The Goat Pen

Yeah, put it out on the property with the arms factory!

Try having a town center without those.

The possibility of passing a renewal of the 1994 assault-weapons ban looks even more remote after an appearance on a Nevada PBS interview. Saying that everyone needs to “be cool and cautious,” Reid insisted that the answer to Newtown needs to be more comprehensive than just weapons restrictions — and wants to wait to see what Obama will do “administratively” before passing any new laws:




“The Second Amendment is something that was adhered to by Hubert Humphrey, John Kennedy,” Reid said. “So I don’t think anyone wants to diminish the Second Amendment, but I think everyone should just take a deep breath and realize where we are and where we need to go.

“We have too much violence in our society, and it’s not just from guns. It’s from a lot of stuff. and i think we should take a look at TV, movies, video games and weapons. And I hope that everyone will just be careful and cautious.”

Rather than commit to any specific courses of action, Reid said he’d wait to see what Obama will propose on guns — and through executive order. For now, the Democratic leader in the Senate said it’s time to take a breath.

“Let’s just look at everything. I don’t think we need to point to anything now,” he said. “We need to be very cool and cautious.”

Needless to say, this doesn’t fill TPM with confidence:


The Democratically-controlled U.S. Senate will not be a free-for-all of new gun regulations following the shooting at Sandy Hook, according to Majority Leader Harry Reid. Instead, Senators will focus on passing legislation that can move through the Republican-controlled House, Reid said.

That could spell doom for an assault weapons ban. Speaking on Nevada Week In Review, a news show on the PBS affiliate in Las Vegas, Reid said there’s no real chance of a new ban passing the House.

Reid says he was surprised to see the polling post-Newtown:


“We have to be fair. I was surprised with the poll results that came after this terrible situation that occurred at Sandy Hook. the numbers around the country — most people favor having the ability of people to carry guns,” he said. “So I think that the American people want us to be very cautious what we do. I think they want us to do things that are logical, smart, and make the country safer, not just be doing things that get a headline in a newspaper.”

Of course, the big headlines today are the polling from Pew and the Washington Post/ABC poll that shows support for an assault-weapons ban, albeit with plenty of qualifications. The Post/ABC survey showed voters more interested in economic issues than gun control, for instance. Most support coalesces around initiatives to make background checks universal and tougher, and to consider mental-health issues along with criminal backgrounds, and even (by a 2-1 margin) to put armed guards in schools.

That seems like a smart move to go after movies, TV, and video games.

The ultimate goal here I believe is to lock down the gun show loophole so that every gun sold in America will require a background check, and then put crazy penalties on anyone that sells a gun privately without it. John McCain was actually the first person to introduce this into legislation back around 2003.

So many people are focused on the assault weapon ban I'm afraid they'll let that one slip by as a concession.

But I think Reid's action counteract the idea that the majority of Americans are ready to limit the guns they can purchase.

Of course Reid suddenly siding with the people in the midst of a budding bribery scandal probably doesn't help.

"The possibility of passing a renewal of the 1994 assault-weapons ban looks even more remote after an appearance on a Nevada PBS interview."

Yeah, I'd hate to go back to the dark days of 1994 when it comes to access to assault weapons. "The nightmare years" as we refer to them around our house. Never again!

Its not that things were bad or good in 1994 - its that from 1994 to 2004 they were irrelevant.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness." A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small....

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.

all I know is I'm screwed if we ban high capacity magazines. I'll never get by the ghost zombies at the tail end of Drake I with a 20 round clip reloading every 10 seconds

"Its not that things were bad or good in 1994 - its that from 1994 to 2004 they were irrelevant."

Well then I guess it's just going to come down to "the will of the people", just like (ultimately) everything else in this country. The pro-gun side certainly has the better marketing department at this point, and they clearly have the most (self)-interested coalition. We'll see what happens...

The numbers are for tighter regulations on guns. By a mile. Every poll has confirmed that. The "pro-gun" (I hate that term, as it intimates that anyone in opposition is "anti-gun") side has more capital they are willing to spend on their position.

We will see where the power lies.

I don't think it is by a mile.

Reid saying he was shocked at the numbers post Newtown should tell you that, along with Obama bypassing congress and relying on executive orders to get any kind of stricter interpretations of existing law.

Frank Lunz (Fox Pollster) says it's by a mile. Gallup says it's by a mile. WaPo says it's by a mile.

http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-shootings ... itics.html

Now, polls can be manipulated slightly by the verbiage in the question, but everything is coming up against "no action" on guns and regulation.

• 88% favor background checks on firearms buyers at gun shows
  76% support checks on buyers of ammunition
  71% back a federal database that would track all gun sales
  65% support banning high-capacity ammunition magazines
  58% favor banning the sale of so-called assault weapons
  55% support the National Rifle Association's call for armed guards in schools (which is sad)
  51% would ban semi-automatic handguns (not a mile, but it was a poll response)

Notably, support for the most popular of these measures - expanded background checks, a gun database and banning high-capacity magazines - includes a majority of people who live in gun-owning households, a group that accounts for 44 percent of all adults in this country.

So, yeah, I think a mile is apropos, considering the above.

Abortion only allowed on limited circumstances is in the 70% range. Do you feel that right needs to change as well?

I support checks at gun shows. 17 states already have some amount of regulation there anyway. Alabama does not mandate it, but the last gun show I went here was doing checks - maybe it was a county or city thing? And what are we going to do with private citizen sales? But I'm not sure how gun show checks are a response to Sandy Hook.

Background checks on ammo purchases? Horrible. National database is Orwellian.

And we're gonna have to decide what an assault rifle actually is. We can go back to the 1994 verbiage, but -keep in mind- those were largely cosmetic.

sardis wrote:Abortion only allowed on limited circumstances is in the 70% range. Do you feel that right needs to change as well?

Now...death by scalpel, tha tha tha tha thas differnt. Should be unlimited.

"a majority of people who live in gun-owning households, a group that accounts for 44 percent of all adults in this country."

I'm surprised at that number, just b/c I've never lived in a house with guns. My grandfather had an old ass .22 rifle, I bet it would've took 5 or 6 shots to kill a man. The bullets were basically glorified pellets...

A .22 can kill you deaaaaaaaaaayed.

If the NRA was smart, they would propose running their own registries, policing gun shows and certifying dealers, etc. much like other industries. I think it would be ok with gun owners since it is not the government and it shows the public that they do care about such things.

It would almost have to be a head shot for that one. I suspect there's no standard bullet for any caliber of gun as far as powder, but the bullets he used to get were small as hell...

While we're on the subject, what do the numbers represent? Diameter of the bullet/barrel? E.g, is a .22 bullet 22/100 of an inch in diameter? And a .45 twice that size? What about shotguns? What does the gauge number represent? What about a 30 aught 6?

Hedge,

Why would you ask me such a straight-forward and easily google-able question?