There will be no assault weapons ban

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Scotland is part of Britain.

You could blame it on James 1, or quite a few others.

A friend has an AR 15 9mm. He let me have a go, very nice and quite accurate.

Went to try and buy one and it seems like a year wait!

So much for a recession.

Thank you Barack Obama, he fixed the recession by getting everyone a job making assault rifles!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

But wait again, where is the part about the minorities? I read about the dems, or only Democrats minorities?

OK Marvin, I understand...you have no clue what I am talking about. I give up. I explained it three different ways after my initial comment. I am just going to have to make peace with the idea that you have no clue.

Keep voting Democrat Marvin. Whatever.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[himher 634]

Scotland is part of Britain.

You could blame it on James 1, or quite a few others.

A friend has an AR 15 9mm. He let me have a go, very nice and quite accurate.

Went to try and buy one and it seems like a year wait!

So much for a recession.

(laughing) Kindly replace "tea-sipping Brits" with "tea-sipping English" and there ya go. Dont be a bigot and lump all the people on one island under the same umbrella (just because they are white) like I inadvertantly did!

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

OK Marvin, I understand...you have no clue what I am talking about. I give up. I explained it three different ways after my initial comment. I am just going to have to make peace with the idea that you have no clue.

Keep voting Democrat Marvin. Whatever.

Ok, let's focus on your comment for a second:

Here is your post:

NATIONAL GUN FEVER SHOWS NO SIGN OF BREAKING

By Cynthia Tucker | Cynthia Tucker – Sat, Mar 23, 2013

Email

Share5401

Print

Apparently, there will be no ban on assault weapons.

Never mind that Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type rifle to rip apart the bodies of children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Forget the fact that James E. Holmes, the alleged Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooter, fired, among other weapons, an AR-15.

Nor does it seem to make any difference that Jared Loughner -- the man who shot Gabby Giffords and killed six others, including a 9-year-old girl -- used a high-capacity magazine that the Clinton-era assault-weapons ban rendered illegal. A high-capacity magazine also enabled the massacre committed by Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech.

The political climate has changed since the 1994 ban: Democrats have cowered before the gun lobby; the National Rifle Association has grown even more extreme; the U.S. Supreme Court has moved much further to the right. And, in the 20 years since Congress banned assault-type weapons and high-capacity magazines, Americans have heard a steady drumbeat of pro-firearms rhetoric that fetishizes the Second Amendment. In other words, the climate around firearms has gotten crazier.

Even before the current debate over more restrictive gun laws began, most political observers knew it would be difficult to get Congress to stand up to the firearms lobby. So it's no great surprise that Majority Leader Harry Reid, who runs from the shadow of the National Rifle Association, slammed the door on Sen. Dianne Feinstein's effort to re-up the assault-weapons ban.

Still, I find myself once again wondering just how bad things have to get before the fever breaks -- before the country comes to its senses on firearms. We're in the throes of a kind of madness, a mass delusion that assigns to firearms the significance of religious totems.

Many critics of an assault-weapons ban note that it would not provide any magical cure-all for the mass shootings that have plagued us over the years since Columbine. That's certainly true. But banning at least some assault-type weapons and the high-capacity magazines that feed them would be a step in the right direction. Why can't we take that step?

What would be wrong with reinstituting a ban? For 10 years -- from 1994-2004 -- an imperfect ban prohibited the sale of certain types of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It covered only new weapons; old ones were grandfathered in, so those already in existence were available to criminals, the mentally unstable and the impulse-control-challenged. The original ban didn't prohibit easy modifications or cosmetic changes that allowed gun owners and manufactures to practically duplicate outlawed weapons. So the old law was hardly perfect.

But many law enforcement officials nevertheless supported it, declaring that it helped. It didn't end gun violence or stop mass murders or prevent suicides (which account for two-thirds of gun deaths in this country). But it prevented some killings. Isn't that worthwhile?

And the Clinton-era ban accomplished that without infringing on the rights of gun owners. They could still hunt game, protect their homes and enjoy firearms on gun ranges. The civilized world did not come to an end during those 10 years; the Second Amendment was not besmirched.

Yet, the vociferous -- nay, deranged -- leadership of the NRA has persuaded Congress that an assault-weapons ban is akin to totalitarianism. More important, it has persuaded Democrats that it has the power to end their political careers if they don't carry water for the gun lobby. After Al Gore's defeat in 2000, he and other Democrats blamed the loss partly on support for tougher gun laws. And the NRA was only too happy to take credit.

That was nonsense, of course. Gore won the popular vote and would have won the Electoral College, as well, if the ballots had been properly counted in Florida. Besides, he has only himself to blame for being a lousy candidate. But none of that seems to matter now because conventional wisdom has rewritten history.

If dead innocents -- their bodies ripped apart by bullets from an assault weapon -- couldn't persuade Congress to ban at least some of those firearms and the high-capacity magazines that feed them, the cause is lost. So is our common sense.

It's obvious from this story that the author is clearly for gun control. She has made her point and it's a very well written argument. Now let's look at you first comment:

Now to get the NRA Dream Act passed.

Oh, and Marvin...this is what happens when 5 million members of a minority are NOT gerrymandered into political irrelevance. Get a clue.

Imagine what 12% of the population could accomplish if they were not politically neutered by their "friends"

What was the point of this? Your "facts" don't even come from this article. There is no mention of minorities, nor gerrymandered politics. This is a woman who wrote why we should have some gun control, no more no less. Now let's look at you second comment: I don't need to bait anyone to do that. It is a public service announcement.

This is an example of how effective 5 million people can be when they are equally distributed among the population and no one really knows who they are. Kind of like people carrying concealed firearms! Concealed votes! The politicians KNOW they are there and dare not risk it.

Gerrymandered minorities are neutered because their representation is limited to those assigned districts and no one else needs to worry about them. When minorities are represented "at large" you get results like the NRA enjoys. When they are gerrymandered, you get Sheila Jackson Lee.

Where in this article did you get this information? I read and re-read this and there is no mention of 5 million people, let alone minorities or Ms. Lee. So what is your source? Wouldn't someone say stay on topic?

All your ranting and raving about minorities is moot because we are not at the root of this article. But I guess since you posted 5 articles and no one paid attention you figured out a way to get the conversation going. Keep calling folks morons and posting about your wife. It's what you're best at.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Keep calling folks morons and posting about your wife. It's what you're best at.

:wow:

That's a double, "Wow!"

[Boiler 45,517]

Aurora Shooting has always confused me as it was in a gun free zone.

What is the point of a gun free zone if it is not enforced?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

:wow:

That's a double, "Wow!"

Did he mention...NO assault weapons ban.