Boehner Resists Rush to Legislation
Good.
WASHINGTON—House Speaker John A. Boehner rejected calls from Democrats to schedule a vote on new gun restrictions before the end of the year, saying he wants to wait for recommendations from a newly formed White House task force before committing to a legislative response to the mass shooting at a Connecticut school.
“When the vice president’s recommendations come forward, we’ll certainly take them into consideration,’’ Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday in his first public comments on calls for new gun legislation since the slaying of 20 students and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School. “But at this point I think our hearts and souls ought to be to think about those victims in this horrible tragedy.”
It’s a bit ridiculous to expect him to a vote on legislation that hasn’t even been written yet.
Well, actually, Feinstein already wrote the legislation; it’s been in her desk drawer for years.
Posted by dad29 on December 20, 2012 at 1835 hrs
Relax dad, Boehner’s waiting for the ALEC version.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 20, 2012 at 1852 hrs
Relax dad, Boehner’s waiting for the ALEC version.
Which is the same as the original.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 20, 2012 at 1935 hrs
Doubtless, the democrats will demand that the Form 4473 be in spanish, to honor the smuggling of thousands of weapons to the Sinaloa drug cartel. Agent Terry’s parents haven’t forgotten.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 20, 2012 at 1957 hrs
Neither have the families of Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith.
Team Obama is nothing but lies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 20, 2012 at 2007 hrs
Relax dad, Boehner’s waiting for the ALEC version.
The white house task force is made up of ALEC members? Whoduh thunk?
Seriously though, fu, you prefer to have legislation to influnence a country made up and passed immediately based upon a single incident?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 0838 hrs
Do you mean like the patriot act or the mining bill currently under consideration here in Wisconsin?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 0935 hrs
Mining bill? What a horrible stretch…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 0946 hrs
Do Boehners comments mean that we, as a nation, will have a reasoned and thoughtful discussion on the issues of Gun control, mental health and ownership of guns that are semi or fully automatic?
Probably a silly question. maybe wishful thinking.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1617 hrs
Hey Beav,
Fully automatic weapons are very highly regulated and almost impossible to gain a permit.
Thanks for playing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 1915 hrs
So i ask a question that refers to several topics and you choose to drag the conversation down.
Let me restate. Will we have a discussion about gun control, mental health and semi or fully automatic weapons?
For the record i own numerous guns for hunting. some are semi auto. I hunt with people that tell me it is not that difficult to change a semi automatic weapon to a fully automatic version. I have not done that and have no intention of ever doing that, but it would seem that others in the country are more than willing. i also have no gun with a clip that holds more than three shells plus one in the chamber. There are those that feel the need for clips or magazines with much more than that. Some of those people have mental illness and have used those guns for the purpose of killing innocent people.
So again, will we have the discussion or will politicians just give it a lot of lip service and when the 24 hour news cycle changes its focus will we all forget about the issue or will people like smeety just keep being flippant about a serious issue?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2012 at 2230 hrs
Do you mean like the patriot act or the mining bill currently under consideration here in Wisconsin?
If you ever read the mining bill, we’ll talk. Patriot Act? Exactly. I am with you all the way. It was a reactionary piece of legislation that took little notice of individual rights.
Kris, just my opinion, but it’s the culture, not gun availability. They took away guns in the UK and gun death is indeed down, but violent crimes have increased overall. Convince hollywood to screw what sells and romanticize goodness and morals instead of death and adultery and you will see overall decreases in violent crime and crime deaths of all sorts. At what point in the conversation should we get serious?
My wife and I just watched an old Disney movie last night Hans Brinker, and it was virtually a foreign experience. You can’t even find a movie like that today. Even the most ‘wholesome’ movies today at least have a smartass kid/creature who knows better than his dysfunctional parents or something and videogames… whooboy. It is not just Hollywood and videogames either. Violence in the news sells, ribbon cutting ceremonies don’t. Violence in sports sells. A slightly de-ranged person craves fame, violence is the easiest way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 1445 hrs
In the military, fully automatic weapons require a second team member to carry extra barrels and ammo.
Taking an AR-15 or what-not and changing out the guts to allow for fully auto provides almost no value to your average mass murderer. A thirty-round clip takes about two seconds to unload. In fact, the military made the switch on the standard issue rifle (M16A1 to M16A2) fully auto to three-round burst option due to lack of effectiveness.
I would suspect that of the many God-awful school killings of the last twenty years or so, the role of fully-auto weapons was disproportionate to the emphasis on ‘fully automatic weapons’.
- - - -
My point being that if we want to truly have this discussion, please, at the bare minimum…. inform yourself. Kris Beaver, making such uninformed comments not once, but twice…. I’d think you would want to share in the responsibility of understanding the issue, being as near and dear to so many people….
Kris, if you want to know and understand guns, ask someone who knows…. if you can’t find someone, ask me…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2012 at 1548 hrs
He is right Kris. A semiautomatic weapon describes virtually all hand guns and rifles, or just about any non-shotgun made today and even includes many shotguns. To put automatic and semi-automatic in the same sentence does show a lack of research. All semi auto means is that upon depressing the trigger, a new round is chambered as the current bullet is fired and the casing ejected. Don’t bother offering to ban just semi autos and autos, just say you want all guns banned if that is what you mean. If it isn’t, read up. I suggest looking up writings by Larry Correia. I strongly suggest starting here. Agree or not, the man is an expert.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2012 at 1028 hrs
Again, will we have the discussion? I never claimed to be a gun expert. i understand guns. i hunt with both semi auto, bolt action, pump shotguns and single shot muzzle loader.
I simply asked the question, “will we now have the discussion about gun control or will we get all of the emotional rhetoric?” Based on Smeety the answer is rhetoric and insults.
If you are going to criticize me for including Semi auto guns in the discussion you are missing the original point. I truly believe that this is watershed moment. It is the time to have the discussion. The time is ripe to have the discussion. If the discussion is not held now it may never be done.
So, will the nation have the discussion or not?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2012 at 0943 hrs
Tuerqas,
I never said a word about banning guns. I want to keep and use the guns I have. That being said, many have made the point that we have reasonable laws that control all sorts of things in our lives. Why can’t we have a reasonable set of laws that help to prevent that kinds of shootings that we have seen in schools and other places around our nation?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2012 at 0949 hrs
We’ve been having this discussion for my entire lifetime. It’s not new. The only thing “watershed” about it is that those who wish to further restrict the right to keep and bear arms believe that they have an emotional incident that they can use to shove through their agenda.
Posted by Owen on December 28, 2012 at 0950 hrs
I disagree with the idea that we have been having the discussion for years. The topic comes up and then the people on either end take hardline positions and the shouting and rhetoric starts. I don’t know if this country has had a rasoned discussion on this topic ever.
I think this is a watershed moment, because the people that were killed were primarily small and adorable. Both sides see the horrible nature of the acts and because of the victims this is a moment in time that is different, even if only a little, than other times.Phrases like, shove through their agenda, give the impression that you are not interested in the discussion. This blog and many other places are full of phrases like that and they do not help to start or continue the discussion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2012 at 1039 hrs
Well, Kris ... what law are you going to pass that is going to prevent school shootings?
I believe nothing short of eliminating every handgun in America, and infringing on the Constitution, would put any sort of dent in school shootings. And the tradeoff is more violent crime. And then mass murderers would learn to make bombs.
shove through their agenda.... were you paying attention during the Obamacare debates?
I firmly believe that an armed guard will prevent 90%+ of school shootings. I also believe we need to start enforcing the laws in place.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2012 at 1126 hrs
I believe nothing short of eliminating every handgun in America, and infringing on the Constitution, would put any sort of dent in school shootings.
That is hyperbole, but I get where you are coming from. I also don’t think that all of the violence can be eliminated, but as a society we should do all that we can to minimze the risk of it happening.
One place to start with legislation would be to eliminate the high capacity clips. Not an unreasonable thing. Penalties for someone who sells a gun to a felon. If that does not exist already. Stricter enforcement if it does.
Additionally, the mental health system in the country needs to be looked at. How people are diagnosed and identified needs changing. Reducing the stigma of mental health problems would be helpful.
The solutions to this issue is more than guns. It is, as Tuerqas said, a cultural issue. We as a culture need to view many things differently in order to create positive change in our country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2012 at 1221 hrs
Kris, did you read the link I posted? It carries the position I think is right. It discusses clip size. The laws in place for selling guns to felons is not any more enforceable than it currently is. All you need is a person willing to buy it for you and either file off the number or claim it was stolen. If you have any refutations to it, let’s talk. However, Owen was right in that this conversation is demanded/requested every single time there is a mass shooting, especially of children.
Assuming you won’t bother, on clip size: Most successful mass shooters have more than one gun or successfully use space to reload. There is no effectively appreciable difference between 10 clips that hold 10 rounds and 1 clip that holds 100 hundred rounds. Especially when response time is counted in minutes rather than seconds. A gun already on site has been the key mitigating factor in limiting death for the majority of mass murder attempts. Now. like Smeety, you may prescribe armed guards on premises or you can simply do as Utah, Arizona, et al do and allow teachers/administration to be trained and carry guns.
You don’t minimize the risk of this sort of thing happening by limiting access to just one of the more common tools currently used for violence. Especially the one tool that evens up a fight between a 220lb thug and 20 year old girl. My money is on the thug every time in a knife fight.
Until all guns are not only banned, but out of the hands of every American, however, a Gun Free Zone is just another phrase for target rich environment. Hopefully, we will never see that day in America. It would certainly no longer be the land of the free or the home of the brave.
Here is one thing that article did not cover and part of my personal philosophy on this type of incident. Statistics. There are over 300 million people in the US of every different nationality, religious belief, etc. If only one in every 10,000 people have pschopathic tendencies, that is still 30,000 people just waiting for the trigger that sets them off and in America we have every kind of trigger you could possibly pull, just for entertainment. Whether it is guns, knives or bombs, legislation won’t stop or mitigate these acts. if you want a conversation about limiting mass murder, guns should not be part of the conversation. Mass media glamorization, entertainment choices and stigmas attached to mental health are topic headings we should concern ourselves with. When guns are even part of the conversation, you know the agenda is the only thing that really matters to the speaker.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2012 at 1153 hrs
i read the info on the link. It was rather lengthy. Well written and because he has a background compelling.
Let’s go back to my original question. I asked if the nation was going to have the discussion on gun ownership and mental health. Since then the focus has not been on the question but rather on the fact that Smeety thinks I don’t know anything about guns. So, will we have the discussion about mental health and gun ownership or not? Larry Correia is not going to have it, because he doesn’t know anything about the subject.
Lastly, I think that the gun portion of the discussion needs to be included because this is not a simple issue and all the moving parts need to be addressed. You are correct that when guns come into the discussion there is an agenda. i acknowledged that when I responded to Owen in #18. This country with its incredibly short attention span needs to commit to the idea of taking the time to find a long term solution.
Wishful thinking on my part
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2012 at 1310 hrs
I think you said it all there. Should there be a national conversation on mental health? Sure, but not as it relates to mass murders as only experts should be qualified to speak about it. We can talk about removing stigma and getting help more available, whether that is through national health or other means, but it just doesn’t relate to guns, it relates to our obsession with violence.
Republicans have the NRA and Democrats have Hollywood. It is wishful thinking to believe meaningful political talk will be had on the subject. Perhaps if guns were outlawed on all news, TV shows, games and movies, then actually limiting them might be part of a healthy reduction in violence. However, if the movies then began to emphasize knives or explosives, it would do nothing but limit the gun deaths. Big deal, the human body is fragile.
Worldwide, violence is celebrated and glamorized. That is where you need to start, end of conversation(in any meaningful way). Discussing the limitation of guns skips the problem in its entirety and ensures to end the conversation at the same dead ends it always hits. If you want meaningful conversation on reducing mass murders, don’t bring up guns. They aren’t even really germane in the first place. A hammer is the most useful tool to drive in a nail. Do you blame the hammer for having too many nails in your walls?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2013 at 1029 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 49
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 06/19/2013 11:44 am
The most visitors ever was 729 on 06/19/2013 11:01 am
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).