Posted on 07/21/2012 6:17:56 AM PDT by markomalley
A handful of Democrats are pressing for tougher gun laws in the wake of the Colorado movie theater shootings that left 12 people dead.
Moving such bills has become extraordinarily difficult on Capitol Hill because of powerful gun rights allegiances, however, and Republican strategists predicted the latest gun violence was unlikely to lead to significant changes.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) — whose husband was killed and son seriously injured in a 1993 shooting on a Long Island commuter train — told reporters on Friday that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other opponents of gun control have a simple but effective strategy following gun violence tragedies.
“They will wait it out, wait it out, wait it out, until people forget about it again, until another tragedy happens like last night,” said McCarthy. “We should be proactive before another tragedy happens.
"There are ways of doing this without infringing upon anyone's rights,” she said.
McCarthy and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) have worked closely together on a bill that would tighten restrictions on gun shows, where firearms can be easily bought by people with criminal records in some states.
Lautenberg, who introduced a measure banning high-capacity ammunition magazines following the Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) shooting, also called for legislative action on the issue.
“We have to face the reality that these types of tragedies will continue to occur unless we do something about our nation’s lax gun laws,” said Lautenberg.
With a few exceptions, horrific shootings have not led to legislative action on gun laws, Neither the shooting last year of Giffords nor the Virginia Tech shooting that killed 32 people in 2007 led to massive changes in gun laws.
Staunch gun proponents say this time will be no different.
“Any time there’s a horrific attack on U.S. soil where a gun is used, the left comes after the Second Amendment in a knee jerk fashion,” said GOP consultant Matt Mackowiak.
“There’s a strong, bipartisan majority in the House that supports the Second Amendment and the NRA policy viewpoint, which aligns with the majority view in public opinion, meaning little is likely to change politically.”
Even some Democrats expressed caution, which perhaps reflects the political danger some in the party see — just months before the election — of taking on gun legislation.
“This is no time for politics or partisanship,” Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), the head of Democrats’ re-election efforts in the House, said. “Today it is important that we come together as Americans.”
Gun rights supporters such as Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) argue that law-abiding gun owners should not be forced to pay the price for criminals who commit senseless acts of violence.
“Sadly, there are always bad actors who try to cynically exploit crises to advance their agenda, much like the statist elements who used the vicious attacks on 9/11 to ram through the USA PATRIOT Act and erode our Fourth Amendment protections,” Jesse Benton, a Paul spokesman, said in a statement to The Hill.
“We are likely to see this same kind of demagoguery done with the horrible tragedy in Colorado, but Dr. Paul and his allies are unwavering in fight to protect all Constitutional rights for all Americans,” Benton said.
Some of the most strident comments for gun reform on Friday came from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, the co-chairmen of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group.
Bloomberg made repeated calls throughout the day for President Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to firmly announce their stance on gun laws and what they would do differently if elected to the White House in November.
Friday's shooting is likely to reignite the debate over interstate concealed carry laws and the national assault weapons ban, among many other possible sticking points between advocates on either side of the issue.
One of the weapons used in Friday's shooting was an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle, which will raise questions about whether to reinstate the assault weapons ban that was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994 but allowed to expire 10 years later under President George W. Bush.
The House late last year passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) that would allow people with concealed gun permits to carry their concealed firearm in any other state that issues similar permits.
Stearns told The Hill that Friday’s shooting would have no effect on the legislation, which is currently being considered by the Senate, and he pressed for his colleagues to disavow any attempt at linking the two.
“There is absolutely no correlation between the legislation and this horrible incident in Aurora, Colorado,” said Stearns in a statement. “And I’m hopeful that no one would try to distort the facts to politicize the loss of so many innocent lives.”
One of the rare exceptions of a shooting that resulted in successful gun legislation came shortly after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when Congress passed a measure that was backed by the NRA.
The law bolsters the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) system by providing states with financial incentives to report records of mental illness to the FBI. Bush signed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in early 2008, but reporting by states remains voluntary.
Democrats on Friday were overwhelmingly reluctant to attribute the shooting to weak gun laws, waiting instead for law enforcement to investigate how and where the shooter got his firearms.
When a constituent posted a comment on Rep. Mike Quigley’s (D-Ill.) Facebook page urging the Illinois liberal to "sham[e] the NRA toadies in congress to enact some gun laws with teeth in them," Quigley said such a response would be premature and insensitive.
"Today, in this moment, let's keep the focus where it should be: on the people we've lost and those who need our support as they recover in the weeks ahead," said Quigley, among Washington's loudest voices in favor of stricter gun laws.
The NRA too was hesitant to lay its stake in the discussion beyond a two-sentence statement on Friday.
“Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and the community," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. “NRA will not have any further comment until all the facts are known.”
All true, But he could have been knocked over by the people on the ground that he stood over.
I’ve wanted to put captions on pics for a decade. Now, I am unleashed.
About 20 years ago a ticked off loon set fire to an after-hours disco/bar in NYC, and killed a bunch more than any shooter. Just used a can of gasoline at the door.
“This is the anarchist mentality -— they are not crazy, emotional loons, but meticulous planners and prepared for many eventualities.”
Now, if, on the other hand, a theater full of conceal/carry folks were at the movie that night...
Plan away now, Mr. Anarchist, and please include in your list of eventualities that EVENTUALLY, you are going to be struck by a slug...maybe it will be a .38...perhaps a .357 Sig...what about a .40...say those .45’s are looking pretty interesting...
When something like this happens why is it that all we do is blame guns as the cause? In any situation there could be multiple things working together in a disaster. In this case not only was a gun involved, costumes were involved, a violent movie, a late night hour, probabley drugs, alcohol and insanity (not only in the shooter). Why not just blame movies as a cause? Then the families of the victims could sue deep pockets such as the film company and movie theater. The actors and technicians who worked on the film also share blame. We don’t need gun control we need movie control. I wish someone would explain this to me as obviously I am missing something.
The bodies are not even cold and the usual suspects are calling for gun-control. It is so completely predictable just as night follows day.
“McCarthy and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) have worked closely together on a bill that would tighten restrictions on gun shows, where firearms can be easily bought by people with criminal records in some states.
Lautenberg, who introduced a measure banning high-capacity ammunition magazines following the Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) shooting, also called for legislative action on the issue. “
As we heard, last evening, this deranged sociopath (the shooter, not Lautenberg) did NOT acquire his weapons at gun shows via illicit sales. He purchased them legally, at established retail outlets in Colorado.
And ‘high capacity’ magazines just mean more mag changes. In an enclosed setting, in a commercial venue that prohibits firearms on its premises, what was to stop this vicious attack?
And, now instead of addressing the issue, the natural tendency of the progressives is to add more and more restrictions, more and more regulation.
Sorry, I ain’t buyin’ it. An armed society is a polite society, after all. And, one or two armed CCL holders in the audience may have been able to shut this guy down before he shot 50+ people...
Notwithstanding all the body armor and such, the coward surrendered promptly when other men with guns arrived.
Guns were already completely, totally, 100% banned to citizens within the theater. Why isn’t this good enough?
10-4. Correct. I DO NOT go to places like this that I cannot carry or my wife cannot slip her’s into her purse. If I cannot protect myself or my wife, then we do not go there. I simply refuse to put myself into a situation that I cannot defend myself. If we go to the stinking malls, we go armed. That simple. Malls are always targets for these types and I may very well be the first one he shoots, but if not, then I do not aim to be the 2d one if I can get my weapon out in time. I will shoot back.
When something like this happens why is it that all we do is blame guns as the cause? In any situation there could be multiple things working together in a disaster. In this case not only was a gun involved, costumes were involved, a violent movie, a late night hour, probabley drugs, alcohol and insanity (not only in the shooter). Why not just blame movies as a cause? Then the families of the victims could sue deep pockets such as the film company and movie theater. The actors and technicians who worked on the film also share blame. We don’t need gun control we need movie control. I wish someone would explain this to me as obviously I am missing something.
Childish nonsense.
It was reported that James Holmes took a large dose of Vicodin as well. That meant, he could take bullet hits and keep fighting.
Pistol cartridges against body armor is useless. Add a crowded theater with panic and tear gas and you don't have much of a chance against this guy.
Once again, for those claiming a single person with a pistol could have stopped this, they are not thinking with their brain, just their emotions.
He was finished shooting and the vicodin effect was turning into drowsiness.
Manufactured anarchy is more than likely what has transpired, too coincidental with the current UN gun grabbing policy.
Too convenient to political events.
Though a remote possibility I am not throwing out ANY connection, that some person in a very high office doesn’t want any more personal attention upon him.
This shooter may be just what he is, a total loon, but I feel a much darker more organized agenda behind him, funding that came to him, strategy given to him, the way to monopolize the media blood frenzy by his peculiar actions, his surrender, his booby traps.
I am about to swear this is a staged planned anarchy attempt to sway opinions for gun control, similar to Australia years ago.
And they passed gun control in Australia.
He was finished shooting and the vicodin effect was turning into drowsiness.
I don’t bother with public events I can observe at home.
Movies, NFL football, most college games, NASCAR racing etc.
Why waste the money and suffer the hassle and terrorist risk when the money can be better spent on something I can’t get for free?
31,000 people die in this country each year from gunshots while 1.2 million babies are sucked from their mother’s wombs; proving that Planned Parenthood is 38 times more dangerous than the National Rifle Association.
You are correct. There is no law that could be passed that would have prevented this type of attack.
Childish of you to not read my post more carefully. The suggestion in my original post centered around the idea behind Conceal/Carry, and the likelihood in such cases that multiple gun-toting, law-abiding citizens might be present at any given time. This would have to enter into the thinking of any serious planner of anarchy, no? That there may be present in a crowd of folks, at any given time, multiple trained/armed people ready (willing? able?) to defend their ground, may cause him to strap on an extra layer of kevlar, but he’s also not quite fully clear in thinking, “I’ve got this!”
Given that said person continues with his plan of mayhem and, in fact, runs into multiple gun-wielders, there is a far greater chance that the perpetrator would be struck by some sort of round (imagine 10 people with guns, each carry clips containing 12 rounds—that’s 120 rounds of ammo coming his way.
I realize armor-piercing rounds are generally not c/c folks’ round of choice, but 9mms, .40’s, .45’s are. If the the assailant is standing up at the front of the theater to begin his rampage, there would be quite a hail of “caliber salad” being tossed his way. As others have commented, being struck in a kevlar vest by a single round would have the potential of stunning. What about being struck by 20 rounds, hmmmmmmmmm? What about 5 rounds hitting chest, 3 hitting helmet? Is he falling to the ground yet? (Don’t forget, c/c’ers can be carrying multiple clips—how long can they keep this guy on the defensive?) Dreaming? Perhaps. But if there WERE 10 c/c’ers in the movie theater the other night, might we have read of such a scenario, given they may have been thinking, “It’s him or me.” In other words, would they have left their side-arm holstered thinking to themselves, “What good is my gun against all that?)
The larger point is this: we need to defend ourselves (until the police arrive!) That is our duty. If I’m out with my family and something like this happened and I was unable to protect my family, I wouldn’t know how to live with the aftermath (would you?) I can’t begin my defense with, “What’s the likelihood of me and my little old Sig 2022, .40 cal. stopping someone ready for Operation Desert Storm?” I’ll be cowed into doing nothing. All I can do is work with what I’ve got. Can we agree that multiple folks thinking like that, and you now have a more level playing field?
Perhaps, there are a lot of folks this morning wishing they had something to throw back at Mr. Holmes.
If just one patron had a conceal carry gun.
Indeed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.