U.S. House Acts Like City Council To Pass Dangerous Gun Lobby Bill

America is coping with the worst financial crisis in a century according to Alan Greenspan, is rebuilding from two destructive hurricanes, and is waging two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet Congress found nearly four hours of floor time in the last two days to re-write a local gun ordinance.

Yesterday's vote in the U.S. House of Representatives - to second-guess Washington, D.C.'s efforts to re-write its gun laws in response to this summer's Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment - was a charade. That's the only way to describe it.

At the behest of the National Rifle Association, Members of Congress from Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Arkansas - and my home state of Indiana - took it on themselves to tell local officials what they can and cannot do, over and above what is required by the Constitution, in writing its gun laws.

It's hard to know whether the District of Columbia should be flattered or offended.

Either way, not only the District's gun laws, but also the Supreme Court's opinion on what is "presumptively lawful," apparently aren't extreme enough for the NRA.

Rep. Travis Childers (MS) was lead sponsor of the bill. I wonder how cities in his district - Corinth, Columbus, Tupelo - would feel about Congress taking time off from national issues to re-write their local ordinances?

This bill teaches some fundamental lessons. The NRA either intentionally misled the American people, or was just grossly incompetent, about its efforts to re-write D.C.'s gun laws. They in turn showed why the gun lobby shouldn't be allowed to write laws for any city - especially our nation's capital with its unique security needs.

Early drafts of the NRA bill would have permitted people to carry assault weapons openly on the streets of Washington, D.C. By stripping D.C. of its regulations, the District would have had no legal protection left against this eventuality. NRA lobbyists denied this fact even when they were confronted with the language of their own bill.

When legal analyses from the Brady Center and separately from the House Oversight Committee staff made it clear that the NRA was wrong, the NRA mocked the lawyers involved by saying their degrees must have come from Disney World.

Only just before the bill was introduced on the House floor did the NRA fix their "mistake" and amend the legislation to prohibit open-carrying of assault weapons. This shameless effort should have been the final nail in the coffin of whatever credibility the gun lobby had left.

Here are the simple facts: Any Member of Congress truly concerned with D.C.'s compliance with the Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller could have voted for a perfectly suitable option introduced by Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman (CA) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.).

The Norton/Waxman alternative would have required the District to follow Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller decision, which is exactly what the D.C. City Council had been working on since the end of June and finally finished Tuesday morning.

In fact, the D.C. Council passed a new gun ordinance that fully complies with all the issues raised in the Heller decision the same morning that Congress was debating whether to take the power to pass such an ordinance away from them.

Regrettably, the bill that passed the House yesterday went far beyond the Norton/Waxman bill - and far beyond what the Heller decision itself requires. Instead the House adopted the gun lobby agenda that nothing should ever be done to "discourage" gun ownership and possession.

I am hopeful that the Senate will keep this dangerous bill from moving any further.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[twogunmojo]

i didn't mean to confuse anyone with my "platform" post..i was speaking more figuratively than literally..but i cannot believe that shedances missed the point that criminals often target the weak and defenseless..the grandmother figure..and the strong have a duty to protect them..and as far as knives go..i doubt seriously that ancient man invented the knife first as an eating utensil and not a "weapon" with which to kill his dinner..as has been said before..we all have certain rights..life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..and we have always had the right to defend against anything that would interfere with those rights long before we had a spoken or written language..and please shedances do not try and convince me that ancient man did not eat his fellow man if food became scarce..

[Bitter Clinger]

To solve urban inner city gun violence we should set a reasonable timetable for withdrawal and then get out. Let the local inhabitants settle their disputes any way they want to. Let's withdraw from inner cities NOW!

[CrittersRTasty]

I keep re-reading this, and I have yet to find any particulars or any justification for the word "danger.ous" in the title....Has anyone else found it?

[djkrlsn]

Nothing except a bunch of tall tales and fish (or should I say leviathan) tales.

[twogunmojo]

why not make drugs free? grow all you want..use any type of drug you want..leave the laws in place concerning the work place and driving while stoned or high..increase the penalties for people who commit crimes while on drugs and anyone caught selling "free" drugs or trying to make a profit in any way has all of their property confiscated and sold to benefit victims of crime..no jail time..just make them homeless..what proof is there that everyone or even a majority of citizens would become addicts if this were to happen..no one is going to prevent you from spending as much money and effort as you wish in your pursuit of agricultural efforts but you cannot recoup your losses..i know people often misquote about money being the root of all evil but if you remove the money you remove the crime....

[mike102]

"you cannot torture people in this country ... not even criminals. Putting people in tents in Death Valley with inadequate food, water, medical care, etc. & denying them rights that other prisoners have, amounts to torture".

You never listen, and no that's not torture. Your sympathy is misdirected.

No one said anything about inadequate medical care or water. There's no reason why they can't be properly fed. They don't even have to be in Death Valley either. There is plenty of space in this country, so don't talk to us about overcrowding.

Did you even read the account of the LEO who was murdered in Philly a few days ago, and another officer shot? The wretch who shot them was released from prison a month ago, after early release from a sentence that was too short to begin with.

He served 10 years of a 12 year sentence (which wasn't long enough as it is) for a carjacking, during which he committed "gunviolence", having shot his victim in the legs. He was being pursued by Philly police, because they had a warrant for his arrest, after assaulting 4 officers shortly after his premature release.

He had been thrown out of two prisons already for 27 infractions. If his incarceration had been continued, Officer McDonald would still be alive, and so would the poor, put-upon parolee. THAT is prevention Kelli. Stop whining about the rights of miscreants, while trying to deny people the right to protect themselves from scum like this.

[twogunmojo]

i too post as an individual..take my last post..i gather from the threads here that some of my fellow posters are well versed in history, law, and firearms..same scenario..my fellow posters and i are on the same platform together..everything being equal we are all armed..not just armed but we can openly carry our arms..the fact that we can carry openly means we passed some sort of background check and went to a range for a two day course to receive certification that we are well versed in the use of said arms..now with five of us or ten or fifteen standing around..strangers waiting on a train..what idiot would attempt to rape or rob or murder the grandmotherly type waiting by herself? make no mistake..my fellow proRKBA and i can have very heated discussions on what gun is best for what..but we do not disagree on the right to have them for whatever purpose..i prefer single shots and single actions..if i carry a handgun it is a ruger super blackhawk..if my brother carries a gun it is a .45 semi-auto..i do not understand your fear/hatred of guns..as another poster said..blaming guns for violence is like blaming the pharmacy for drug addiction

[mike102]

"everything being equal we are all armed.."

Correct.

"the fact that we can carry openly "

I wish that was a fact. Unfortunately, some of us live in NJ, home of Kelli's favorite gun laws.

NJ is a 'may issue' (carry permit) state, as in "may issue if Hell freezes over, or if you are the Governor's brother-in-law".We can't even carry pepper spray here.

But I don't care what anyone says, I won't go to Philly unheeled.

[shedances]

I certainly hear & agree that you all are 'on the same platform' as far as advocating guns go, twogunmojo. I don't recall suggesting any differently ... do you? Also, just to clarify ~ I've never talked about 'murdering grandmothers,' etc. or care what guns your brother prefers to carry as a form of weaponry/defense, etc. Your post sounds a lot like "yada, yada, yada" to me (someone venting w/out adding much to the topic). Fair comment & criticism. Gotta get going now. Enjoy the rest of your day with your 'same platform' pro-gun buddies!

[kaveman1]

The people who fear/hate guns do not want anyone to have them because they do not trust THEMSELVES with the responsibility of safegaurding themselves.

The antis have low self-esteem, low ethics and virtually no self control. Yet they feel morally superior to those who take precautions to protect themselves.

The mind of an anti is most curious...

"We should ban guns because someone could go on a murderous rampage at any moment, anywhere. And anyone who would own a firearm themselves to defend against this threat is paranoid."

[mike102]

True.

I've often heard them say, on other anti-gun blogs here on Huffpo, "I wouldn't trust myself with a gun". Since they are the chosen elite, and they are not wrapped tightly enough to control their emotions, surely no one else could be. So, they project this untrustworthiness on to everyone else.

[twogunmojo]

did anyone catch the last full paragraph of this blog? why does mr. helmke and the other anti-gun people think americans should be discouraged from exercising an existing right? should they be discouraged from using their first amendment rights? or their fourth? or their fifth? and since shedances has stated that one reason she comes here is to learn should we tell her about billy dixon? i would consider having one gun for the rest of my life is if could carry it anywhere...don't you think a sharps "quigley edition" in 45-110 would look at home in your local outback or wendys restaurant...or cradled in your arms while waiting for the train?

[shedances]

Twogunmojo ~ read Paul's blog again.

Mr. Helmke's current blog, as I see it, relates to policy-making on guns/firearms; and focusing on the antecedents to gun-related activities that lead to violence & crime problems there. I would imagine they are as concerned about youth & gun possession/gun carrying/assault with guns, etc. as the rest of us are. In my personal view, Paul & the BC have never sounded overly concerned with such 'recreational' uses of guns like hunting or sports; but instead, focus their attentions on violence deterrence... which is one of the crucial ways to reduce gun-related violence (as you should know by now). And, on a sidenote: As far as collecting of antique firearms goes ... I'm fairly certain they don't lose much sleep over that activity (LOL).

*I won't be able to check back & resubmit this, if it's lost or deleted; so will just expect it will be fine for posting.

[kaveman1]

"focus their attentions on violence deterrence"

Oh, do you mean like the convicted felon with a gun and a flak jacket(in his car) trying to breach the Secret Service security perimeter outside Obama's Chicago home?

Don't worry though, he strongly supports Obama, just like you.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--mojo has got it correct and you are wrong. As far as violence prevention goes--I have noticed that nice long prison terms work well--if the felons don't like the conditions-- tough.

[benEzra]

"Paul & the BC have never sounded overly concerned with such 'recreational' uses of guns like hunting or sports; but instead, focus their attentions on violence deterrence... which is one of the crucial ways to reduce gun-related violence (as you should know by now)."

If that WERE their motivation, their #1 legislative priority would NOT be outlawing small-caliber rifles with modern styling. It would be funding the prosecution of straw purchasers and gun smugglers, prosecuting felons-in-possession, prosecuting those who attempt to buy guns illegally, and prosecuting those who misuse guns to the fullest extent of the law.

Rifles of any type have almost NOTHING to do with violence in this country; twice as many people are murdered annually with bare hands and shoes, for pete's sake.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--I conflated C&R and antique--which was a mistake, but you still have not answered why you so adamantly oppose firearms for self defense and multi shot firearms for hunting. You have also never made clear why you object to reducing violence by one of the most effective methods available (namely keeping felons in jail-- and to sweeten the pot--you called us sick for supporting it) while supporting a method that has absolutely failed--namely disarming lawabiding citizens. Kelli--the Brady Campaign is smarter that you are because while they have the same goal you do (complete civilian disarmament), they will not admit it.

[Thirdpower]

Speaking of 'deterrence', who's seen the criminal record of the latest police officer murderer in Philly? Lots of "will not prosecute" for multiple felonies and offenses over the span of years.

What could have 'deterred' this killing? More gun laws? The prosecutors actually doing their job?

And he's a boy scout compared to the three back in May.

[djkrlsn]

Kell--I was wondering when you would have the courage to explain why the only firearms I should be allowd to own are single shot rifles--and knowing you, only a SINGLE rifle.You also have yet to counter benEzra's accurate exposition of the Miller decision--my old battle rifles and military handguns have amply proven their military utility since the M1917 rifle was the dominant American rifle in WWI, the SMLE serve the British Empire starting in the 1890's and variants served through Vietnam, the Garand served in WWII and Korea, the 45's have served since 1911 and my Taurus is almost identical to the Beretta that has served with out military since 1986 (only real differences are the location of the safety and the fact that mine is a 40)

[shedances]

When the 2 or 3 gunrights posters here asked me that question yesterday, I answered with some hesitancy ... knowing full well, you wouldn't like (or agree with, for that matter) my answer. I didn't, however, expect you to become angry ... that seems an over-reaction. But, what I hoped you would see was my earlier point, that I post here as 1 independent individual person ... not as part of an organization or even as part of a group that many of you term 'antis'. There is a wide range of opinions on 'gun issues' in this country ~ even among those who favor regulation. That should come as no surprise ... just look at the differences between my views & those of Edutilos.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--I am absolutely opposed to you or anyone else trying to violate someoneelse's constitutional rights--what irritates me is you wrap deliberate ignorance in holier than thou superiority

[kaveman1]

The fact that you are here because Helmke called you specifically and asked you to contribute on his blog is no longer a matter of debate.

Yes you are 1 individual person, but show me one thing that you and Paul disagree on. This shouldn't be difficult since you have stated that you are much further to the left than he on gun control.

Last thing; you do have to admit that on this blog, you are the face of the Brady Campaign since Helmke or any other BC employee refuses to participate in the discussion. This is by design, Paul knows what he's doing. The more we debate you and your views/feelings, the less time we spend shreading HIS talking points.

In short, he's using you as a shield.

Shorter still, he's using you.

[djkrlsn]

Third attempt --Kelli--you said you barely accepted hunting with single shot rifles--and you never gave a logical reason why you oppose using handguns or multishot rifles to hunt with. YOu also never gave a reason why you opposed armed self defense.

[Mark0]

"I didn't, however, expect you to become angry ... that seems an over-reaction."

I do not see where djkrlsn expresses that he is angry in the above post.

[Mark0]

"...not as part of an organization or even as part of a group that many of you term 'antis'. There is a wide range of opinions on 'gun issues' in this country "

Kelli, I can see that you want to be viewed as being separate from any particular group, whether it be the BC, or the generic tem; "antis".

At the same time, you have made every effort to sweep respondants to your posts, and to Helmke's blog, into a neat little pile; decrying "gunboys" and "gunbuddies", claiming mistreatment from "angry" gun owners whom you habitually antagonize, demonizing the NRA and members thereof at every turn, and strangely attempting to equate responsible gun owners with criminals, not seeing them as individuals whatsoever.

You vocally support the BC at every opportunity, and act as their defender and apologist.

You explicitly claim the desire to ban any and every firearm that you deem unacceptable from the hands of everyone, except those you feel to be the deserved few.

And then you want to separate yourself from the term "anti"?

Sorry. Not gonna happen. You have made yourself the poster child.

[Tencfan]

I find it rather amusing that Shedances continues to argue or debate those here who strongly believe in the enire body of the Constitution, who are extremely knowledgeable in regards to American history and firearms. She has shown to be completely ingnorant and bias on this subject though actual proof has been given otherwise. IMO opinion, you can have an opinion on a subject but when they are shown to be false, it would be more credible to aknowledge it. For example, continuing to use the term "assault weapon" for every semi-automatic firearm when clearly it has been shown that the term was hijacked by the left as a scare tactic.

[shedances]

What is your argument here, tencfan? My posts that you write above as being "completely ignorant and bias on this subject" are concerned with PREVENTION ... in other words, I don't believe that anyone can effectively reduce the risk of gun-related violence by introducing more gun-related violence. If 'prevention' isn't your concern, then fine. But it is mine. That should, hopefully, clear up any misunderstanding.

[Thirdpower]

Your definition of "prevention" however is to punish the people who AREN'T causing crimes in lieu of those who are.

[mike102]

No one is trying to introduce more gun related violence. We are trying to make certain that people have the ability to protect themselves in the face of violence, or potential violence, that is already being, or may be perpetrated against them.

You, and the BC, and the VPC, etc., seem to be under the mistaken impression that private gun ownership automatically turns law abiding people into murderers.

One more thing, re: your earlier post, in which you said you wouldn't want any of us to come to YOUR aid with a gun. I read a similar post from someone here on Huffpo, shortly after the VTech massacre. He went even further, and stated that he would rather die than have anyone other than a "uniformed LEO" come to his aid with a firearm.

I'll tell you what I told him. It's easy to say something like that from the comfort of your home (that is if you think being a willing victim/martyr makes you sound noble). If your life were really being threatened, you'd be praying to God for someone to come along and rescue you, even a private gun-owner. And if you were lucky enough to have your prayer answered, you'd be eternally grateful for the help.

Let's try to keep it real.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--if you were interested in prevention you would let the criminal justice system work by keeping felons in prison

[twogunmojo]

for she dances: given the fact that so many people where killed at bull run with black powder guns that where adopted by the military but not specifically designed for them do you support their ban also? my colt 1851 navy loads mighty slow but given the fact it has a long barrel and requires concentration to use....it is a more deadly firearm than a great many modern day firearems...i think all the proRKBA would love to hear your views on these guns....especially since they can be purchased through the mail with little or no identification and no background check whatsoever....thanks for your honest response

[shedances]

I already talked about my views on 'antiques' & collectibles. Scroll down.

[Thirdpower]

So you're fine w/ functional firearms that are actually MORE deadly than modern ones as long as they're 'antiques'.

Gotcha.

[mike102]

Scroll down to where? There are 560 posts here.

[shedances]

And I quote from djkrlsn: 'Kelli, every single firearm I mentioned above is an antique ... the newest one being from ab 1950...'

Or did you forget you wrote that, dj? And used the word "antique"? Funny how memory lapses occur, isn't it?

[djkrlsn]

Actually--you agreed that in your view that firearms dating to somewhere between 1914 and 1950 are antiques but stated that an unspecified Matt said something different. You never did answer my question about multi shot rifles or hunting handguns.

[mike102]

Oh twogun, don't get her started on our beloved percussion revolvers. I don't think the BC even knows about them.

Kelli will tell you that the BC is not interested in antique weapons. Of course, she just got through telling us how she's so fond of NJ gun laws, and in NJ, you are required to have handgun permits for BP guns too (if they know you have them. I ain't tellin'). You need handgun permits for air pistols too. It's the same permit you would need for a .44 mag., or Heaven forbid, the ever scary Glock.

The BC (that famous non gun banning organization) is also backing a bill in NJ that will outlaw .50 caliber inline muzzleloaders.

Speaking of '51 Navies, she does have an interesting story for you about Wild Bill.

[shedances]

That's not true. And it's very unfair to the BC to lump my views in with their's. They make their views very clear, without any help from me or you gunrights posters.

And BTW, speaking of antique firearms ... I find it interesting that when I talked about a WW2 gun being "antique," that the gunrights posters pounced on that as wrong (not old enough, your friend "Matt" said); but, when one of you (in this case, djkrslsn) talks about his 1950s gun being a newer "antique," you nod in agreement over his use of the term antique.

Why don't you gun-rights folks explain exactly what an "antique firearms" is ... since you're all such experts here. I'm all ears!

[kaveman1]

twogun,

according to shedances, once a gun reaches it's fiftieth birthday, it must be rendered perminently inoperable in accordance with shopping mall law.

Your 1851 navy should have been put out of commission 157 years ago, in her view.

[shedances]

This may be a holiday for some of you ~ but it isn't for me. I cannot devote hours to blogging on gun issues; and frankly, I would be a less positive person if I were to constantly read the negative posts put forth by the gunrights advocates. I am, however, very interested in hearing the Brady Campaign's/Paul Helmke's specific view of the "assault weapons" debate, and I hope he'll devote a future blog on it for those of us wishing to know more. Also, I get tired of a few of the posters here trying to attach my views on guns & tight regulation to others, like the BC or the VPC, etc.. It's unfair to the Brady Campaign which authors this particular blog ~ esp. because I acknowledge leaning futher to the political left on this issue (& am fine with where I stand). However, that said ... I respect & acknowledge this organization's many excellent recommendations on combating gun violence problems ~ as well as those from others in this country like politicians Sen. Feinstein & Sen. Schumer (both of whom I admire).

I've made my concerns about the NRA & its actions regarding DC well known here; and do not need to repost this. That's it for me on this issue. Looking forward to Paul Helmke's next topic. Happy "Yom Kippur" readers & lurkers.

[shedances]

Readers ~ a 'holiday' gaffe on my part yesterday ... you'll have to apply my "Yom Kippur" (and also "Rosh Hashana," which comes soon) well wishes for a future date! It wasn't on my online calendar; & when I asked why so many kids were out of school yesterday here, I was told it was probably one of the religious holidays like the former. I figured I must've overlooked it; it's been busy month. But after having time to check into it online, I realized it's coming at the start of October. So ... save those well wishes for that later date! Gotta run. Still a little behind from the weekend!

[kaveman1]

How this has anything to do with this thread or this blog escapes me.

In other news, I gave my kitty-cat some kippur snacks last night and she went yom yom yom.

[OldSFMJT]

Keli wrote: "There was nothing wrong with the quote I had SPACE and time to include on the GOA."

Yes there is! You left out several critical portions of the reference from GOA in a pathetic attempt to create a false impression. In other words, YOU LIED! But then, that's nothing new!

Old SF MJT

[Thirdpower]

Shedances tells a half-truth. She claimed she took the definition of an 'assault weapon being military' from the GOA website. She did. But only a select portion of it. Here's what the have to say:

The primary fact is that a true "assault weapon" is a military firearm which can be fired either "automatically" (many shots per trigger pull) or "semi-automatically" (one shot per trigger pull). In other words, a true assault weapon is a machine gun which is already regulated by federal law.

The firearms that are covered by the so-called "assault weapons" laws are semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. Some of these firearms are made to look like a military-style weapon but are mechanically indistinguishable from the traditional-looking deer rifle. "

Now what did she say about 'half truths'?

The same as a lie?

[shedances]

There was nothing wrong with the quote I had SPACE and time to include on the GOA. You are, I believe, trying to regain some 'lost face' here by taking both my ideas & my exact words ... and twisting them around so they lose their meaning. Pathetic, really, when you think about it.

[Thirdpower]

Kelli lied "I oppose all types of assault weapons, which ... according to the GOA is "a military firearm which can be fired either automatically ... or semi-automatically."

Sorry. You selectively edited a quote telling a 'half-truth' which, by your own words, is as bad as a lie.

What's pathetic is your feeble attempts to deny it.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--there is a problem when you selectively use a partial quote to give a wrong impression.

[Bill666]

From my vantage point, Thirdpower isn't the one who has lost face.

Cherry picking parts of quotes is a no-no. You have to know it's going to be discovered and exposed here.

Sadly, this MO is not unusual for the anti-gun crowd. I recall the BC's lawyer, whose name I have forgotten, mis-quating the 2nd Amendment, on the very steps of the Supreme Court. He quoted the 2nd Amendment, but left out 'the people', in a pathetic attempt to fool the ignorant into thinking that 2A granted the RKBA only to the militia.

[Sneaky]

"I have always told you gunrights types, that I am not as moderate in my views as the Brady Campaign or others. I believe all assault weapons ~ regardless of popularity or market ~ and esp. those designed specifically for the military, should be prohibited from civilian use. That is my personal position."

Why?

[benEzra]

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

--H.L. Mencken

[shedances]

Wishful thinking, ben. Firearms aren't hobgoblins. And when someone dies after being shot via a semi-automatic handgun, it isn't imaginary.

[shedances]

I already wrote on this further down the thread ... you'll have to wait to see if it gets posted.

[Sneaky]

Well, further down it also got a lot more crowded and harder to read, so I wanted to give you room hoping for an explanation. Take your time, just curious why you feel as you do on the subject.

[benEzra]

Because SOME of them LOOK like military guns! Never mind how they function, of course, or how rarely they are misused, or how many tens of millions of voters own them...

[shedances]

It's not just that they look like military guns, Ben. But that's all the time I have. I have to do more research & reading on this issue; esp. since the Supreme Court did not object to laws pertaining to "military" guns ... not its exact wording; but you get the drift.

[shedances]

This is a brief excerpt of the SCt quote I referred to: "The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." The rational next question comes, then, which specifically were designed for military use?

[Tao21Zen]

That is like saying by putting a hood scoop, racing stripes and endorsement stickers on a stock Chevy Malibu, you now have a car designed for NASCAR.

[shedances]

A poor, flawed comparison on my comment. I am personally in favor of much more restrictions & prohibitions on guns/firearms than the Brady Campaign is (or probably, ever was). I support strong state laws as in New Jersey (I think all states should follow their lead) & I especially support banning of assault weapons & their variants (for lack of a better term).

However, I greatly respect that good people like the Brady Campaign is out there, trying to do something about this violence problem, esp. after what we all went through following the shocking murders at Virginia Tech by Cho, who apparently slipped through the cracks to get his guns (including one of the Glock pistols, I recall).

[vespasian1]

The Brady Campaign is out to ban guns. You are out to ban guns. It sounds like you're on the same page to me.

The BC can make statements to the contrary until they are blue in the face. It doesn't matter what they say. They have supported every gun ban that I've ever heard of. They are currently soliciting donations to try to uphold the Chicago gun ban. They are supporting a bill in NJ that would outlaw certain muzzle-loaders, which is absurd.

As long as they keep supporting gun bans, no one with half a brain is going to believe they are not out to ban guns.

[Sneaky]

Wait, what? I'm not out to ban anything... I hope you were referencing the woman whom I quoted, not the person quoting them to ask why...

[shedances]

What the NRA is attempting to do now ~ in both DC & in Congress ~ is not that unlike someone trying to throw a saddle over the collective backs, if you will, of District residents, post-Heller, & forcing their own agenda. I hope those NRA-backed efforts die in the Senate.

[Thirdpower]

I'm sure they will. The people opposing it are more concerned w/ political maneuvering than w/ the rights of citizens.

I wonder what would be said by certain parties if an anti-gun bill was threatened w/ filibuster like this pro-rights bill is?

[mike102]

No one is forcing anyone in DC to do anything. Any DC resident who wishes to remain helpless in the face of armed criminals is perfectly free to do so. The 2nd Amendment does not require them to own a gun.

The NRA is attempting to assure that residents of DC have a choice, just like they were real Americans.

Imagine that.

[shedances]

What makes you an expert on the NRA or its intentions, mike101/102?

In my personal view, the NRA is not helping the District of Columbia out here ... not by the longest shot & especially, not in an innocent sense. They are attempting, as they tried back in '04, to extend their guns & their hand, so-to-speak, into an area where they weren't successful (or probably even welcomed) in the past.

[Tao21Zen]

No Mike102, the new law requires that all babies carry Ak47s and Uzis openly in the streets without a background check or licensing. This is a disaster waiting to happen and must be stopped, for the grown-ups.

(Disclaimer: I haven't actually read this in the bill, but my personal insight tells me this is true.)

[djkrlsn]

Kelli==section1 of the 14th amendment clearly states that no law shall be passed or enforced restricting the privileges and immunities of American citizens--and since the 2nd amendment clearly states that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED--the DC and Chicago gun laws are unconstitutional--now go cry in the corner--you have no case/

[dragn1]

I wonder how this is different then the supreme court deciding that black kids had to be integrated into all white schools in Alabama in the 60's. I guess the left only likes supreme court decisions when they go along with their national agenda.

[blueman55]

It's nice how politicians like Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein send Americans to get killed for Halliburton's stock price but don't trust same Americans to own a gun...

Very consistent!

[benEzra]

Senator Schumer reportely has a rare NYC concealed carry license, and Senator Feinstein once had one (and I'm sure has gun-armed bodyguards now).

Gun bans are for the "little people." It's OK for wealthy (and mostly white) people to own country-club skeet shotguns expensive big-game hunting rifles and/or hire armed security, but heaven forbid that a blue-collar worker should own a small-caliber rifle with a handgrip that sticks out or a 9mm pistol...

[shedances]

Oh so now, you're gonna start putting out more negative information here on Calif. Sen. Dianne Feinstein ... a woman I know many of you have already written about on the blogs, that you apparently despise ~ because she's stood strongly in favor of important issues, like renewal of assault weapons ban (AWB), etc. ... & she won't cower before the gun lobby & the NRA.

[shedances]

'Terminological inexactitude,' blueman55.

[mike102]

Balderdash, shedances.