Democrats Divided On Gun Legislation

[Sun195]

I heard this story on NPR Morning Edition today:

Democrats Divided On Gun Legislation

by David Welna

Morning Edition, May 14, 2009 · The National Rifle Association's annual meeting kicks off in Phoenix on Thursday — and its members may have good reason to party.

The NRA has been scoring early and often on Capitol Hill despite a new president who has long supported tighter gun laws and in the face of bigger Democratic majorities in Congress.

Democrats may enjoy a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but when it comes to voting on guns, it's a party divided. In February, 22 Senate Democrats joined most Republicans to amend a District of Columbia voting rights bill so that it essentially forbids the city from restricting gun ownership. And when a GOP-backed amendment came up this week on credit card legislation that would allow carrying concealed loaded weapons in national parks, 27 Democrats voted for it.

"Initially, it looked like we might stop that amendment," says Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the party's chief vote counter. "There were some encouraging votes early on, but then the momentum started moving in the other direction and became a landslide. Half of our caucus voted for it."

Big Gun Lobby 'A Fact Of Life Here'

Durbin says some fellow Democrats who did vote for loaded guns in national parks asked him later how many more times they'd have to face such votes. His answer: I don't know. Tellingly, all but one of the seven Democrats elected in November to seats previously held by Republicans voted for the gun measure.

South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune says it may well have been a tough vote. "But I think there are a lot of people here who are afraid to vote against the Second Amendment," he says. "There are a lot of red-state Democrats, in the Senate at least, who view these issues a little bit differently than some of their other members of their caucus."

Indeed, several House Democrats had a news conference Wednesday to announce that they will try to reinstate a ban on assault weapons that expired five years ago.

"Our gangs are getting assault weapons, our police officers are being killed, and my voice will not be shut until we have a law here that will protect the average citizen," says Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), a lead sponsor of the assault weapons measure.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein says she'd also like to see the assault weapons ban restored but that the votes simply aren't there in the Senate — and she blames the NRA.

"The NRA is a very powerful lobby," Feinstein says. "You know, when I came here, people said, 'Oh, you gotta watch out for big oil, big labor.' I found it was big guns, and that's just a fact of life here."

Fear Or A Shift In Public Sentiment?

But others espousing tighter gun laws say lawmakers are overly fearful of the NRA.

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says, "A lot of politicians do fear the NRA. The NRA, I think though, has become more of a paper tiger. I think they really have less clout today than they used to, and I think a lot of what they're trying to do is to get as much as they can before they fully lose that clout."

NRA spokesperson Rachel Parsons counters that it's simply untrue that the group has lost any standing. She says there may be less clamor for new gun laws now, but gun owners are not about to let down their guard.

"While President Obama said that he just doesn't have the support for gun bans in Congress right now, he still says that that's one of his top priorities," Parsons says. "Gun owners know that. That's why they're going out in droves, purchasing firearms and ammunition across the country."

And although police officers in Oakland and Pittsburgh have been killed in recent weeks by gunmen armed with assault weapons, Senator Durbin says lawmakers appear unmoved.

"The climate when it comes to debating guns in Congress is very negative. People don't want to talk about it," he says.

Durbin calls it fear. But Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, says it has more to do with a shift in public sentiment against tougher gun laws. "Democrats seem like they've moved toward Republicans on these issues because they know where the country is," Cornyn says.

Judging by the votes taken so far, easing restrictions on guns may be one of the few issues in Congress this year with truly bipartisan backing.

Read More

 

[SheepDog223]

Quote - Democrats may enjoy a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but when it comes to voting on guns, it's a party divided. In February, 22 Senate Democrats joined most Republicans to amend a District of Columbia voting rights bill so that it essentially forbids the city from restricting gun ownership.

President B.H.O really has brought us together in a bipartisan effort!

 

[tionico]

NPR does it again.......
this from the article:
And although police officers in Oakland and Pittsburgh have been killed in recent weeks by gunmen armed with assault weapons, Senator Durbin says lawmakers appear unmoved.

Once more, weapons that are no more "assault weapons" then my old Browning BAR .30-06 or an antique M1 Garand, are mislabeled. No, those shooters did NOT use "assault weapons". They were semi-auto hunting rifles with shorter barrels, and "furniture" attached to them. A Ruger 10/22 is just as much an "assault weapon" as what they used.

Don't these lot know "assault weapons" are illegal for anyone but law enforcement and military to even possess? WHY do they persist in this campaign of misinformation?

I recently watched an interview with some retired Los Angeles area LEO. In the twenty six years working in crime in LA County, they had confiscated some incredible number of weapons in gang and drug related activities. In all those tens of thousands of guns confiscated over twenty six years, NOT ONE was full-automatic, not even one was converted to fire in full auto. In Los Angeles County, no less...... and they want me to believe there is a problem with "assault weapons"? What are they smoking? (or what do they think I am smoking?)

 

[Jamie6.5]

Let's face it. One portion of congress is representing their constituencies, and voting on gun legislation the way the majority of Americans want them to.
The other side of congress is once again trying to tell the American people, through their legislative actions, how to think and how to act, and that we need to sacrifice for "the collective."
Ultimately this carries the limitation of our ability to resist them if they get too overbearing.

Hence the need for the 2nd Amendment. Gotta love the founding fathers, they saw it coming over 230 years ago.

 

[tionico]

The other side of congress is once again trying to tell the American people, through their legislative actions, how to think and how to act, and that we need to sacrifice for "the collective."
Ultimately this carries the limitation of our ability to resist them if they get too overbearing.

Hence the need for the 2nd Amendment. Gotta love the founding fathers, they saw it coming over 230 years ago.


"they saw it coming"? sort of... by looking backwards. A goodly number of the signers of the Declaration of Independence lived and/or had their businesses in and about Boston, the first place Parliament's stooges tried to disarm the colonists. They'd BEEN there. IN fact, it was the Brits attempting to seize their arms and powder caches at Concord and Lexington that drew the line in the sand... past which the colonises said "enough is enough.. this far and no more" Those shots sounded so loud they were heard in London, Paris, and Calcutta. Most of the remainder of those signers of the Declaration served in the (all volunteer citizen's) army, most lost lands and business to the abuses of the Brits, ALL had a price put on their heads and knew it. And they participated actively and aggressivly as the rag tag lot of farmers with their squirrel guns set the Redcoats in their rightful places over the next few years. They knew all too well that had the British been successful in carrying out their orders to disarm the colonists, it would have been a lost cause. By that time, it had been seen that as the British Empire expanded, it was at the point of a loaded gun, and against an unarmed local populace.

Problem is, those who would impose their values and thinking on the lot of us against our better judgement know full well that, as long as we remain armed, their cause has no future. So, their highest priority is to disarm the general population. Then, just as with the Brits in Africa, India, the American colonies (Guyana, Belize, Jamaica, Bermuda, etc) the one WITH arms rules, the ones without submit. We all know the litany of political leaders in the twentieth century who first registered, then confiscated, the arms of their intended target, then overran them and subdued them handily.

Now, none in Congress would admit to having this scheme in mind..... but there are a few who subsribe to it, either subtly or as the stooge of another power.

OUR business should be about discovering those who consistently vote against the rights God has given to us, and vote those louts out of their cushy "jobs" and positions of power. We've got a few of our own here in Washington and Oregon, perhaps we should start there..... then, carefully evaluate anyone running for national office, same game.