? Only a fool would indulge such specimens.