Senate Hearings - Thoughts

[Yup!]

I watched much of the hearing, and a few things stood out - In no particular order.

Capt Mark Kelly said a 10 Round magazine in the hands of the Tuscon Shooter would have saved the life of the 9 year old girl. - So it's ok to shoot 10 bullets into a crowd, but not 11? How would a 10 round magazine have helped Gabby?

Police Chief Johnson also supports a 10 round limit. How did the number 10 come about. Why not 9, why not 11.

Sen Graham made a great point that 1 round in the wrong hands is bad, but limiting a mother (or anyone for that matter) in a life or death self defense situation to 6 rounds, (10 even) is not what is meant by our right to self defense.

If 6.6 Million Guns were sold without background checks, then why don't we have 6.6 million more murders in the country.

The Sen from Texas pointed out that Handguns are responsible for more murders, so if we are concerned about reducing crime, why are we going after an "assault rifle'

There are roughly 4 million AR15's in the US - if thats the case, and 1-2 are used each year inappropriately, then why are we wasting time if we already have a 99.9% solution.

The Tuscon Shooter Passed a background check to buy his weapon - so we need more background checks.

Perhaps the best point was by the Professor, in that Yes police undergo a lot of training to be able to carry guns, but they carry them for a different purpose, they have the power to arrest as well. A private citizen needs adequate training to perform the role they are carrying the gun for, not to be a police officer. Several states recognize this and require the training necessary to carry a weapon for self defense.

And lastly, EVERY single instance of a crime with a gun is now making the news, to attempt to scare the public into passing this legislation is at an all time high.

 

[BumpShadow]

It should be noted that the feinstein bill doesn't and never did have the votes to even bring it to the Senate floor, much less get past a GOP filibuster. This is to say nothing of trying to get it though the GOP controlled House.

 

[Pete]

I think the progression of events will be:1) outright ban, 2) ban based upon cosmetic appearance or features, 3) ban on high capacity magazines, 4) magazine capacity limitations, 5) universal background checks, 6) who knows what else.

If one bill fails, the next will be rolled out with the same dog & pony show to trumpet its "reasonableness".

At each bill there will be a vote or two or more that succumbs to the "reasonable" arguments. Each bill will get another few votes in favor of the gun control bill of the moment.

The longer this unfolds, the more threatening the assault upon the Constitution & 2A.

We must be unflagging in our contact with our representatives, united in our opposition to every bill.

 

[BumpShadow]

I think the progression of events will be:1) outright ban, 2) ban based upon cosmetic appearance or features, 3) ban on high capacity magazines, 4) magazine capacity limitations, 5) universal background checks, 6) who knows what else.

If one bill fails, the next will be rolled out with the same dog & pony show to trumpet its "reasonableness".

At each bill there will be a vote or two or more that succumbs to the "reasonable" arguments. Each bill will get another few votes in favor of the gun control bill of the moment.

The longer this unfolds, the more threatening the assault upon the Constitution & 2A.

We must be unflagging in our contact with our representatives, united in our opposition to every bill.

I'm not so sure, this bill has polarized the whole issue. Congress has never liked dealing with polarizing laws, even more so when people are actually paying attention. I think their going to run from this like the plague it is. Besides, no weapon controlling law is ever going to make it though the House right now. Seems though Tea Party GOPers are doing some good after all.

Also typically the longer congress takes on a issue the less likely it is that that issue will get passed.

 

[Racechase1]

I keep seeing blind faith in the government in these posts and it scares the crap out of me. If you for one second even think the government won't do something your only fooling yourself.

We've had a ban before, so yes it can happen. Socialized medicine, not in America, WRONG. We have it now. If it can happen , and under this president it can, be vigilant. If we're not we're screwed.

 

[FrankTank83]

Thanks for this post. This issue is something I'm sure a lot of us have been thinking a lot about lately. I imagine many of us have had to defend our position on guns from people that are emotionally charged and uninformed... a dangerous combination IMO. That said, thanks for giving me another talking point, that most rational people can agree with!

 

[RspecZX6]

It was definately a pony show, but a lot of facts were presented by the pro-2A folks.

The anti-gun people seemed to be going off of variables and emotion rather than facts. Every lost cause needs a martyr and they seem to be scratching at the posts for every one they can find.

 

[Yup!]

Yeah I got real tired of listening to Mark Kelly say - What if......

 

[Cowboy71]

I keep seeing blind faith in the government in these posts and it scares the crap out of me. If you for one second even think the government won't do something your only fooling yourself.

We've had a ban before, so yes it can happen. Socialized medicine, not in America, WRONG. We have it now. If it can happen , and under this president it can, be vigilant. If we're not we're screwed.

I have no faith in the government, but I do have faith in slimy politicians wanting to keep their jobs. Feinstein can't even get super liberal Dems like Leahy and Al Franken to support her new bill. Democrats outside the bluest states remember what happened after '94 and they don't want to go out in another wave of pro 2nd amendment voter fury.

There's no doubt if the Democrats retake the House in 2014 and retain the Senate we'll see at least an effort for more gun control. But outside of a lot of talk and grandstanding we're in good shape right now.

That doesn't mean rest easy. Now's the time -- as scarce as resources are -- to stock up on all the arms and ammo you can just in case. We've got two free years to get ready before anything significant will likely happen. The wise among us will prepare now before it's too late.

 

[onetwoonetwo]

I have no faith in the government, but I do have faith in slimy politicians wanting to keep their jobs. Feinstein can't even get super liberal Dems like Leahy and Al Franken to support her new bill. Democrats outside the bluest states remember what happened after '94 and they don't want to go out in another wave of pro 2nd amendment voter fury.

There's no doubt if the Democrats retake the House in 2014 and retain the Senate we'll see at least an effort for more gun control. But outside of a lot of talk and grandstanding we're in good shape right now.

That doesn't mean rest easy. Now's the time -- as scarce as resources are -- to stock up on all the arms and ammo you can just in case. We've got two free years to get ready before anything significant will likely happen. The wise among us will prepare now before it's too late.

^^^^This^^^^

we still have to keep going. keep emailing and anything else we can do. now is still the time to be on the govt., to keep them in line. it is our country and we have to keep it that way, always be vigilant.

 

[limbsonagrizzly]

It should be noted that the feinstein bill doesn't and never did have the votes to even bring it to the Senate floor, much less get past a GOP filibuster. This is to say nothing of trying to get it though the GOP controlled House.

That's what I'm thinking. She seems to be asking for far too much, especially the American public has relatively short-attention spans when it comes to current events.

My guess is if Reid ever brought it up for a vote in the Senate, it would be 35-40 to 60-65~ish.

 

[jb1911]

That's what I'm thinking. She seems to be asking for far too much, especially the American public has relatively short-attention spans when it comes to current events.

My guess is if Reid ever brought it up for a vote in the Senate, it would be 35-40 to 60-65~ish.

Reid won't even bring it up for a vote. The only thing that got him re-elected last time was a decent grade from the NRA.

 

[BumpShadow]

That's what I'm thinking. She seems to be asking for far too much, especially the American public has relatively short-attention spans when it comes to current events.

My guess is if Reid ever brought it up for a vote in the Senate, it would be 35-40 to 60-65~ish.

Reid won't even bring it up for a vote. The only thing that got him re-elected last time was a decent grade from the NRA.

^^^^This^^^^

we still have to keep going. keep emailing and anything else we can do. now is still the time to be on the govt., to keep them in line. it is our country and we have to keep it that way, always be vigilant.

Thank you! It wasn't blind faith, it was knowing politics. Reid has already said he's not for this bill.

What I would worry about is a ban on high cap mag's. A bill with just might make through to law if we are not careful.

 

[Indy60]

I heard a interesting exchange today concerning Chuck Hagel and his confirmation hearings for Sec. of Def. What he can do when e becomes head of the Pentagon is retract protection gun manufacturers now have from civil suits for the misuse and damages caused by their products. Would not take very long before all the gun manufacturers would be out of business due to civil judgements.

 

[Adrian8]

I am a big supporter of the police and the difficult job they do..but they do not protect me, they will come and find out what happened to me after the fact. I protect myself and family, and will call the police and tell them what happened to the perpetrator. One police chief, perhaps in Milwaukee, is telling his citizens he cannot protect them anymore with the cutbacks in funding and they need "to get in the game" AKA.. get a gun. The anti-gunner liberals are stroking out with that.