Kaine Throws Support Behind Gun Control Measure As White House Remains Silent

WASHINGTON -- Steadfastly refusing to weigh in on the gun rights debate following the deadly shootings in Tucson, the Obama administration now finds itself behind not only former Vice President Dick Cheney but also the head of its own party committee.

Appearing on "Political Capital with Al Hunt," airing Friday night, Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine said that he supports measures to restrict the number of bullets that can be fired from a single magazine.

"[The proposal by Carolyn McCarthy is the] kind of legislation that I've long supported," Kaine said, of legislation that would limit high-capacity clips to no more than ten bullets, "back from the days when there was an assault weapons ban, before it expired."

"I have long been a supporter of what I think are reasonable regulations, the kind of contemplated, frankly, by the Second Amendment, and I think those and others would be reasonable," Kaine said, according to an advanced transcript. "In Virginia we worked in the aftermath of Virginia Tech to do some important things here and nationally on the databases of folks who have been adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous so that they couldn't purchase guns."

Kaine's backing of McCarthy's measure is not -- at least in these times -- necessarily surprising. Though he is a prominent supporter of the Second Amendment, other gun rights enthusiasts, notably Cheney, have said they are open to the idea as well.

All of which has made the White House's silence that much more conspicuous. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has declined to give any indication as to whether the president or his legislative team supports the McCarthy measure, let alone a policy prescription of their own.

"I have no doubt that there will be proposals offered as a result of different circumstances that would have happened in Tucson. And the administration will evaluate those proposals," he said during Thursday's briefing.

Was there any possibility of the president being proactive and proposing something on his own?

"I have not heard anything particular in here," Gibbs added, giving off the distinct sense that there won't be anything unveiled during Tuesday's State of the Union address.

Comments

[stray123]

04:31 PM on 01/24/2011

I love being a liberal, pro 2nd Amendment, gun owner. That means I dont have to cling to the rhetoric of any one side of the issue. I like the idea of enforcing a rigorous background check. No mentally ill having gun access etc. Against the high cap magazine ban tho. And I'll go one better and say that all this so-called evidence that crime is lower because there are more guns is nonsense. Just like the so-called evidence that anti gun measures account for some sort of reduction in crime. CRIME IS JUST DOWN IN GENERAL!

And as for me and mine...I'll keep my AR-15 w/100 round drum mag. Along with my XD.45 with 14 round standard magazine. What YOU do is your business, but my hobby is NOT to be restricted by someone that doesnt share my passions.

You wanna do some REAL good...voluntarily add a governor to your car to keep it below 60mph. I'm sure there are some statistics to add validity to that.

[liamd1]

11:28 PM on 01/25/2011

Nice post. My next purchase aside from a couple of single action revolvers is an XD 45.

[Pundit Commentator]

01:32 AM on 01/24/2011

It is quite disappointing to see the lack of leadership from the White House on this issue.

[Rooster Coburn]

03:35 PM on 01/24/2011

Why would he try to exploit a tragedy like the Tucson shooting to promote his personal political agenda? Is he shameless?

[garreth]

03:08 PM on 01/29/2011

Sorry that you are disappointed.............but consider who is IN the White House. Besides, it wouldn't do any good.

[Time Before]

03:52 PM on 01/23/2011

Again gun control won’t work too, many - ILLEGAL GUN SALES- which means boot legging arms all over!

You can go after the ammunition. That is easy! Reduce the clips. Reduce the amount of purchases.

DUI’s and loss of rights, take way the bullets! Domestic violence charges –take away the bullets. Assault take away the bullets, showing up at to protest abortion with a gun - you never get any bullets!

Rewrite the bible, take out wrath, an eye for an eye and smote: Rework the part when Jesus comes back as soldier killing the evil ones. Take out every reference to get back and righteous justices. Anyone calls to god to kill and does: Life time of watching Winnie the Pooh, Despicable me and Johnny Go get your GUN!

[RevJimIII]

04:13 PM on 01/23/2011

Put the Redbull down and step away from the keyboard....

[RevJimIII]

04:01 PM on 01/23/2011

Send all your money to the Brady Campaign if you wish to be disarmed and left a victim.
 
 
There I fixed it for you.
 

[Time Before]

10:07 PM on 01/23/2011

.
You come stating civility, yet you attack me after you defend your ego. The phrases rant, baseless assertions( nice irony) and take the school masters ridicule of disjointed writing. That is abuse with no an attempt to seek common ground. No Holy man does that, but false Prophets do!

A MAN OF GOD WANTING GUNS?! IS LIKE JESUS WANTING MONEY IN THE CHURCH!

Here is a question for you, You have the choice between having men in church with loaded guns or you can have women with their hair down in corsets. What would be more acceptable to you?

[Sharon Mclean]

02:49 PM on 01/23/2011

the 2nd amendment shoud be amended. There is no reason for ordinary people to have guns. I can understand ppl who hunt for sport. But all these other reasons like for protection is nonsense we heard the guy on the Ed show who had a gun and almost shot the wrong person. The 2nd amendment was for a time when war was literally fought in people's yards and in case the war came into your home you might have needed to defend yourself from the enemy. Ordianry people aren't tacticly trained on how to shoot or fight in case disarmed. I've seen many a documentary with militia here in the US and there made of ordinary people with ordinary jobs like a construction worker. Do people really think this construction worker is going to protect you because him/her has a gun against a person they know nothing about. What if the person commiting the crime is ex-military, an ex-cop, a gang member who has no problem killing, shoot even a martial arts expert(this person would probably have a better chance at fighting or disarming as either the criminal or civilian).There are so many scenarios but my gut tells me the fat guy who works at a computer company or construction whose not trained for a tactical situation and owns a gun isn't likely to protect anybody let alone himself.

[RevJimIII]

04:59 PM on 01/23/2011

Your post is full of 'what ifs', do you have anything other than guesswork with which to authorize your advocacy in limiting my rights?

[OdinsEye]

06:20 PM on 01/23/2011

"But all these other reasons like for protection is nonsense we heard the guy on the Ed show who had a gun and almost shot the wrong person."

If you are refering to the armed responder at Tucson, he did not almost shoot the wrong person. He never even drew his firearm.

"Ordianry people aren't tacticly trained on how to shoot or fight in case disarmed."

Yet they have a better record of hitting the bad guy and not hitting bystanders than police.

And for the record a lot of firearm owners are former military and/or have a lot of experience shooting.

[garreth]

03:14 PM on 01/29/2011

Your words are hollow. These are the same arguments that antis tried before. You had better re-read the Constitution and the Amendments again. It does not make allowances for letting individuals to determine who can and can't have guns. The laws to protect society as a whole are sufficient, and that includes the right to carry a gun for protection. Who the hell made you the decision maker!?!?

[Peter Noble 2]

12:15 PM on 01/23/2011

Gun control in NYC: I want a permit to target shoot. But they force me to buy a gun rather than merely obtain a permit to shoot at a club for sport. Many of us who want only to do target practice are forced if we apply for a license to buy a gun within 30 days! I only want permission to shoot a pistol at a club.

I guess I am not a normal gun supporter. Why cannot I simply have a club target shooting license option? I am new to this sport. Using the clubs rifles is ok but the real skill is pistol shooting.

I am now in a quandary, if I want to excell at this sport, i will have to own and look after a gun when all I need is a pistol at the club.

And a system that appears to favor the rich and connected is unfair. Extremely worrying is that many paranoid Goldman Sachs brokers in 2008/9 were given conceal and carry licenses! Sorry but why should I feel safer knowing a broker has a loaded gun but only scared if his cleaner does?

I think laws that ban guns for felons and those who have been locked up for mental disorders is fair. However there is no safe world. Yet we should push to limit 30 shot cartridges to Police only. That would do more than a lot of background checks and NYC assault rifle ban should be Federal.

[mackbolan]

01:34 PM on 01/23/2011

guns are your right...now you see what happens when you let politicians convince you that they know best when it comes to your rights...not you....

[HisXLNC]

10:47 PM on 01/23/2011

"NYC assault rifle ban should be Federal."

If I wanted NYC gun laws, i'd move to NYC. However, I enjoy living in a free state and I do not want NYC's gun laws. So I say no to making NYC's laws into federal laws.

[Peter Noble 2]

09:23 PM on 01/24/2011

Well I think you have a right too. I was giving my opinion, living in NYC. I know that most gun owners, assault rifle owners too, never get into trouble.
My point has been that so many here go on about gun laws but they have not thought through what kind of America would be needed to enforce gun laws on a Federal level.
I happen to see why some, maybe many Americans, do not want assault weapons near them. I also know that America is a lot different to NYC.
I think there has to be some give and take but then I live in NYC and go target shooting three times a week. Clearly I do not live where you live and my opinions will be informed by my environment.

[tjconkster]

01:59 AM on 01/23/2011

Chris Rock has a better idea....Bullet Control...

Chris Rock on Gun Control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

[OdinsEye]

02:11 AM on 01/23/2011

This gets brought up at least twice a month. It would be unconstitutional.

[tjconkster]

02:23 AM on 01/23/2011

Yeah..but its funny..huh..

And what would be unconstitutional....I thought RepubliCorp/Republican Tea Party believe in the free market...if the market sets the price of bullets at $5,000.00 then that's the price....

[rikilii]

11:03 AM on 01/23/2011

Twice a month?  More like 15 times in comments to every gun-relate­d blog or article on HuffPo right up there with other witty anti-2A originals like:
1.  Gun = manhood extension
2.  "Arms" = muskets
3.  Oh, so then does "Arms" = rocket launchers and nukes???
4.  A "citizens" with AK-47 clones isn't going to be able to fight the strongest army in the world.

[rightwing927]

09:13 AM on 01/23/2011

That's interesting. But I can cast and load a round for less than $1 per. It may be amusing, but totally pointless.

[Tresco]

10:13 AM on 01/23/2011

$1 per! I'd do it for less than 50 cents! 10% off on large quantity orders. And don't forget the deposit on returned brass!

[Broderick Crawford]

01:05 AM on 01/23/2011

Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong...

States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.

[kenhamlett]

11:10 AM on 01/23/2011

To be completely fair, this is simply not correct. I recently saw a posting on the HuffPost about gun control, saying that New York City (where I live) had the strictest gun control laws in the nation and that it had not done any good. Quite the opposite is true. Thanks to our laws and the successful adjustment of policing tactics, New York City saw a more than 20 year period during which crime, including serious gun-related crimes, declined every single year. The murder rate also declined every single year for more than 20 years. In 2009, the number of murders in New York City was fewer than in 1960 -- an amazing and positive accomplishment. Obviously, gun control laws and smart police work can produce tremendous results. Research shows that most of the guns in NYC come to us from Virginia and the Carolinas -- states with much less restrictive laws relating to guns. So, not only do those states have their own problems with guns and gun-related violence, they also continue to export their gun-related violence to states and cities that are trying to control the problems within their jurisdictions. I proudly match our statistics with respect to gun-related violence -- and crime in general -- with any state or city in the country. I just wanted to provide correct information about how well we are doing here with our "restrictive" gun laws.

[rikilii]

12:09 PM on 01/23/2011

I'm pretty sure that NYC has had the same gun control laws for a lot longer than 20 years.

And that same trend in violent crime rates has been observed almost everywhere in the nation, including places that have made their gun laws LESS restrictive.

[JTP96]

12:12 PM on 01/23/2011

Read any research on gun control and its does not deter crime. If criminals want to get their hands on a gun or carry a gun (or high capacity magazines) they will do it regardless of what laws are in place. All gun control does is restrict the law abiding citizen. Also, ask any criminal what they fear the most: An armed citizen.

[JStading]

12:34 AM on 01/23/2011

I don't know why people need guns in the home.  After all, 911 will show up, even if it's only 35 minutes after you call from inside a home that's being broken into.  That's no big deal, right?

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/13833729/woman-waits-35-minutes-on-911-while-intruder-breaks-in

[Rooster Coburn]

01:24 AM on 01/23/2011

Why would anyone want a modern sporting rifle, AKA an "assault rifle".
http://www.youtube.com/nssfshotshow#p/u/44/QoPmH3gGkaU

[Rooster Coburn]

01:29 AM on 01/23/2011

Please try this link instead, the other one got mangled after I posted it for some reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=QoPmH3gGkaU

[murphthesurf3]

12:21 AM on 01/23/2011

Summarizing My Position

It is now several days into this debate and I have worked up a summary for myself.

I believe that the second amendment guarantees the right to arms to the individual and I also accept that the Supreme Court has made it clear that limitation­s may be place on that ownership.

Reasonable standards exist related to the nature of the arms and ammo, and to how one acquires them (i.e. the issues of licensing and registrati­on).

We need all four at work to have a system that both guarantees the right and our security from those who would abuse that right.

I am a gun owner and this is a reality for me.

I have two handguns, one rifle and a shotgun. I live in the country about 20 miles from a midsized town. In my state I needed to be licensed, take a safety course which can be done combining on line with personal instruction, and register my arms.

And there are also limits as to the kind of arms I can possess. Since my interest is in home, personal and business protection­; and in hunting, the provisions seem reasonable­ to me.

I am not planning on having to taking on an organized police or military force and so have no interest in holding secret arms, large caches of ammo, or weapons suitable for assault on police/mil­itary or for mass execution.

[murphthesurf3]

12:20 AM on 01/23/2011

Summarizing My Position: Gun Rights and Limitations


It is now several days into this debate and I have worked up a summary for myself.

I believe that the second amendment guarantees the right to arms to the individual and I also accept that the Supreme Court has made it clear that limitation­s may be place on that ownership.

Reasonable standards exist related to the nature of the arms and ammo, and to how one acquires them (i.e. the issues of licensing and registrati­on).

We need all four at work to have a system that both guarantees the right and our security from those who would abuse that right.

I am a gun owner and this is a reality for me.

I have two handguns, one rifle and a shotgun. I live in the country about 20 miles from a midsized town. In my state I needed to be licensed, take a safety course which can be done combining on line with personal instruction, and register my arms.

And there are also limits as to the kind of arms I can possess. Since my interest is in home, personal and business protection­; and in hunting, the provisions seem reasonable­ to me.

I am not planning on having to taking on an organized police or military force and so have no interest in holding secret arms, large caches of ammo, or weapons suitable for assault on police/mil­itary or for mass execution.

[OdinsEye]

12:11 AM on 01/23/2011

If we consider that smaller mags are easier to change out and that Loughner was tackled because he was fumbling with the unweildy 32 cartridge mag which was snagged in his clothing, and that he was very inexperienced with mag changes, it becomes clear that had he stuck with the normal mags for the firearm or even 10 cartridge mags, he would likely not have been as easy to tackle and there would likely have been more people shot. And if Loughner had been affected by the mag limits, he might have used a .40 S&W with jacketed hollow points instead of a 9 mm with full-jacket solid bullets, meaning not only more people would probably have been shot, but more would have been killed instead of just wounded.

[RobD407]

12:47 AM on 01/23/2011

I posted this yesterday but it seems like a good idea to repost it.

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=pxbSQL4pS­ow&v=

The youtube video shows someone firing a 1911 .45 pretty quickly.
He fires a total of twenty-two rounds with two magazine changes in around fifteen seconds. He uses seven round magazines and starts with a round chambered. Anybody taking a serious hit from the .45 would probably not have survived it.


http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=pxbSQL4pS­ow&v=

[rightwing927]

09:28 AM on 01/23/2011

I completely disagree with your conclusions about ammunition. FMJ or ball ammo is far more lethal than jacketed hollow points, although I doubt it would have made any difference in this case. The hollow point is designed to more consistently deform with very little fragmentation and over-penetration. In other words, it's designed to stay in the body cavity in order to deliver all energy into the target and knock down the opponent. FMJ ammo is designed for a full penetration which generally causes significantly greater blood loss (which is the most common cause of death). The nature of the round also creates greater fragmentation, which increases the likelihood of penetration damage to organs near to the entry sound...rather than the cavitation damage resultant from a hollow point.

This is why the military (and hunters) uses ball or FMJ ammunition. The objective is not to stop the target (which is what hollow points are designed to do) but rather to kill the target. The irony is that the cheap target ammo is actually more lethal than the expensive JHP or wad cutter ammo that the anti-gun nuts want to ban.

[JimInHouston]

11:31 AM on 01/23/2011

"FMJ or ball ammo is far more lethal than jacketed hollow points, although I doubt it would have made any difference in this case. "

What is your evidence for this?

"This is why the military (and hunters) uses ball or FMJ ammunition­."

HUNTERS do NOT use FMJ, unless they're cheap or don't care about a quick kill. Are you unaware of the specialized hunting bullets? Go to the Hornady website and look around.

[OdinsEye]

06:09 PM on 01/23/2011

FMJs, escpecially from handguns, creates a much smaller permanent crush cavity and temporary stretch cavity and causes less blood loss. FMJs from handguns rarely cause fragmentation.

The military uses FMJ ammo because they are forbidden to use JHPs since the Hague Convention which banned their use in warfare. This was done because HPs result in greater wounding and death than FMJs. Many wounds caused with FMJs are quite survivable, whereas the same wound path with an HP is more lethal.

Most hunters do NOT use FMJs when hunting. We use HPs, soft-points, partitions, and poly-tips. The only time we really use FMJs is when shooting very large animals like cape buffalo, elephant, etc. where penetration is necessary due to thick hide and lots of muscle and bone or when trying to preserve pelts.

[OdinsEye]

12:04 AM on 01/23/2011

What the previous law DID accomplish was to cause people to shy away from 9 mm cartridge pistols and start buying larger caliber, powerful cartridge pistols like .40 S&W and to buy more effective ammo like jacketed hollow points.

[OdinsEye]

11:56 PM on 01/22/2011

The previous law restricting mag capacities was completely useless and ineffective. It did not really "ban" high cap mags, they were still legal to own, buy, and sell. In fact there was a thriving market for "pre-ban" mags online and mail order and most dealers had boxes of high cap spare mags behind the counter. All the law did was ban the manufacture of new high cap mags for civilians (police and military were not effected). Military and police surplus high cap mags could still be purchased. I personally and legally purchased several high cap mags during the "ban".

[murphthesurf3]

11:55 PM on 01/22/2011

Summarizing My Position

It is now several days into this debate and I have worked up a summary for myself.

I believe that the second amendment guarantees the right to arms to the individual and I also accept that the Supreme Court has made it clear that limitation­s may be place on that ownership.

Reasonable standards exist related to the nature of the arms and ammo, and to how one acquires them (i.e. the issues of licensing and registrati­on).

We need all four at work to have a system that both guarantees the right and our security from those who would abuse that right.

I am a gun owner and this is a reality for me.

I have two handguns, one rifle and a shotgun. I live in the country about 20 miles from a midsized town. In my state I needed to be licensed, take a safety course which can be done combining on line with personal instruction, and register my arms.

And there are also limits as to the kind of arms I can possess. Since my interest is in home, personal and business protection­; and in hunting, the provisions seem reasonable­ to me.

I am not planning on having to taking on an organized police or military force and so have no interest in holding secret arms, large caches of ammo, or weapons suitable for assault on police/mil­itary or for mass execution.