Skip to comments.Democrats in Senate Confront Doubts at Home on Gun Laws
Posted on 01/24/2013 12:23:21 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
BECKLEY, W.Va. Talk of stricter gun control has stirred up a lot of unease here, a place where hunters vie for top prize (a 26-inch LED television) in the Big Buck Photo Contest, and ads for a gun-simulator game ask, Feel like shooting something today?
But before Senator Joe Manchin III invited a group of 15 businessmen and community leaders to lunch last week to discuss the topic, he had only a vague idea of how anxious many of his supporters were.
How many of you all believe that there is a movement to take away the Second Amendment? he asked.
About half the hands in the room went up.
Despite his best attempts to reassure them I see no movement, no talk, no bills, no nothing they remained skeptical. We give up our rights one piece at a time, a banker named Charlie Houck told the senator.
If there is a path to new gun laws, it has to come through West Virginia and a dozen other states with Democratic senators like Mr. Manchin who are confronting galvanized constituencies that view any effort to tighten gun laws as an infringement.
As Congress considers what, if any, laws to change, Mr. Manchin has become a barometer among his colleagues, testing just how far they might be able to go without angering voters.
On Thursday a group of Democratic senators led by Dianne Feinstein of California plans to introduce a bill that would outlaw more than 100 different assault weapons, setting up what promises to be a fraught and divisive debate over gun control in Congress in the coming weeks...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
All ‘Rats and GOPers are gun grabbers at heart.
It appears there will several that will be retired. (I hope)
That’s okay - they forced Healthcare on us and got re-elected.
So the little people in flyover country can take a long walk.
Now go pay your taxes - your government is broke. :)
Notice that they *all* equivocate. Those who are more centrist, sort of, and those who are radical leftists. Only the most extremist among them actually say what they think.
And even then, the extremists lie and say night is day.
“Oh no, this isn’t about ‘gun control’, it’s ‘dialoguing’ and ‘having a conversation’ about ‘reasonable’ changes to ‘gun policy’ to prevent ‘senseless violence’ against ‘innocent children’.”
FIRST YOUR MONEY THEN YOUR GUNS
ALL DEMOCRATS ARE
GOD DENIERS AND CONGENITAL LIARS
Go for it. Maybe Barry has a job for Joe, like Ben Nelson.
Re: the topic of “GUNS”.
The Democratic party is now the one that wants to totally disarm the population and leave ALL weaponry in the hands of their own version of jack-booted thugs—wether some form of “military” or “police” in one form or another.
The Question: Will the limp-wristed GOP mention it?
He's either blind or a lying sack of shit.
Send him this:
The gun grabber's legislative bill compendium, updated (almost) daily:
HR 21: NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013. Referred to the Judicary committee.
HR 34: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2013. Referred to the Judicary committee.
HR 117: Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2013. Referred to the Judicary committee.
HR 137: Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013. Referred to the Judicary committee.
HR 138: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act. Referred to the Judicary committee.
HR 141: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013. Referred to the Judicary committee.
HR 142: Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013. Referred to the Judicary committee.
HR 226: Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act. Referred to the Ways and Means committee.
HR 227: Buyback Our Safety Act. Referred to the Judicary committee.
HR 236: Crackdown on Deadbeat Gun Dealers Act of 2013. Referred to the Judicary committee.
HR 238: Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act. Referred to the Judicary committee.
HR 329: To amend the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 to encourage States to provide records to the National Instant Background Check System.
S22: A bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows.
S33: A bill to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.
S34: A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.
S35: A bill to require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.
S54: A bill to increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking. ("trafficking = "private sales")
And an interesting side note:
HR 339: To require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to make video recordings of the examination and testing of firearms and ammunition, and for other purposes.
I knew the House wouldn’t get close to passing this crap - but I didn’t think that even the Senate would have trouble.
Obviously we’re WINNING, big-time. Let’s all keep it up!!!
The enemedia is a better term than MSM.
STOP BEING PLAYED FOR IDIOTS! When push comes to shove, they'll vote party line just like they all did on Obamacare.
Manchin is a liar. Here's said right after Sandy Hook and now he's trying to take it back to cover his butt:
"The NRAs A-rated West Virginia Senator called for a ban on assault weapons on Mondays Morning Joe, following the tragic shootings in Newtown, Conn."
West Virginians, recall this jerk.
As Rush Limbaugh once said “If you have a “D” after your name you are the enemy”.
The issue is simple: if you pass a law, it has to be enforced by people if it is to accomplish anything. Calling those people trained police officers changes that, granted - but only so much. If you get to thinking that people who carry guns are automatically suspect, what does that make the policeman???Its interesting to notice how the issue is always framed as gun violence, usually in the context of assault weapons. That prejudges the argument in two ways:
Both those prejudices are deeply suspect. First, because non-gun violence potential is less democratic than gun violence potential. Non-gun violence advantages the young, and the male, over the old and female. Whereas Mister Colt makes all men equal.
- It presumes that gun violence is worse than other kinds of violence, and
- It presumes that the gun is used criminally.
And if you work out the numbers, for every annual gun murder there are several thousand gun owners who did not commit a crime with their gun. The issue becomes whether all those non-offending gun owners cause or reduce crime more. If they reduce crime, then the type of person whose gun ownership reduces crime should be applauded and promoted rather than vilified. Again, if we think that people with guns do not reduce crime, what are we paying the police for???