Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Car Pushed Into Anacostia River By Train
Devendra Banhart @ 9:30 Club
First the issue of guns came to haunt the D.C. voting rights bill, now it seems to be haunting other pieces of legislation Democrats are looking to pass. The Politico reports today that Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has all but thrown in the towel, admitting that Republicans have effectively used amendments related to guns to either stall legislation or force conservative Democrats into tough votes. While the voting rights bill has been stuck due to an amendment that would gut the District's gun laws, legislation on credit cards will likely pass with an amendment attached that will expand gun carrying rights in national parks. Hoyer still claims that the D.C. voting rights bill will pass "one way or another."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
We went to the Macy's at 12th & G this morning for the Black Friday morning specials. There was a sh
[more]
Damn, you Martin. Just when I thought I was going to get some work done, you post this. ;-)
First, I was encouraged by his statements on the VRA.
Second, I am getting tired of this "Dems are beaten" language. It implies that all democrats are pro gun control. If they were, then it would not be a problem. What is going on here is that there has been a shift in opinion on the topic. After years of "blood in the streets" warnings, and the 'big lie' of the Assault Weapons Ban, voters have wisened up to the fact that most proposed gun control laws have no impact and have grown weary of anti-gun groups taking advantage of recent tragedies to support their own agendas. (note: if you use a tragedy to promote a law that would not have prevented that tragedy, then you are being exploitative). Pols are just catching up to this change in sentiment.
It is not the NRA or some evil cabal of gun manufacturers that pols. are afraid of, it is their own constituents.
One more thing. Take the Guns in National Parks hysteria. I don't know why anti-gunners are making such a big deal out of this.
If you live in a state that issues concealed carry permits, then you should feel no less safe in Shenandoah than you do in Arlington. If you live in a state (or DC) where no CCWs are issued, then you have nothing to worry about because it will still be illegal to carry a gun in Rock Creek park.
The reason the republicans are "poking the bear" on this is that they are getting their butts kicked and this is one of the only issues they think they can use to peel off a few Dems.
+1. I was initially against the national parks rule, just as a knee-jerk. But then I considered exactly what you mentioned, and realized that it doesn't make any damn difference. This is a nation of guns.
And politically, this is the only issue where the GOP has any headway right now, so I have no problem with the Dems conceding it to take away their thunder.
"Thunder" is the sound of one hammer pounding?
'Cause that's all they got- one hammer.
Oh! Look! Another nail!
The rider to allow carry in National Parks was removed almost as soon as it was added. It's a non-issue.
Really? Do you happen to have the cite to the congressional record or the applicable amendment handy? If so, it'd be much appreciated.
Here's what I've got: Coburn's amendment (S. Amdt. 1067) passed 67-29, but a duplicate amendment (S. Amdt 1068) was withdrawn.
Cactus, you are correct. The withdrawn amendment was a duplicate. My mistake. I don't mind being wrong about that! :-)
The real surprise is that this is happening in the House. So, why are the Dems allowing the Republicans to attach amendments when they have control of the Rules Committee, and thus can use Special Rules to disallow amendments completely, or only allow those that are germane to the substance of the bill under debate?
Well, in as far as the DC vote goes, it is because the NRA threatened that a vote not to allow the amendment to the floor would be scored by them as an "anti gun" vote. But I don't think they threatened it in this situation.
I do think Dems. are hypersensitive about being seen as non bi-partisan. I wish they would take a role out of the Repubs book and just railroad some of this stuff through.
Far better to be seen as "unfair" than weak.
I agree, but remember that on the gun issue, they would be using a rule to not only sidestep Republicans, but 40% of their own party as well. That can be a pretty lonely spot.
It's not just guns they're looking weak on.
I don't care if this is Democrats or Republicans or Martians. We aren't going to win because the system is rigged.
DC residents should give up fighting The Man on this one. Our allies in the House and Senate should let the majority of our Congressional plantation overseers impose their will on us. Then we should pass a symbolic Council resolution and pass a symbolic voter referendum telling the world what the actual affected voters want in terms of guns in our community, exposing the injustice of government without consent of the governed.
Then we claim the moral high ground and just use that injustice in the fight for true equality -- for statehood.
Hmmm..not a bad idea, but I would really rather the Council got some political savvy, quickly change the laws, and negotiate a weaker version of the amendment.
But good luck with that.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious -- which I will do because some people seem to need the obvious pointed out to them -- the only reason gun laws don't work is because they are not uniform and nationwide. If you couldn't buy and sell handguns and assault weapons legally anywhere in the US, they wouldn't make it into illegal markets.
Every gun crime in DC is committed with a weapon that was originally legally manufactured and sold.
I agree with the first para., however, you lost me at the end.
Every knife crime in DC is committed with a weapon that was legally manufactured or sold.
Every automobile crime in DC is committed with a vehicle that was legally manufactured or sold.
Every assault with a deadly weapon crime in DC is committed with an object that was legally manufactured or sold.
Not sure how you got the first paragraph, but responded to the second with tiresome boilerplate NRA dogma. These arguments are so easily rebutted that I think their real purpose is to confuse the weak-minded and prolong unnecessary debate. Kind of like people saying that evolution is "only a theory."
The easy and obvious answers --
1) knives -- you can't spray large number of knives at a moving car. Someone gets attacked with a knife in Columbia Heights and you don't have people diving for cover in terror for blocks around
2) automobiles -- automobiles are not overwhelmingly used for criminal purposes, and are not designed for the exclusive purpose of killing people, right?
3) assault with a deadly weapon -- see point #1. We'd really be a lot better off if the thugz in our city were assaulting each other with knives.
And if some douche taking advantage of future legal carry laws decides to whip out his pistol and defend himself in a future crime situation, even if he is practicing "self defense" he is still endangering everyone for blocks around. That kind of approach might make some sense in Wyoming, but does not in an urban environment.
I agree that we should have federal gun laws. I would just disagree with you as to what they are. And no, I am not, nor shall I ever be a member of the NRA.
I was just pointing out the ridiculous of your argument that all guns started as legally manufactured products. That is true, but it is a meaningless point. Pretty much everything starts out as a legally manufactured product. If you want to ban all guns, good luck with that.
Oh, and why is someone a "douche" for trying to defend himself from being killed? ...
Never mind. Don't bother answering. This is not the right blog for a broader discussion of guns. I invite you to come on over to the gun section of democraticunderground.com. Lots of Luger Liberals there and we would be happy to educate you on guns.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I thought would happen. What's shocking to me is that it has taken this many years for Congress to try something like this. Think of this: without guns as a wedge issue, the Republicans will be even further out in the political wilderness and we can make real progress on issues like energy/healthcare/education which don't happen to refute the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS.
As for Alex, if you think that making handguns/semi-auto rifles illegal in the US would solve anything, then I hope you A. have figured out a way to deal with the very significant portion of the 300M firearms owned in this country that fall into those categories and B. support other great ideas like Prohibition and our drug laws which hope people won't find a way to get popular "bad" things.
Exactly. I makes the dems even stronger. I dunno, the comments from Pelosi in the Times blaming the NRA for this vote seem so...1990s.
She should just say that "the country has shifted on this issue and as the party of the people, we welcome the diversity of opinions"