Dems kill assault weapons ban

Forget that in a poll only two months ago, 74% of Americans supported a ban on assault weapons.

That’s just not enough support for Democrats in Congress.  If the NRA and their vassals, the Republican party (and conservative Dems), say you won’t pass any gun control even over the dead bodies of twenty school kids, then who are we, 74% of the country, to disagree with them.

Democrats in the Senate today killed the assault weapons ban that had passed earlier in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  According to the Washington Post, it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who killed the ban, likely because he feared the overall legislation wouldn’t pass with the ban in there, but then again, Reid is pro-gun, and just until his last election, a close friend of the NRA.  So it’s entirely possible that the Democratic leader had multiple motives for pulling the plug on the popular provision.

(And don’t believe anyone’s assurances that the assault weapons ban will be permitted to come up as an amendment.  That’s how they kill things they don’t like in the Senate – like helping gay couples in immigration reform.  They strip you from the bill, then tell you that you’re free to offer an amendment later, knowing that it’s 100 times harder to get a provision into the bill than to strip it out.)

Zack Beauchamp at ThinkProgress did a list of the top 8 NRA-backed Democrats in the Senate who were blocking gun control efforts, particularly the President’s post- Sandy Hook initiative, and Reid was in that small list.

kid with gun

Kid with gun via Shutterstock.

Other NRA-enablers include Max Baucus (D-MT, a usual sell-out on anything that involves big-monied lobbyists knocking at his door (see health care reform)), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND, new to the Senate, but quickly learning the game of selling out to the highest bidder, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mark Begich of Alaska, Joe Manchin of West Virginia (what hasn’t Manchin sold out on?), and Jon Tester of Montana.

As always with Democrats, the lack of nerve is often mixed with a lack of support for the underlying proposal.  Democrats like Baucus weren’t just bad on health care reform, they didn’t want it in the first place.  So it’s really a two-fold problem we tend to face with Democrats; a lack of guts; and a distaste for progressive proposals, regardless of how popular they are.

That last point, about Dems just not being that into us ideologically, reminds me of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal debate.  For the longest time, Democrats claimed they were on our side, but it sure felt like they were afraid to even try to do the right thing.  Our then- deputy on the blog, Joe Sudbay, coined the term “political homophobia” to describe this apparently fear of Democrats to follow through on pro-gay promises that were getting 70% support in the polls.

But the Democratic fear of doing the right, and popular, thing isn’t just limited to gay rights.  Clearly it permeates the gun debate, in addition to climate change, immigration reform (until the Republicans blinked, at least in the Senate, out of fear for their future electoral prospects in a country increasingly-Latino), abortion, Wall Street Reform, and really pretty much every progressive issue.

Remember when George Bush and the Republicans kept accusing Democrats of embracing far-left positions, like withdrawal from Iraq, when the majority of the public agreed with us?  Or that “crazy socialist” notion of passing a public option in health care reform, that was “only” supported by 70% of the American public?

boy with gun kid child

Boy with gun via Shutterstock.

In contrast to Republicans, who really are being sunk by their own bad ideas (you really can’t hate women, blacks, gays, and latinos and expect to win a lot of elections), in the case of Democrats, its their spine and their marketing, which is affected by their lack of spine. Democrats really are the kings of not trying to effectively sell a position, then claiming that the position’s low support in the polls means it’s a bad idea.  Maybe.  Or maybe it would be a good idea if you just did a better job explaining it to people?

Health Care Reform is probably the best recent example of this conundrum.  I think my favorite poll of late was from Newsweek showing that the public hated “health care reform,” but loved what was in the legislation. In other words, Republican messaging won the day – “health care reform” was a “bad” idea – but when you asked people about the details of the legislation, and didn’t tell them that the proposal was actually in the health care reform bill, they loved it!

When asked about Obama’s plan (without being given any details about what the legislation includes), 49 percent opposed it and 40 percent were in favor. But after hearing key features of the legislation described, 48 percent supported the plan and 43 percent remained opposed.

The NEWSWEEK Poll asked respondents about eight health-care-reform provisions that Obama and many Democrats in Congress have generally supported. It found that the majority of Americans supported five of those provisions, three by particularly large margins. Eighty-one percent agreed with the creation of a new insurance marketplace, the exchange, for individual subscribers to compare plans and buy insurance at a competitive rate. Seventy-six percent thought health insurers should be required to cover anyone who applies, including those with preexisting conditions; and 75 percent agreed with requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees, with incentives for small-business owners to do so.

Of course, Democrats see that the public opposes health care reform, deem it a “loser” issue (like the stimulus), run from it, and the polling gets even worse, causing more Democrats to run from it.  The “badness” of health care reform becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, when in fact, the proposal wasn’t bad, the selling it of was.

child gun control

Child with gun via Shutterstock

The pro- gun control side of the argument has been gravely wounded over the past decade and a half.  Democrats clearly consider it a loser issue, while Republicans, along with conservative Dems and their buddies in the NRA, seem to have no shame in loosening gun laws even further, to hell with this country’s near-fetish with violence as compared to the rest of the developed world.

It’s time for gun control advocates to lose their shame, and start demanding the legislation they want, and that America needs, regardless of how much it ticks off their supposed friends in the Democratic party.  It’s often the only way to win.


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

203 Responses to “Dems kill assault weapons ban”

  1. Josh Apple says:

    I never called for armed insurrection only to be left alone to live my life under the spirit and principles set forth by the Founding Fathers and to not have my freedoms chipped away by Liberals looking for feel-good legislation which in the end accomplishes nothing.

  2. citizen_spot says:

    LOL!! Regarding your “reference” material, the 90’s called and they want their web design back. Again, best of luck to you and your ragtag team of gruff but lovable troo patriots as you raise arms against the tyranny of the evil gubmint. I suspect it will go about as well as the Whiskey Rebellion. Don’t shoot your eye out, m’kay.

  3. Josh Apple says:

    “First YOU restricted YOUR definition of a “well regulated militia” based on the definition of the time period, not as one would define a “well regulated militia” now.”

    Sure lets do that. “The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, “The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that when called into action the militia was to show up “bearing arms supplied by themselves…” Black’s Law Dictionary defines militia as, “The body of citizens in a state” and not the “regular troops of a standing army.” The militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the US military forces.” So the militia is the average public with their own guns ready to defend their particular area of the country.
    Source: http://www.foundingfathers.com/militia.htm

    “I suggested that you must then also keep the definition of arms in the 2nd amendment to the definition of the time period.”

    Let us do that too. The arms of the period were the same arms as provided to the Continental Army. So in that vein of thinking then each American should have the right to their own fully automatic M4 rifle with as much in the way of 30 round magazines and ammo as they can carry, plus handguns, large knives, bayonets, and hatchets. The flintlock rifle and musket were the combat weapons of the Founding Father’s as the M4 rifle and M9 handgun is in ours. I like the way you think except I would trade a Glock pistol for the Beretta M9 and an AK47 for the M4.

  4. citizen_spot says:

    I see that my mockery of your ridiculous position regarding the definition of a well regulated militia was too subtle for you. Let me explain.

    First YOU restricted YOUR definition of a “well regulated militia” based on the definition of the time period, not as one would define a “well regulated militia” now.

    You wrote: “The problem is the phrase has changed meaning over the years and when
    reading and discussing the wording in the 2nd Amendment you must look to
    the intent of those that wrote the Amendment and keep to the definition
    of the time period.”

    Using your “logic” (not mine), I suggested that you must then also keep the definition of arms in the 2nd amendment to the definition of the time period. After much yargle blargle about the 1st amendment, you then eventually claim that the Constitution is a living breathing document that adapts to the modern world (unless of course, that conflicts with your definition of militia, then it has to be as defined at it was at the time). Clearly you are contradicting your own positions, also known as cherry picking what you want to support your ideas regarding the 2nd amendment. But hey, best of luck with your future armed rebellion against the “Tyranny” that is infringing your rights in your fantasy world. Don’t shoot your eye out Ralphie!

  5. Josh Apple says:

    “You can’t cherry pick which Constitutional rights you think are applicable to today.”

    And yet, you did when you wrote this:

    “when reading and discussing the wording in the 2nd Amendment you must look to the intent of those that wrote the Amendment and keep to the definition of the time period”.

    How so? The Amendment states that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. You are the one who wishes to restrict arms as “defined as black powder muskets and flintlocks”. The Founders realized that the technology would continue to advance and that the arms available to the people would likewise increase, in amount and power. By letting the law abiding citizens own semi-auto rifles, handguns, modern day shotguns, revolvers, and other misc. firearms the spirit of the 2nd Amendment is still being honored. The Constitution is a living breathing document that adapts to the modern world while maintaining the spirit of the law that our Founding Fathers intended. I wonder if your same strict/concrete definition of the 2nd applies to the 1st? No more computers, cell phones, smart phones, TV, radios, eBooks, etc. No more interesting conversations on the internet in comment sections. I would be hard pressed to imagine George Washington tweeting or updating his Facebook page.

  6. Josh Apple says:

    I don’t care about polls. As I said “the opinions of .0003226% of the American population” is less than a drop in the bucket, more like a half a teaspoon. I don’t care about the results of Conservative polls, Liberal polls, NRA polls, or Brady polls. Taking a super tiny slice of America and passing judgment on a Federal level on issues that touch the lives of all Americans is irresponsible at the least and probably damn near criminal. This is a Republic not a Democracy and it should be run as such.

  7. Josh Apple says:

    “So background checks, registration and fees are no big deal if you want something bad enough.”

    The point is that there are already laws in place and they work so how are adding more laws going to make the law abiding people of the this country safer. They won’t, plain and simple.

  8. citizen_spot says:

    “You can’t cherry pick which Constitutional rights you think are applicable to today.”

    And yet, you did when you wrote this:

    “when reading and discussing the wording in the 2nd Amendment you must look to the intent of those that wrote the Amendment and keep to the definition of the time period”.

    Your words, not mine. I can see how the world must appear to be a very scary place when one is so confused.

  9. Ninong says:

    Polls can accurately reflect the will of the people when they are properly conducted. For example, they accurately predicted the results of the 2012 presidential election — except for those internal Republican Party polls that were adjusted to reflect what they expected would be the actual makeup of the turnout.

    If you look at the predictions made by Nate Silver over the past several years, he has been extremely accurate in predicting the results of virtually every election, even to the point of calling each state correctly — even the really close ones.

    Polls are not meaningless. They have proven to be quite accurate if the sample size is large enough. There is not doubt that the majority of Americans do not agree with your position on the need for gun control legislation. Virtually every national poll has shown that a very large majority of Americans are in favor of universal background checks for example. What’s wrong with that? Why shouldn’t we want to close the gun show loophole? If we don’t do that then there is no sense in having any background checks at all.

    Polls with a sample size of around 1,000 people have a margin of error of less than 4%. Once the sample size gets over about 2,500 people, the margin of error drops to less than 2%. The problem with the polls conducted by Karl Rove and Dick Morris that caused them to predict that Mitt Romney would “win in a landslide” was that they adjusted the raw data to reflect what they believed would be the actual percentage of each demographic in the turnout. They had been saying all along that all of the mainstream polls did not include a large enough percentage of people who identified as Republican or leaning-Republican. As it turned out, the polls were correct because a lot of the people who previously identified themselves as Republican or leaning-Republican had changed their minds and now told the polling people they were Democrat or leaning-Democrat.

    You may not agree with the results but it is clear that most Americans believe that something has to be done to change the direction of this country when it comes to gun control policy. That doesn’t mean Congress will actually do much of anything, because Congress is owned by the NRA lobby. Actually the NRA lobby is just one of the special interest groups that owns Congress.

  10. citizen_spot says:

    “In modern America, if you want a cannon, a fully automatic rifle or
    pistol, a silencer or an odd ball shortened firearm you can have one if
    you fill out the proper paperwork, pass the Federal criminal checks, pay
    the particular fees and pay for the item.”

    So background checks, registration and fees are no big deal if you want something bad enough. And yet this becomes tyranny to you and “infringes” on your right to bear arms when it is applied to commercially available weaponry. Love the double standard.

    Well, don’t worry, no one is going to take away your shiny metal binky. But if you decide to make your own receivers through the wonders of 3-D printing, well, then all bets are off. The NRA and gun lobbyists will be working hard to “infringe” on your right to bear arms by working to ban and criminalize 3-D printing of non-metal receivers. Because in modern America, gun manufacturer profits take precedence over your perceived “right” to bear cheap and affordable arms.

  11. Josh Apple says:

    “Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Jan. 19-20, 2013, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,013 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.”
    Source: the gallup website you provided

    Once again polls are for the simple minded and the easily swayed. This “definitive” poll where 2/3rds of America agrees with Obama on the “evils” of certain bullets was based on a “random sample of 1,013 adults” from all over America. Do you really believe that we as a nation should justify Federal legislation on the opinions of .0003226% of the American population? I could go and “randomly” pick out 1,013 people at the next gun show in town and I bet the opinion presented would not be to your liken. Polls are meaningless but they are fun to rip apart.

  12. Ninong says:

    Two-thirds of Americans agree with President Obama’s call to ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets by civilians according to a Gallup poll conducted just six weeks ago. http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx

    In every national poll published on the topic of gun control the majority of Americans support stronger gun control laws.

  13. Ninong says:

    That Reuters/Ipsos poll was the subject of this discussion because it was the one talked about in this article by the author. However, you’re right, it does have a margin of error of approximately 5% or so. I found several other polls and ALL of them show a majority of Americans support stronger gun control measures, although the percentage is not as high as the Reuters poll.

    Gallup did a similar poll about six weeks ago using a random sample of 1,013 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Their results are more representative of the average of most of the other national polls. http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx

    Americans Back President Obama’s Proposals to Address Gun Violence

    “Given the chance to vote “for” or “against” each of nine key proposals included in President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce gun violence, Americans back all nine.”

    “Americans are most likely to be in favor of requiring background checks for all gun sales (91%), increasing funding for mental health programs aimed at youth (82%), increasing funding for programs to train law enforcement and schools in responding to active armed attacks (79%), and increasing criminal penalties for people who buy guns for others — so-called straw purchasers (75%).”

    “The two least-broadly supported proposals, but ones majorities of Americans still favor, are reinstating and strengthening the 1994-2004 ban on assault weapons (60%), and limiting the sale of ammunition magazines to those with 10 rounds or less (54%).”

    “The three other specific policies tested in the new poll that garner somewhat lower — although still majority — support are federal funding for 15,000 street police officers (70%), federal funding for helping schools develop emergency response plans (69%), and banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by civilians (67%).”

  14. Josh Apple says:

    An online poll of 559 people is hardly a definitive voice on the wants and desires of a nation of 314,000,000+ people.

  15. Josh Apple says:

    “Would he agree to ban cop-killer bullets?”

    Couldn’t any bullet kill a cop? Is the same bullet OK if it is only used to kill people other than policemen? Does the bullet know the difference between a cop and average citizen? Whoa… to really blow your mind what if the shooter is using the same bullet (maker, model, bullet weight, average velocity) as the policeman? Can a bullet used by cops in turn be used to be a cop-killer bullet?

    Where do you find the thug/rapist/robber-killing bullets; they would helpful for personal defense?

  16. Josh Apple says:

    “sane” gun policy as opposed to insane gun policy?

  17. Josh Apple says:

    The flintlock rifles that our Founding Fathers would have been quite familiar with would have been the .75 caliber Brown Bess musket, the .69 caliber Charleville musket, and the .50 caliber Pennsylvania Rifle. The well trained soldier or seasoned outdoorsmen could get off 3 aimed shots per minute. These were the “assault rifles” of their day. Your giddiness over the notion of limiting the 2nd Amendment to only those weapons available to the Founding Fathers does beg a question. Does that idea of limiting also apply to the 1st Amendment? If so then your cell phone (smart or otherwise), computer, radio, TV, eBooks, etc. are not covered under the 1st Amendment. Only direct conversations, speeches, or books/pamphlets printed on a manual printing press would be constitutionally protected. If we are going back to an overly strict interpretation of the Constitution then it would seem that you don’t want black people to count as actually people or for women to vote. You can’t cherry pick which Constitutional rights you think are applicable to today.

  18. Josh Apple says:

    You can yell “FIRE” all you want in a theater and should if there is an actual fire. But if there isn’t then you have to face the Justice System and answer for your actions. Just as every Policeman has to account for the bullets that leave his/her gun. Just as the private individual must account for his shots in a self-defense shooting.

    In modern America, if you want a cannon, a fully automatic rifle or pistol, a silencer or an odd ball shortened firearm you can have one if you fill out the proper paperwork, pass the Federal criminal checks, pay the particular fees and pay for the item. I love when Liberals bring tanks and RPGs up as the standard by which gun owners are supposedly showing their “hands” in the gun control argument. Why is a semi-auto rifle different than an RPG? If you can’t tell the difference between these two types of weapons then spend some of your time on Wikipedia and absorb some of the basics before you show, through your words, your basic ignorance of weapons.

  19. Josh Apple says:

    You keep bringing up election results as definitive proof that “the majority of your fellow Americans supports the government that you feel should be overthrown by military force.” Firstly I never called for an overthrow of the US Government; I said don’t underestimate the power of the common people. Secondly, if the present Administration has SO much power and a mandate from the people then why can’t they get anything done? Eight years of out-of-control spending and back peddling will be Obama’s legacy.

  20. citizen_spot says:

    “when reading and discussing the wording in the 2nd Amendment you must
    look to the intent of those that wrote the Amendment and keep to the
    definition of the time period”.

    Well, in that case, arms were defined as black powder muskets, so you can have all the muskets your “well regulated militia” can carry.

  21. Penciljockey says:

    All weapons are designed to kill or maim. Would they be calling for the ban of handguns if this were done with handguns? Oh yeah I forget the Virginia Tech Guy used a handgun, but no ban of handguns. How strange. Those weapons in a free society is what keeps this society free. Read the Bill of Rights and a whole and if you’re bright you’ll understand. Look at history and look at other countries where government became corrupt and tyrannical, millions died and many many of those were innocent children. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. We have the inalienable right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves if need be. We will not give our rights away that were fought for by those before us, because an Insane 20 year old with a Blood Lust went out and killed innocent children. We don’t negotiate with terrorists.

  22. Penciljockey says:

    What does it say? What do you know about it?

  23. Penciljockey says:

    It took a whole police force here in LA to take down an ex-cop on a mission. Figure out the math. It doesn’t matter if we can’t win. The question is are you willing to die for you freedom and for the freedom of the future generations? You’re sure as hell not going to survive very long with hunting rifles and sling shots.

  24. Penciljockey says:

    The military going up against 100 million plus or more people with shovels would be scared. How long has it taken our mighty military to settle Afghanistan? Oh yeah it’s not settled yet is it.

  25. citizen_spot says:

    Rocket launchers, tanks and surface to air missiles are banned. Is that unconstitutional as well? You can’t yell “FIRE” in a theater. These are common sense restrictions that have been deemed constitutional. And if the market for guns and ammo is such that the price is high, (as is it now, without a ban, because of the irrational fear of impending government confiscation amongst the gun loving, liberal hating patriots) how are poor people supposed to buy guns now? I guess you are in support of vouchers to help poor people buy guns then. So you are against the free market and support socialism. How Liberal of you. Welcome Comrade!
    Good thing you aren’t conservative because they despise the poor because they believe them to be violent thugs they need guns to protect against.

  26. Josh Apple says:

    My facts are just that, facts. I’m sorry if my facts disrupt your reality.

  27. Josh Apple says:

    I didn’t edit anything; it is as it was originally posted.

  28. Josh Apple says:

    How does that old saying go, “A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything you have.”

  29. Josh Apple says:

    How about a ban is an infringement of our rights and therefore unconstitutional? And where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that price is of no concern in the exercise of those rights? It says “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Poor people should have the option to defend themselves with firearms they can afford just as the rich do. Causing a weapon’s price to sky rocket only keeps it from those on lower incomes. Why do Liberals hate and despise the poor and wish them to face the thugs on the street defenseless?

  30. Josh Apple says:

    Very true. Think of all the tax money that could be rolling in on the legal sale of marijuana. How is that any different from the tax revenue made from the sale of alcohol?

  31. lynchie says:

    no you edited your original post

  32. Penciljockey says:

    Of course they don’t want the poor people they want to feed to be able to have weapons to defend themselves with.

  33. citizen_spot says:

    The second amendment does not guarantee you a right to bear cheap or affordable arms. So which is it, a ban is useless because there is enough supply in the secondary market to meet demand so why even bother, or a ban will cause a supply shortage unable to meet demand, thus raising prices and effectively decreasing access?

  34. Penciljockey says:

    Yeah we have laws against that and yet it still happens. Hmmm… Do you want pre-crime prevention? How do we go about that? Just restrict everyone from every possible means to harm each other? OK that’s sounds like a great place to live.

  35. Penciljockey says:

    Yeah and places with little to no cars have less car related deaths, etc. Duh. UK has higher assault, rape, robbery rates than the US. Look it up and see.

  36. Penciljockey says:

    They aren’t a tenth as smart and 100 times more corrupt.

  37. Penciljockey says:

    So you don’t want to reduce crime, just reduce the amount of guns? You think people won’t find another way to kill? How about the 1.5 million times per year people prevent being attacked, robbed, raped, killed etc with the use of guns? Should we just let those people be attacked? So people don’t have a right to protect themselves, cause people like you are paranoid that your friends and neighbors are going to snap and start going door to door killing everyone?

  38. Penciljockey says:

    You’d think conservatives against gun bans would realize the drug ban didn’t work either. Both sides are idiots in my opinion.

  39. Josh Apple says:

    Amen to that.

    “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”
    ― George Washington, George Washington’s Farewell Address

    To bad our leaders today aren’t a tenth as smart as the Founders.

  40. Josh Apple says:

    It was a 45ACP. We are supposed to believe that it was a stunt to prove how EASY it was to buy a handgun and “assault” rifle. Sure it is EASY for a law abiding citizen who passes the background check and doesn’t count as a menace to society to obtain the weapons legally. Truly a shocking bit of gotcha investigation. I personally feel the jerk got caught buying something that he has publicly denounced. Elitist ass-hat thinks he is good enough to own the weapon but not the riff-raft public. Screw him.

  41. Penciljockey says:

    Not just that. There are many people who hate the Neocons and extreme right wing conservatives so much they’d cut off their nose to spite their faces. I’m never voted for either one. We need to get out of this 2 party system.

  42. Josh Apple says:

    If I am… [dramatic pause]…uppity for believing in the basic freedoms that our Founding Fathers enumerated in the Constitution then so be it.

  43. Josh Apple says:

    It jacks the prices through the roof and “infringes” on my right to bear arms.

  44. Josh Apple says:

    “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.”

  45. Josh Apple says:

    Your Reuters poll is complete crap.

  46. Josh Apple says:

    Gun safety should also be part of the high school curriculum, if not in middle school.

  47. Josh Apple says:

    And at Columbine High School Eric Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, (shot a total of 25 times) and a 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired 96 times. Dylan Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. He basically fired the handgun, for a total of 55 times.

    The limited number of rounds in the magazine doesn’t curtail nut-job behavior.

  48. Josh Apple says:

    Idiot voters looking for a handout from the Federal Government and blindly vote for whoever they are convinced will give them that free stuff are the problem.

  49. Josh Apple says:

    And how many other situations just like that one have you heard about?

  50. Josh Apple says:

    How do you know this?

  51. Penciljockey says:

    The problem with many liberals and anti-gun fascists is that they are all about feeling good. They don’t care about people really. They just want to pretend they are working towards a Utopia. Some may mean well and I think others are just liars. The reality is lots of these murders could have been averted if the families and friends of these psychos would have just paid attention to them. Adam Lanza had years of research printed out of mass murderers. Apparently he was obsessed with mass killers so he just didn’t snap one day.

    “Law enforcement reportedly discovers a sickeningly thorough 7-foot-long, 4-foot-wide spreadsheet with names, body counts and weapons from previous mass murders and even attempted killings. ‘It sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research,’ an anonymous law enforcement veteran said.”

    “What investigators found was a chilling spreadsheet 7 feet long and 4 feet wide that required a special printer, a document that contained Lanza’s obsessive, extensive research — in nine-point font — about mass murders of the past, and even attempted murders.”

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-lanza-plotted-massacre-years-article-1.1291408#ixzz2O7ikb581

    and no one noticed? Where’s the real problem here? It’s not the so called military style assault type weapon.

  52. Penciljockey says:

    No we don’t look the other way. We enforce the laws we have and we convict murderers. We also need to have gun safety PSA’s on tv and Mental Health PSA’s on tv so that people feel more comfortable getting help for their messed up children.

  53. Penciljockey says:

    The idiot voters brainwashed by corporate owned/government media who vote based on what they see on the news?

  54. Penciljockey says:

    Yup he bought that and a pistol of some kind. Total political BS and we are no longer standing for it. Our voices were heard and the AWB was dropped, but it’s not over.