Skip to main content

various gun issue polling

August CNN/ORC poll via Ezra Klein

Jonathan Bernstein:

This is pretty simple: the problem for Republicans right now isn’t John Boehner, and replacing him wouldn’t do them any good. The problem is House Republicans.
I agree with that. In fact, I said so yesterday.

.@amyewalter @thefix You need to blame House Republicans, not Boehner. Not enough in media do.
@DemFromCT via Twitter for iPhone

CBS:

The "fiscal cliff" compromise, even with all its chaos, controversy and unresolved questions, was enough to ignite the stock market on Wednesday, the first trading day of the new year.

The Dow Jones industrial average careened more than 300 points higher, its biggest gain since December 2011. It's now just 5 percent below its record high close reached in October 2007. The Russell 2000, an index that tracks smaller companies, shot up to the highest close in its history.

Don't worry. Republicans are conspiring as we speak to undermine that.

Republican Governor Learns Downside of Being Part of Republican Party http://t.co/...
@kdrum via twitterfeed

I wonder how Boehner likes being treated like a New Jersey school teacher by the Governor.

Dana Milbank:

The House GOP’s antics on the fiscal cliff leave little optimism that lawmakers will be reasonable when it comes to more substantial issues such as restructuring entitlements, rewriting the tax code and reducing the debt. The fury over the Sandy sidestep could be a sign, though, that even some House Republicans are tiring of the tea party’s dominance of their caucus.
Matt Yglesias:
The White House didn't win in the deal. And that's exactly why liberals should be calm about it. What the White House wanted—a much larger tax increase, paired with substantial net new spending cuts—was not a worthwhile objective. Such an arrangement would have done a better job of addressing the long-term budget deficit, but that wouldn't have achieved anything. It wouldn't have boosted economic growth or reduced unemployment. It wouldn't have helped the needy. It wouldn't have done anything useful other than created a signature achievement for the White House accomplishment list.

What they settled for—a small tax increase and a minor delay of the sequester—is totally fine. Everyone involved should hold their heads high. An awful lot of fiscal austerity is going to happen in 2013 overwhelmingly as a result of bills that had already passed, but that's under the bridge. The specific outcome of this specific deal was very reasonable.

Dave Weigel:
“If you want to have a spending fight, you don’t have to wait very long,” said Rep. Tom Cole on Tuesday. Cole, the media-friendly deputy whip, spent the entire fiscal cliff period suggesting ways for the party to save face, only to be undone by the party’s stubbornness. Now, he said, Republicans were going to learn the beauty of caving. “More members want this to pass than want to vote for it.”

And the members who really opposed it would be totally marginalized. Huelskamp was shocked at the very idea that Boehner would allow a bill to pass without majority Republican support. “I think most Republicans would be stunned if the speaker moved forward on something like that,” he said. “Denny Hastert wouldn’t have done it. Newt Gingrich wouldn’t have done it. Bob Livingston, who lasted all of 24 hours, wouldn’t have done it, if he’d ever had a chance. The Hastert Rule is pretty important. If you walk into a new Congress Thursday at noon, and your speaker just did something like that, it would stun Republicans.”

Ezra Klein:
All arguments, on all sides of the issue, come down to the debt ceiling. The liberals just don’t believe the White House can hold firm against the GOP’s threats to push the country into default. The conservatives, well, they believe the exact same thing. I disagree. As I see it, there are now three possible outcomes in the debt-ceiling fight:
1) The White House is right, and they’ll be able to enforce a roughly 1:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts in the next deal;
2) The Republicans are right, and they’ll be able to get major spending cuts solely in return for raising the debt ceiling;
3) Both sides are wrong, and we breach the debt ceiling, unleashing economic havoc.
Of these three possibilities, I see #1 as the likeliest, #3 as the second-most likely, and #2 as vanishing unlikely.
Michael Tomasky:
Here’s my New Year’s resolution: I’m going to read less liberal grousing about Barack Obama. At the moment, we have a number of critics of the deal Obama just cut with the Republicans to avert the fiscal cliff. They make some fair points, about the deal and about Obama. But if there’s a style of criticism that really bugs me, it’s that which reproves him for failing to be Captain Liberal while refusing to recognize that the guy has to be Mister President. Here’s what I mean.
Plum Line/Greg Sargent:
And are prospects for gun reform looking up? National Journal has a nice piece rounding up all the “pro-gun” Democrats in Congress who are now very much open to real gun law reform in the wake of the Newtown massacre. It’s another sign that the landscape may have genuinely shifted this time.
And here is that NJ piece:
Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., does not shy away from the “pro-gun Democrat” label. He has a B-plus rating with the National Rifle Association, a score docked only because he supported the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, and he represents a state with a strong hunting tradition.

But for Casey, last month's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a pivotal moment. Casey said he found himself emotionally rocked by the Newtown, Conn., tragedy in a way that was different from the mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., this summer or in Tucson, Ariz., last year.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Kind of hope they dump Boehner. (8+ / 0-)

    That drunken, suburban country club image he projects is the only thing keeping many people from seeing the true backwoods evil that the Repub Party has become.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:38:53 AM PST

  •  58% of the public (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdmslle, FrankRose

    Does NOT favor banning all semi-automatic firearms, and they sure as hell didn't last August.

    •  Data can be a bitch when it doesn't fit our World (4+ / 0-)

      view.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:47:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Guess you'll have to "unskew" the poll. n/t (6+ / 0-)

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:56:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  there are some mixed results from polls (3+ / 0-)

      on that particular question. ABC/WaPO agree, Pew and Gallup have more opposed than agree.

      http://www.pollingreport.com/...

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:06:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Informative, thanks. (0+ / 0-)

        The polling, on balance, leaves me somewhat worried.

        How do you convince people that banning firearms is a bad idea? I hate resorting to the tired (but very true) argument that such bans would be worthless due to our unregistered firearms supply and black market infrastructure...

        I wish I could convince others that bans would be wrong even if (especially if) they were more effective.

        •  this is where we need to find common ground (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes

          Don't ban guns (except, maybe, assault weapons responsible for mass murders. Un.necessary for hunting, but we can discuss why not).

          Guns, otoh, like cars, need to be regulated. Nothing wrong with background checks, even with private sales.

          I live in Newtown, CT. Keep that in mind.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:21:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Every one of them needs to be registered, (4+ / 0-)

            too, just like a car.  Each gun's ID number needs to be registered with the ATF when the gun is released from the manufacturer.

            Owner registration to be renewed every year, insurance required, just like a car, so we can keep track of each one.  I have to answer questions about my car every year to register it:  Do you still own this car?  If not, was it stolen?  junked? donated? (if so, to whom).  And most important, "Attach insurance certificate to registration form if mailed."

            "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

            by SueDe on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:14:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How could I be assured... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              that said registry would not be used to take my firearms from me at a later date- as was done in the UK, Australia and even in California and New York?

              What could been done to make confiscation of weapons impossible, because that is what is required for me to support a registry.

              •  You can't (0+ / 0-)

                Just like drivers can't be sure that one day they'll lose their license for failure to carry liability insurance or for driving under the influence.
                Do you think if someone is convicted of a felony, their guns should be taken away?

                “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

                by skohayes on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:40:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Of course I do, (0+ / 0-)

                  But myself, as a non-felon, should not have to fear that a registry, obstensibly to curb crime, will simply be used as a check-off list for a future confiscationary law (against, say, semi-automatics.)

                  If the government was going to pass a law mandating you turn in your car (and never get another car) for no wrongdoing of your own.... you would care quite a bit,  wouldn't you?

                  •  don't you think you are (0+ / 0-)

                    creating something of a non-existent crisis with this pearl clutching?  

                    The US Government isn't about to pass a law that people turn in their cars (even though that might be a good thing collectively, if we could put in the infrastructure for mass transit and high speed rail again), any more than the government is going to pass a law that people turn in their guns.  They are more likely to do the former (never happen) than the latter, however, because of the 2nd Amendment and the way that has historically been interpreted.  So you can stop worrying.  And this from a person who thinks a confiscationary law against semi-automatics would probably be a good idea.  But it WILL NEVER HAPPEN HERE.  So relax.

                    They might do a voluntary gun turn-in, but this government will never pass a mandatory turn in your gun law, no matter how much the gun owners create a fear of it, or how much the most extremist gun control folks claim that it is necessary.  

                    Staking out positions on reasonable gun registration, control of "extreme" weapons, reasonable insurance and control of ammunition is made all that more difficult by these "ground zero" kinds of scenarios.  Which, I believe, is the point of them: to avoid reasonable discussion, rather than to express an actual concern.    

                    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                    by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:38:13 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Can you tell me then....what is the point of a gun (0+ / 0-)

                      registry? If the data will not be used to collect them at any given time....what is the point? Will it stop murders?  If so, how?

                      A car registry is used for a purpose....to collect taxes once a year for roads, bridges etc...this is why we pay X amount of dollars each year for that sticker.

                      We would not be collecting taxes on guns and apparently the government would not be collecting them .....so what would be the point of a gun registry and how would it prevent murders?

                      •  To follow the guns (0+ / 0-)

                        to know that there is some accountability, to be able to identify where guns come from, which ones are involved in "sentinel events" to understand and have data about guns and gun owners as well as gun users, who aren't always the same people.  For revenue enhancement.  To enforce continuing education about gun use, gun safety, etc.  

                        There are all sorts of reasons for a registry, just as there are all sorts of reasons to register cars.  

                        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                        by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 12:20:10 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  More reasons for a registry: (0+ / 0-)

                        To create an even stronger sense of responsibility among gun owners (there can never be enough of that),  to reiterate the seriousness of what it means to own a gun AND to exercise your rights to do so, to demonstrate that the US is a society that takes its rights and responsibilities equally seriously, to enable research, to expand the collective, social knowledge  base about one of the more serious public health crises AND deeply held political rights in the nation, to supplement and strengthen existing crime-related databases, to supplement and strengthen existing networks for safe and responsible exercise of everyone's second amendment rights, to ease and enable alternative  networking and organizing of those who own guns that can take place outside of the toxic context of the NRA and it's badly veiled attempts to profit arms manufacturers at the expense of any other stakeholder or interest in the public discussion about guns, to open up rather than close public sphere discussions about gun violence, gun ownership, gun use into a truly democratic one rather than one dominated by too few voices claiming they represent what is actually a very, very broad spectrum of the population.

                        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                        by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 12:31:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not clutching pearls, (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm asking for some sort of assurance that the regularly repeated cycle of register, tragedy, ban, confiscation will not repeat it's self here.

                      I have seen it purported by people here, the ACLU and many in the House and Senate that there is no right for me as an individual to keep a weapon in my home. I have seen confiscation of semiautomatics defended as constitutional.

                      You do not have to be a backwoods, NRA, Tea Party fool to observe all of this and think: "What if this leads to confiscation?"

                      Rather than pooh pooh at a, if not valid then at least widely held, concern... why not offer some sort of legislative assurance that can be paired with this registry to prevent these fears from being realized?

                      •  what if it leads to confiscation? (0+ / 0-)

                        when it the US has that happened? Curious. Educate me.

                        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                        by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:44:46 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well in California... (0+ / 0-)

                          AB 48, commonly referred to as the "SKS Ban," referring to a convoluted incident in 1997.

                          A summary:
                          California bans the sale, but not possession, a specific model of rifle, with a detachable magazine (The SKS Sporter) in 1989. They ban it because it's a semi-automatic rifle, reliable, and only costs 89 dollars. Gangs everywhere were loading up on them. Those who already possess the rifle are allowed to keep it, but the law mandates registration and background check for current owners.

                          Sound familiar?

                          Well before long, problems arose. Modifications to SKS rifles without the detachable magazine were able to convert the weapon into a de facto SKS sporter. A man named James Dingman was famously (at the time) arrested for owning one of these converted weapons. Eventually California Attorney General, Dan
                          Lungren, declared that the law only applied to the strictly defined SKS "Sporter" and not fixed magazine models of the weapon, and that there was no law on the books to outlaw SKS conversions. James Dingman was released.

                          Then, in 1997, Dan Lungren ran for Governor. In an effort to cover his political bases, he reversed his earlier decision on SKS conversions, and at his urging the legislature passed AB 48, granting immunity to current SKS owners, and mandating the buyback of their weapons. Weapons that had been registered under the pretense of being allowed to keep them after proving that the owners were law abiding citizens. The state registry facilitated in the confiscation of the weapon from those gun owners who didn't make the buyback deadline, but only a small percentage of the weapons are estimated to have been recovered. Criminal elements in California still use the weapon to this day.

                          That is why you don't have my trust on the issue of registration.

                          •  So what you're saying is (0+ / 0-)

                            guns were voluntarily turned in and no one was going door to door using registration to take anyone's guns away?

                            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

                            by skohayes on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:47:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, (0+ / 0-)

                            What I'm saying is that guns were retroactively banned, after being grandfathered, and a mandatory buyback followed by "door to door" confiscations resulted, using the registration of the grandfathered guns.

                            Oh, and the gang members still use them.

                          •  I can find no evidence (0+ / 0-)

                            of your assertion that "door to door confiscations" ever happened. I have searched Google and read several articles.
                            Most say that registered owners of the now illegal firearms were sent letters by the state saying they were in possession of an illegal firearm, which is a felony.

                            But I believe the California state government did use registration papers to send notices to owners of assault rifles, telling them to “turn them in.”
                            I registered three AR-15s in California. (And since someone is bound to as, "Why td you need three AR-15s?" it is because they are all different -- a 1979 "classic" Colt Sporter, a CAR-15A2, and an -A2 rifle.) I never received any sort of letter telling me to "turn them in". The only correspondence I received was a letter telling me that they were registered, and to carry the letter with me whenever the firearms left my apartment.

                            I do think, although I don't have a cite, that unregistered firearms that fell under the law have been confiscated when they were found; but no one is going "door to door".

                            There were actually three rounds of registration, IIRC. I registered the Colt the first time, before the deadline because I held a security clearance and wanted to make sure I was covered. Before Round Two, which added guns to the list of prohibited firearms, I registered the other two. This caused a small problem because the AR-15A2 is a "Bushmaster". A "Bushmaster" was on the original list, but they were clearly talking about the bullpup "arm gun" that had originally been developed for the Air Force. I had to write a letter stating that the "Bushmaster" was an AR-15 copy, and not the bullpup design. I was allowed to register it then. They did not give me any trouble for wanting to register firearms that were not on the first list. When Round Two happened, I was covered. I missed Round Three. It didn't seem to get any publicity, and I knew nothing about it until I looked on the web to find information about registering my Springfield SAR-8 (HK-91 copy) which I had bought legally from a gun store before Clinton signed the federal ban, and which has never been fired. I found out that I had been in violation for a couple of years.   I removed it from the state at my first opportunity, and kept it at a friend's house until I moved here.
                            http://boards.straightdope.com/...

                            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

                            by skohayes on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:40:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's why I put (0+ / 0-)

                            "door to door" in air quotes. The point I was making was that registration was in fact used to collect the weapons.

                            That was a point the previous poster seemed to be disputing. They were also under the impression the buyback was voluntary.

                          •  But it wasn't used to collect weapons (0+ / 0-)

                            It was used to notify owners they were in violation of the law.

                            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

                            by skohayes on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:56:38 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  None of those countries that (0+ / 0-)

                confiscated their citizens' guns had our 2nd Amendment or the SCOTUS.  And all of us will be dead before the 2nd Amendment is repealed or the SCOTUS allows all guns to be confiscated.

                "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

                by SueDe on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:39:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  .223 is often used for hunting... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            So many semi-automatic .223 weapon platforms are used as hunting weapons. The pistol grip does make the weapon more effective militarily, but what is to stop us from having this same discussion again after the next mass shooting?

            What if it's another pistol mass murder, a la V Tech? No extended mags there, nor rifles of any kind. Are the mass murder semi-auto pistols the next item on the agenda?

            I hate the Slippery Slope fallacy, but I really, really do understand where the Republicans are coming from on this issue, and I feel the same unease.

            •  On the subject of private sales... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Greg Dworkin

              I agree. This is a glaring flaw in the otherwise mostly-solid NICS with regards to minors and the mentally ill getting arms.

              I can't help but ask though: How would this deter a professional criminal?

              •  professional criminals (0+ / 0-)

                dont mass murder.

                "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:43:18 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But they account for... (0+ / 0-)

                  The vast majority of our 11,000 murders each year. Mass murders only account for a couple hundred of those. Max. As do, interestingly, rifles of all varieties.

                  •  one shoe bomb (failed) changed our airports (0+ / 0-)

                    it's enough to change our approach to high capacity magazines and redefine 'sport'.

                    You are right that it won't end all gun violence, homicides, or the larger number of suicides. That's not a reason to avoid the attempt, however.

                    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                    by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:43:32 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  As a matter of perspective... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Greg Dworkin

                      We no longer make all passengers remove their shoes before boarding a plane. I got my Trusted Traveller through my work and I'm able to keep both my belt and shoes on.

                      Overreactions to extremely rare incidents aren't something to be embraced. While more scrutiny towards individuals is certainly warranted, we must remember that they are individuals, and we are only trying to prevent the acts of a small minority.

                      If there is a way to do that without disenfranchising the entire populous, it should be pursued in leiu of a ban.

                      •  we look to folks like you for suggestions. (0+ / 0-)

                        Make them. The status quo is not acceptable.

                        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                        by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:00:25 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  We have to establish who is... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Greg Dworkin

                          worthy of trust, and then allow those individuals, essentially, access to the same weapons availible today to everyone.

                          The first step is background checks. Making sure that those who have been shown to be unfit, through past action or diagnosis, cannot purchase. That's what NICS is for- but NICS has two flaws that are widely known: Communication of medical records is slow, and many purchases do not legally require a NICS check to occur.

                          The former is currently being worked on, and can be refined through legislation essentially requiring a quicker response time between medical personnel and NICS. Perhaps an expansion of the medical conditions that would prohibit firearm ownership? I would suggest presenting a doctors note of fitness prior to purchase, but such a thing could be forged. Solving this through NICS is the way to go.

                          The latter can be solved by mandating that an FFA facilitate and approve all weapon transfers. This can be enforced by adopting part of the system that we currently use to ensure that legally owned fully automatic weapons are not sold to unfit persons: The tax stamp. When complete a Class III transaction with an FFA, you are given, essentialy, a reciept from that dealer. The stamp has the SN of the weapon and a record of the dealer who sold it to you. You must be able to present this "stamp" to prove legal ownership of the weapon. Now, in the case of fully automatic weapons and other controlled items (suppressors, short barreled shotguns, ect) there is registration that coincides with the stamp. That would not be necessary in this case (or welcome) as the tracking of the weapons themselves isn't the goal, only verifying, with certainty, that the holder of the weapon underwent a NICs check.

                          Anyway, in typing this I realize that I need to make a diary, not  a comment. Look for it tonight.

                          A quick summary though: If an individual can prove themselves worthy of trust, by demonstrating fitness (NICS,) proficiency (Licensing,) and responsability (Zero Tolerance,) then they should have the right to purchase just about any small arms they can afford.

                          •  thank you! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Neo Control

                            Sincere thanks for the measured discussion.

                            agree with the last statement, but would add "except for... and we can argue what the exceptions are. That's allowed! Magazines with more than 10 bullets, exploding targets in a residential area (deer don't explode so I don't get that), etc...

                            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                            by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 12:31:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

    •  I think that result depends (0+ / 0-)

      on whether you presume a shooter has a 6 bullet magazine or a 30 bullet one.

      Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

      by bear83 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:08:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bravo!!!! (0+ / 0-)

      for acting exactly like the far right when it comes to polls that go against your world view

      Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

      by jsfox on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:09:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Meh (0+ / 0-)

        I think that reaction is natural. Remember the polling discussions occuring around here after the first debate? It's human nature, not (just) conservative wingnut nature.

      •  You mean like kos paying PPP when Gallup & Pew's (0+ / 0-)

        polls went against his gun control views?

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:23:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Observerinvancouver, skohayes

          That makes no sense at all, when you actually think about it.

          1. Pollsters only poll for you when you pay them.
          2. They don't skew results for you, they poll, interpret and publish. If you want skewed results, you hire a PR firm, not a pollster.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:39:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  oh, and we frequently poll about issues (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes

          of the day that are important to us. Polling informs your opinion so that you are grounded in reality. Not going to stop.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:40:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Greg Dworkin

            Simply taking issue with a commentator mocking someone pointing out a different poll's results.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:44:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes, cherry picking polls are bad (0+ / 0-)

              I like the graphic I posted, even if you think of it as qualitative (i.e forget the absolute value, just know that everyone is for background checks, and no one is for banning guns, period) but I did post the polling report's full gun poll list, and just like with Obama's small lead pre-election, you need to look at all the polls, their timing (pre-post newtown) and their wording.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:47:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There needs to be polls by state (0+ / 0-)

                Both the NE and the South are going to stay politically static, but Ohio, Penn, Florida, Virginia, NC, Iowa, Wisconsin etc. is where the political implications of gun control will be felt.
                And make no mistake, it will be felt.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:39:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Neo - cite (and link) the poll, please. (0+ / 0-)

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:07:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Greg posted it up-tree, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        http://www.pollingreport.com/...

        Both the Gallup and Pew polls are instructive. Even in the week following the shooting, only 47% favored new legislation over enforcing current legislation (46%) according to Gallup. A 58% mandate to ban all semi-autos doesn't mesh with that.

        Also the question was directly asked by Pew:

         "Banning semi-automatic guns, which automatically reload when the trigger is pulled"

        Favor: 44%
        Oppose: 49%

        The CNN poll is in the minority, so I think I am well supported in asserting that there is no broad popularity for banning semiautomatic weapons.

        •  Thanks. (0+ / 0-)

          Apparently lots of folks don't have a clue what "current legislation" is in this instance.  Almost all of the current legislation is designed to make any sort of gun control illegal and/or unregulated.

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

          by SueDe on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:35:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Watching Morning Joe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Khun David, skohayes

    Sleepwalking into the future. Until Stephanie Miller replaces them. I blame the the al jazeera terrorists.

  •  Bring on Cantor. I can't think of a better (8+ / 0-)

    Speaker for the GOP (and the democrat's 2014 prospects) than that smarmy extremist asshole. I hope he takes the gavel and I hope he parks himself in front of every camera in DC. For two solid years. Until Nancy is back at the helm.

  •  That's why I count on you guys. (9+ / 0-)

    I never heard of this Michael Tomasky, But he said exactly what I want to say, so it saves me time. Thanks.

    We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance.

    by PowWowPollock on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:44:22 AM PST

  •  Thanks for the great APR (as usual). I sure (4+ / 0-)

    hope Greg Sargent is right and something will be done this time.  My fear is that most people are moving past the horror of Newtown and soon we'll be back to the "we must do something but now is not the time ..." status that we have been at a few days/weeks after every massacre.  The massacres make people realize the horror because of the magnitudes of people killed in an instant (at least for a while), but most Americans live their daily lives desensitized about the dozens of people that die every day because of firearms - it is easy when it's far away or it can be blamed on gangs/drugs, just as long as it doesn't hit too close to home (literally as in your case or figuratively as with most Americans, especially parents, after the horror in Newtown last month).

    We can and we must do more.  I am encouraged by the survey at the top that shows about 3/4 favoring registration since that would be a great start.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:44:25 AM PST

    •  This may be off-topic, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Observerinvancouver, skohayes

      but it's a genuine question:  Why is Newt Gingrich still being invited onto talk shows to give us his opinions and advice?  Does he really have any leadership mojo left - for anyone?

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:05:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SueDe

        I'd much rather have someone more entertaining like Herman Cain, if we're going to be subjected to idiots.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:48:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Because he has (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ratcityreprobate, SueDe

        Tiffany's bills to pay???

        The right wing and especially the Tea Party has better booking agents than progressives do.

         

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:43:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I guess. But Newt's Tiffany's bill (0+ / 0-)

          is not the problem of talk show booking agents.  I can't figure out who still listens to - even wants to hear - his malarkey anymore and why the bookers anywhere but Fox still believe he's relevant.

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

          by SueDe on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:32:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because bookers work through (0+ / 0-)

            agencies and agencies are just living rolodexes that respond to institutional relationships, like those with right wing think tanks.

            It's never about who anyone wants to listen to.

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:38:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Cut Pentagon $1T (2+ / 0-)

    The Pentagon (including the CIA/etc) spends $1.5 TRILLION a year. We should cut it by $1T a year. That would cut our deficit by (obviously) $10T over the next decade, the timespan the fiscal cliff hysteria shoves in our faces. But the sequester that' supposed to set our hair on fire would cut only half a trillion over that decade.

    We can defend the country for well under $500B a year. Just cutting that spending defends the country better than we do today: reducing the tribute we pay to our creditors, funding the investments in security and growth we need, keeping our people from killing and dying in rich man's oil wars.

    Or we can just pretend that we care about the debt, security, the Constitution and the country.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:45:19 AM PST

    •  Oh amenz. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eeff, bear83, Heart of the Rockies

      I STILL fume when thinking about a request for a cheesy $5Bn for NASA OVER 5 YEARS, when we were/are bleeding $12/$8Bn PER MONTH in Afpakiraqistan.

      Infuriating.

      I ♥ President Obama. ~ Yes, we did. Again.
      NOW: Hands off SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid. NO Grand Bargain.
      Rich pay a bit more. DoD take a bit less. End war on Afghanistan sooner.

      by OleHippieChick on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:58:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cutting the pentagon would kill jobs the gummint (5+ / 0-)

      doesn't create making weapons systems that the pentagon doesn't want.

    •  It's ridiculous to even (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      puakev

      entertain such a suggestion. Not only would the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs throw us back into a recession, we still have thousands of troops and billions in equipment overseas.
      It's easy to throw things like "cut the Pentagon budget by 2/3rds" out there and get recs, but in reality it doesn't and won't work that way, unless you're willing to throw a lot of people out of work.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:56:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ridiculous Spending (0+ / 0-)

        Cutting $1T from the Pentagon wouldn't lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. Most of that $1T is spent on merely thousands of jobs that are overpaid to accomplish practically nothing but increase arms races and pad executive and corporate bank accounts already pretty full. The people who

        If you disagree, back up your assertion by showing me the actual hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. Because common sense says that the increase from $500B to $1.5T has not improved our employment rate in the 50 years we've done it - and especially not in the doubling over the past decade and a half. The budget should be smaller than in the early 1960s, when the Cold War raged without our allies having recovered enough to help defend themselves. It should be smaller now that our defense is primarily against non-state gangs better defeated by intel, comms, assassinations and police than by more aircraft carriers and thousands of nukes. It should be smaller now that corporations can defend their own operations globally.

        It' would be better to spend 3-5 years drawing down that $1T extra, while private interests and foreign countries finally pay their own way. During which people with actual productive jobs find work doing something actually productive. In which case we should target $300B budgets by 2020.

        Instead of cutting healthcare, education, food and housing for dozens of millions of people whose participation in our country is more valuable than all but maybe 20% of the Pentagon's activities. Because that is the ridiculous trade you're talking about making in the Pentagon's workforce's favor. Especially considering how $1T a year spent by those people is several times as productive as the $1T spent by the Pentagon.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:45:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Stupid question, but... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick, hayden

    why does this graph go to 120%?

    It's about time I changed my signature.

    by Khun David on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:45:38 AM PST

  •  Sandy Relief.....GOP infighting finally hits the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, Vetwife, skohayes

    streets.....Hide the wimmen and chillum....this could get ugly.

  •  not a worthwhile objective-for next 2+ years (0+ / 0-)

    Chilling extract from Matt Yglesias quote:

    What the White House wanted—a much larger tax increase, paired with substantial net new spending cuts—was not a worthwhile objective.
    If the White House really wants this kind of anti-stimulus to kick in any sooner than 2 years from now, then:

    1. They have not learned anything from Paul Krugman's analyses, supported by a perfect record of predictions, throughout the recent recession and anemic recovery.

    2. They are ignoring Ben Bernanke's increasingly "shrill" pleas for fiscal policy to take over (more effectively) the burden that is being carried by the Fed's increasingly stimulus-oriented monetary policy.

    3. The Tea-Partiers' rejectionism has saved us (so far) from bigger bargains which would have pushed the economy back into recession (and ironically would not reduce the deficit much if at all) and which would probably hurt Democratic electoral prospects, especially in 2014, like in 2010.

    •  The Prez has some worthwhile goals in that area. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stellaluna, skohayes

      But, at some point, you have to realize that it's just the wrong time in history to try to make them happen.

      Just say: "OK, it sucks, but the congress i'm working with is nuts and that will prohibit me from getting any kind of historical, long-term deal."

      He still has plenty of historical things he can do: Starting with immigration reform.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:02:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, we've got 30 years of an electorate steeped (0+ / 0-)

        in the fear of the "welfare queen" boogeyman.  And a 24/7 media screaming about big government and "the debt". We've got a lot of work to do to counter that before we start talking about Larger tax increases. Krugman is recognized now as talking sense about the failure of "supply side" economics but despite his credentials he is an outlier among economists. He is right but he is in the minority. So pointing to Krugman doesn't automatically change minds. But it is still the minds we have to change before we are able to institute sweeping progressive financial change.

        "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

        by stellaluna on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:07:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Krugman now less an outlier on stimulus/deficit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes

          Apparent converts over the last couple of years include Ben Bernanke, a majority of his his Fed colleagues, and Larry Summers.

          •  Yes we are making progress. Now we need to (0+ / 0-)

            figure out how to translate those positions into the public knowledge base so that they support those principles. The best thing Reagan did (for conservatives) was to introduce the terms "supply side economics" and "trickle down" into the public vernacular and the public knowledge base. It allowed voters who vote conservatively to think they stood for some economic principal rather than just selfishness. I see many friends/acquaintances who still "believe" in those economic theories.  We need to make Krugman's case better to the public. Unfortunately the tea party killed the best descriptive word for that economic theory--stimulus. That wasn't accidental.

            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

            by stellaluna on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:34:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  & say "recession before strong recovery is not (0+ / 0-)

        the right time to truly [rather than rhetorically] pursue deficit cuts" (unless the cuts are structured to take effect only after the recovery is stronger and unemployment is much lower.

        •  Another chilling extract - on "success" (0+ / 0-)

          is Ezra Klein's description of Obama's

          definition of success that will sound reasonable to most people — a dollar in tax reform for a dollar in spending cuts.
          The scary thing is that this 1+1=2 dollars of anti-stimulus austerity.

          But Klein also helps explain why the debt ceiling will not be easy to hold hostage for long, because:

          the constellation of economic interest groups that converge on Washington understands the debt ceiling better than they did in 2011, are becoming more and more tired of congress’s tendency to negotiate by threatening to trigger economic catastrophes, and is getting better at knowing who to blame. It’s not a meaningless sign that John Engler, the former Republican Governor of Michigan who now leads the Business Roundtable, called for a five-year solution to the debt ceiling.
    •  It's the politics of (0+ / 0-)

      "surplus" and "balanced budgets" that the post Reaganomics has brought us.  Politically speaking that looks good and so politicians like to vaunt it, Clinton especially, but what do balanced budgets really get us?  What do surpluses leave the citizenry with?  What do states with balanced budgets have?  Usually, lousy education systems, large numbers of citizens with no health care, and lousy jobs.

      These financially based "accomplishments" don't leave the electorate with what they need.  The Commonwealth of VA is a good example here.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:50:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  AZ Senator-elect as thickheaded and ideological (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, Heart of the Rockies, skohayes

    as last Senator.

    Jeff Flake on "fiscal-cliff" vote

    "In the twelve years I've been voting in the House, it has been a rare occasion when I have agreed with all aspects of a bill. That's the nature of the legislative process. Sometimes you just have to plug your nose and vote for bills that, on balance, take you in the right direction. I wish I could do that tonight, with what is likely to be my last vote in the House.

    "To be sure, this bill has some good parts. It takes what have been temporary tax cuts for the vast majority of taxpayers and makes them permanent. But it fails to address the root of our nation's number one problem - overspending. In fact, it makes the situation far worse. If taxes are going to be raised on anybody, you would think the resulting revenue would be used to address our debt and deficit, not make it worse. Yet that's what we are doing here.

    "I'm voting no."

    Read more: http://www.prescottenews.com/...

    And don't count on Hurricane Sandy help from him either:
    Jeff Flake Has History of Voting No on Disaster Bills.

    Research Shows Poverty Creates the Biggest Achievement Gap.

    by Desert Rose on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:59:31 AM PST

    •  You know what's silly (3+ / 0-)

      about that whole quote?
      Flake recognizes that the tax cuts are adding to the deficit, but refuses to vote to end them. So all his crying about overspending (because we are spending a LOT on those tax cuts) seems rather hypocritical.
      Overspending is only an issue when a Democrat is in the White House.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:00:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re the Tomasky column: This helps (4+ / 0-)

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:00:27 AM PST

  •  See this is why (12+ / 0-)

    I say things like, "Yes, the difference between a clip and a magazine, or a bullet and a cartridge" DOES matter, and very much, as we move forward in a discussion of gun policy.

    I see a 58% support for ban all semiautomatics. I also saw mcjoan make a statement about "the obscene availability of automatic weapons" here the other day which went mostly unchallenged.

    Majority opinion in DC vs Heller:

    (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.
    A blanket ban on all semiautomatic firearms would clearly be unconstitutional in the face of Heller and McDonald.
    All that 58% figure tells me is that a lot of people probably don't know the difference between automatic and semi automatic.

    NOMENCLATURE MATTERS if you're talking about changing laws.

    "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

    by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:01:59 AM PST

    •  I'm getting tired of this shell game. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DRo, bear83, al23, ratcityreprobate

      "This is automatic, this is semi-automatic, this isn't automatic at all but it can be converted to semi-automatic so it might be, might not be."

      The gun makers are going to have to design a gun that can't shoot hundreds of bullets through children in a matter of minutes and sell that instead of what they've been selling.

      Whatever you want to call it.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:07:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  nomenclature matters (11+ / 0-)

        when writing laws.
        How is that a problematic concept?

        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

        by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:10:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's an NRA shell game and you know it. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          al23, ratcityreprobate

          The effect of the weapon is the only thing that matters.

          What do you need to protect your home or bring down a bear versus what do you need to wipe out a classroom of children in a few seconds.

          How is that a problematic concept?

          "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

          by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:14:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How about (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk, PavePusher

            engaging in substantive discussion of what I brought up rather than trying to run it into a fucking ditch?
            YOU'RE the one playing the shell game.

            "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

            by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:17:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  if you want a ban to happen, (10+ / 0-)

            nomenclature should be very important to you.  for one thing, calling for a ban of automatic weapons, a la mcjoan the other day, just makes a person look like they have no idea what they're talking about.

            try buying a fully automatic gun sometime.  

            so in seeking an AWB, it is critically important for gun control proponents to use precise language; otherwise, the bill will be DOA and for good reason.

            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

            by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:32:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  See, that's just it. (7+ / 0-)

              They DO use precise language: in the legislation. What they count on is people not realizing exactly what they mean. They invent terms like "assault weapon" (or "partial-birth abortion") so folks will just say, "Oh, sure! ban that shit!" and go on to the next thing.

              "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

              by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:34:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'd go by firepower. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ratcityreprobate

              I don't think a ban on any type of gun will happen, by the way.

              This country's crazy.

              "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

              by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:35:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  if you truly believe this, (12+ / 0-)
                I don't think a ban on any type of gun will happen, by the way.

                This country's crazy.

                then please stop demanding the dems commit electoral suicide.
                When Congress passed the assault weapons ban, the NRA vowed vengeance. Months later, the Republicans, backed by the still-outraged NRA, romped the Democrats in the midterm election, gaining 54 seats and control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Clinton, for one, believed that voting for the the assault weapons ban had cost about 20 House Democrats their seats—meaning that the measure had caused a political backlash that led to a GOP the majority in the House. If Obama and others confront the NRA, they had better expect—and prepare for—a battle that will reach a crescendo on November 4, 2014.
                did you know that most gun violence is committed with handguns, and that mass shootings involving "assault weapons" account for only 2% of u.s. gun violence, tops?  how much of a remedy would focusing on a few specific types of guns really provide?

                did you know that the majority of u.s. gun deaths are suicides?

                so if you want to address the problem of (gun) violence, then focus on what drives people to violence and remedy that:  fund education and anti-poverty programs and expand mental health services.

                because like it or not, the second amendment exists, which makes gun bans problematic.  the most we're likely to see is cracking down on internet ammo sales, limiting clip capacity to 20 rounds, and maybe a tax on manufacturers or something.

                so if you want to fight, fight.  but if you really, truly believe this:

                I don't think a ban on any type of gun will happen, by the way.

                This country's crazy.

                then you should devote your energies to something you do think could pass and that would actually be broadly effective, n'est-ce pas? i mean there are uphill battles, and then there's pickett's charge.

                Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:55:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  going after that 2% is well worth the effort (0+ / 0-)

                  as I frequently note, I live in Newtown. Doing other things also makes sense, but don't dismiss the 2%, which appears to be a number on the rise. That's one case where the 2% is a big number.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 09:58:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  criminologists don't seem to believe (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Greg Dworkin, PavePusher

                    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                    by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:15:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  wrong interpretation of data (0+ / 0-)

                      the number of mass murder cases is steady but the total number of homicides is dropping, so the % that are mass murder is rising. That's what I said and I am right.

                      still, good to see that the total number of deaths/incidences friom mass murder is not going up or is at least stady. woe to us if it were otherwise.

                      But we want them to drop.

                      Thanks for the links.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:32:51 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  okay, so if that % is rising, (0+ / 0-)

                        still...rising to what?  a whopping 10%?  so what would banning guns used in 10% of gun deaths actually accomplish?  it would leave 90% -- the majority of them suicides -- untouched.

                        and that's not even thinking about how stores across the country have been selling out of such guns, which would all be grandfathered.

                        peace

                        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                        by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 04:15:53 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  yadda yadda (0+ / 0-)

                          so don't try? Sorry, that's a non starter.

                          Connecticut will be first with the commissions to study all the angles. my advice? Stop fighting it and participate in making it work.

                          And here's common ground: fund the safety and outcomes studies that the gun lobby has tried to block.

                          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                          by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:03:00 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  who said anything about not trying? (0+ / 0-)

                            my point is that even if we assume the guns an AWB would affect account for 10% of u.s. gun deaths, that leaves 90% of them unaddressed.  

                            that is not effective policy.  an AWB will not solve the problem, not by a long shot.  shouldn't we be looking for solutions with broader application?

                            what is yadda yadda about that?  

                            anyhoo, i've posted several suggestions as to things i think would be more effective and less of a battle royale in congress.

                            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                            by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:46:33 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  10% is a big enough chunk to justify working (0+ / 0-)

                            on, so long as the 90% get looked at, too. It's that simple.

                            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                            by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:53:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "too" being the operative word (0+ / 0-)

                            and it seems to be the case that people are bucking for the AWB and not looking at other solutions.  

                            that will not be effective.

                            because mass shootings still do not account for 5% of u.s. gun deaths, let alone 10%.

                            DiFi's new proposed ban would exempt all the semi-autos flying off of store shelves all across the country right now.  it exempts some 900 additional models.  and it's still quite debatable if the first AWB accomplished anything.

                            in the calculus of balancing effective measures with what can get past congress, an AWB is not the answer.  fixing what drives people to violence would do a lot more to solve our gun problem.

                            peace

                            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                            by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:13:10 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  can't be by itself (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Cedwyn
                            it seems to be the case that people are bucking for the AWB and not looking at other solutions.  

                            that will not be effective.

                            Agree. Background checks, limits of who can buy, seem effective. CA seems to have effective laws. Make them nationwide. DiFi's suggestion alone not good enough.

                            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                            by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:45:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and since her AWB isn't good enough on its own (0+ / 0-)

                            we need to focus our efforts on other remedies.

                            all i've heard so far is a separate bill to limit clip capacity.

                            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                            by Cedwyn on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:17:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no (0+ / 0-)

                            Work on the other stuff. Don't drop a damned thing until they are proven useless.

                            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                            by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:08:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  way to go, WH (0+ / 0-)
                            The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.
                            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                            by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:07:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  more... (0+ / 0-)
                            “They are very clearly committed to looking at this issue comprehensively,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who has been involved in the discussions. The proposals under consideration, he added, are “a deeper exploration than just the assault-weapons ban.”

                            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                            by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:08:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  praise crom! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Greg Dworkin

                            that was a great article, especially these bits:

                            In addition to potential legislative proposals, Biden’s group has expanded its focus to include measures that would not need congressional approval and could be quickly implemented by executive action...Possibilities include changes to federal mental-health programs and modernization of gun-tracking efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

                            ...Adler, who has submitted recommendations to Biden’s group, said he has told administration officials that they need to pursue multiple measures to increase their chances of success.

                            ...Obama’s advisers have calculated that the longer they wait, the more distance there is from the Newtown massacre and the greater the risk that the bipartisan political will to tackle gun violence will dissipate.

                            i'm sure he's right in that, which is yet another strike against an AWB.  because that would consume a ton of time, energy, and political capital, as guns fly off the shelves all the while.  do we really want the next year or two making the HCR debate look like a church picnic?

                            and no way is a gun database going to fly.  no way, not since other improvements and actually enforcing existing law and properly funding the agencies responsible for such would serve the same purpose.

                            peace

                            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                            by Cedwyn on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 06:27:17 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  they will sort through and I am certain (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Cedwyn

                            every proposal made will not fly. That's okay.

                            Unlike others, i am not an absolutist ;-)

                            But something more than what we have now will need to come out of this. if something else than AWB helps, great. Not so sure high capacity clips can be justified. But we'll see.

                            "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                            by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 06:44:38 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  PS (0+ / 0-)

                          http://www.dailykos.com/...

                          start making suggestions. we will listen.

                          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                          by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 06:23:36 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Will the political capitol you squander.... (0+ / 0-)

                    be worth the death and destruction in other areas?

                    I'd hazard a guess that simple health care reform (including mental health) will save far more lives than any feel-good attempt at false and doomed-to-failure "gun control".

                    •  not false (0+ / 0-)

                      not doomed to failure
                      and worth doing.

                      There is no law that says mental health issues can't also be addressed, and it should, but don't use it as a dodge to avoid addressing gun policy. Do both.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:15:33 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  and by the way (0+ / 0-)

                      I think it can be done in a way that respects gun rights and the right to bear arms.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:29:18 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Ladies and gentlemen of the jury... (4+ / 0-)

        I give you Exhibit A.

      •  Yeah! Darn those 'words' & their 'meanings'. (3+ / 0-)

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:26:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's the Humpty Dumpty philosophy of language. (6+ / 0-)
          "I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

          Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

          "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

          "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

          "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

          "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

          by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:28:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Confess I've no idea about (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kestrel9000, DRo, 43north

      the difference between automatic and semi automatic, but if polled,I would pick ban no matter which way the question was asked. Do you think the poll respondents would have responded differently if they knew the difference?

      "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

      by tardis10 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:17:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They may well (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, tardis10, FrankRose, 43north, wishbone

        but we'll never know unless we can know that they do, right?

        Confess I've no idea about the difference between automatic and semi automatic
        Thanks for helping make my point.

        A semiautomatic weapon fires one round with each trigger pull, chambering each consecutive round on its own using the energy expended by the previous one.

        An automatic weapon is a machine gun. Hold the trigger down and it keeps firing until either you release the trigger or expend all the ammo.

        Hope that helps.

        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

        by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:21:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but if you adjust the amount of force it takes to (0+ / 0-)

          pull the trigger on a semi auto such as the bushmaster you can fire rounds VERY fast.....so fast you can kill another 10 or 20 six year olds before the advancing police take you out or you blow out your own brains.

          wanna go hunting for deer? take a bolt action rifle with two or three rounds or a double barrel shotgun with two slugs and only shoot if you are confident you will get a clean kill. otherwise you are just some cowboy stuck in an adolescent dream world forever.

          •  What does hunting deer (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, rockhound, oldpunk

            have to do with anything?

            "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

            by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:34:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  i assume hunting is one of the major reasons (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              al23

              people own guns. no? i guess the joy of target shooting or protecting one's family and property from the ever annoying zombies roaming the countryside are other legitimate reasons but i see no justification for possessing assault weapons or .50 cal sniper rifles in a civilized society. just like i see no reason folks should have a right to their own nuclear pile in the back yard or cadmium recycling buisness in their garage or artificial heart implantation online service. oh wait the local well regulated militia is marching by and i want to offer them some hot chocolate....

          •  Singe, I get your intent, your desire (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kestrel9000, singe, oldpunk

            Your understanding of how your referenced Bushmaster was "adjusted" is false.

            You'd be better served by doing the following:

            1) I want to ban magazine-fed guns.
            2) I want to ban any gun which can fire more than 20 rounds in a minute, in the hands of an average shooter.

            I say average, as some highly practiced people can load and fire a single-shot at a greater rate.

            3) I want to ban possession of ammunition greater than "x" rounds.  Thus limiting the number of rounds available.

            Your intent will be clear, your use of inappropriate terms eliminated.

            I will however, ask that you research some of the 1930s gangsters, and find out how they obtained their Thompson Submachine Guns, Colt handguns, and Browning Automatic Rifles.
            Bonnie & Clyde, and Pretty Boy Floyd should do as starters.

        •  If I were king of the forest... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          al23

          I would ban both of these, because I don't see a need for either, except that it helps you kill things faster.  And I don't see how a ban on either impacts on anyone's "right to bear arms", since other arms are available to you to either protect yourself or kill critters (or fellow hunters) in the woods.  I've buried enough kin to know that you don't need a semi-automatic rifle to kill your hunting companions, you can do it just as easily with too much alcohol and a regular hunting rifle.

          So while I appreciate your clarity in language, it doesn't change how I would poll on the question, I'd be in favor of a ban on both.

          I do recognize that it would probably change some people's opinions, however and the degree to which it would is an interesting exercise in analysis.

          But greater understanding of terms does not always change opinions, especially if the opinions are rooted in something different than the point that the technical precision might reveal.

           

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:01:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound
            I would ban both of these, because I don't see a need
            If your understanding of rights is based on need, you don't understand rights.

            "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

            by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:22:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  my understanding of rights is NOT based on need (0+ / 0-)

              it's based an understanding that limitations and responsibilities are part of any right, that limitations and responsibilities don't remove rights as long as the right is still recognized, and that "need" is in fact an important aspect of any reasonable discussion about what limitations and responsibilities on rights might be, since "need" is an important counterpoint to any discussion of a limitation/responsibility.  Therefore "needs" should be part of the discussion is one is taking rights seriously.  It's an important check on one's own biases.  

              So it's just a tad bit more complicated (as are most things with human beings, like rights) than just a yes or no.

              Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

              by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:52:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  They keep changing the definitions. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        al23

        To keep the public confused and to give the regulators a moving target to try to hit.

        "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

        by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:27:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it's the REGULATORS (5+ / 0-)

          that keep changing the definitions.
          Read the original 1994 AWB and what Dianne Feinstein is now proposing and get back to me.

          "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

          by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:32:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nah. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ratcityreprobate, al23

            I keep hearing from your buddies that you can't ban semi-automatics because there's an easy way to convert conventional guns into semiautomatics, so you're really banning conventional guns.

            They blur the definitions as a matter of course.

            "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

            by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:38:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Uh, no. You can't convert 'conventional guns' (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kestrel9000, 43north, Bailey2001, oldpunk

              (whatever that means) into semi-auto.

              I assume you are refering to 'assault weapons'-which can be easily converted because 'assault weapons' is, essentially, an invented word for political purposes.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:53:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, 43north, wishbone

              You just showed all reading this thread you know nothing about what you're talking about, and you made my point for me better than I could have myself.

              "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

              by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:59:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Show me how. (5+ / 0-)
              there's an easy way to convert conventional guns into semiautomatics
              Otherwise, ease-back on the angry hysteria.

              You want a total gun ban.  I get that.
              It won't work.
              You don't like that.
              You'll need more powerful means to make it work.
              That got us the USA PATRIOT Act.  
              Yeah, so what.  KICK DOORS - GET THE GUNS.
              That's cool as we're only going for the guns.
              Anything else discovered, that may be of an illegal nature can't be taken, used as evidence, nor used for a basis of future indictment or prosecution.
              WE'RE HERE ONLY FOR THE GUNS.  
              People should be cool with that.

              Other than it doesn't work that way.
              So go ahead, "Bush Bites" and advocate for Bush's enduring legacy:  No 4th or 5th Amendment Rights.  

              The GOP is RIGHT THERE with you, in bi-partisan solidarity.
              (insert Dean "eyyyyaaaaaah" sound file here)

        •  Uh, no. It isnt a CONSPIRCY!!! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kestrel9000

          Different words have different meanings.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:36:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  semiautomatic weapons as I understand it are (7+ / 0-)

        self loaders that fire a bullet one at a time until the magazine runs out. That's what's up for discussion.

        Automatic weapons (like the 30's tommy gun) are already regulated.

        Kestral can correct me.

        Mark Sumner wrote a great primer.

        The difference between a fully automatic weapon and one that's semi-automatic is simple: A fully automatic weapon begins firing when the trigger is pulled and keeps firing until you let off the trigger (or run out of bullets), a semi-automatic weapon fires once for each pull of the trigger.

        How quickly you can fire a semi-automatic weapon depends partly on the design of the gun, partly on the speed of your reactions. Most of the time, the answer is Very Damn Fast. As in multiple shots in a second. That's unlikely in a real-world situation, but with a semi-automatic the next shot is there when you're ready. How fast you can move your finger is generally the biggest limiting factor.

        Fully automatic weapons (which most people tend to think of as "machine guns", though the Army reserves that term for larger weapons) are not legal for private citizens in most cases. You may see fully automatic weapons available to test at a gun range, or in use at special events. But you will rarely see one at all. None of the mass shootings in the United States within recent decades has involved a fully automatic weapon. They are regulated, and that regulation appears to be working.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:27:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think the aides who actually write the bills are (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Greg Dworkin, kestrel9000, 43north

      capable of learning and understanding the difference. I also think there is a difference between the generalities of public perception and the specidfics necessary for the bills. But BB's point about the generalities goes more to what people want. That is to limit the sale of guns that can shoot so many bullets so quickly. What that means practically is what will be fought in the passage of the bill. It doesn't change the need or the public desire.

      OTOH I think the more people like you educate the rest of us the better off we are in contributing to the debate. As a criminal attorney I've found that knowledge of the correct terminology about a particular weapon is important in being able to effectively cross-examine an expert. When I resort to calling a trigger guard a thingamajig it usually opens the door to allow the expert to deflect my question or twist his/her answer to hurt my case.

      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

      by stellaluna on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:18:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kestrel - have you written a diary on this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kestrel9000, 43north

      nomenclature, clarifying it all for people like me who wouldn't know a bullet from a cartridge or a rifle from a "long gun"?  If you have, please provide a link to it.  If not, please write it.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:23:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  couldn't agree more (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, ban nock

    "But if there’s a style of criticism that really bugs me, it’s that which reproves him for failing to be Captain Liberal while refusing to recognize that the guy has to be Mister President."

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:05:16 AM PST

  •  DemfromCT / Greg: (9+ / 0-)

    Just thought I'd tell you that you do a really terrific job with the roundup.  Thanks very much.

    (and thanks for including the Tomasky column.  I wasn't familiar with him and what he wrote something definitely worth reading.)

  •  Scarborough, Halperin etal projecting that even (0+ / 0-)

    the GOP presidential contenders will be running against the House GOP.....lol

  •  Thanks for the Tomasky column, Greg, it really (5+ / 0-)

    puts things in perspective.  I'm going to grouse less too.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:19:30 AM PST

  •  Those of us from TX are going to be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, skohayes

    highly entertained during the 113th congress, although we'll have a lot of explaining to do to our friends who don't live in the state.  Nine of our 36-member House delegation were supported by the teaparty in the November election, mostly through Freedom Works.  We'll hear a lot from these yahoos in the coming months.  Look for highly entertaining quotes from them, especially during debates on the debt ceiling (one of them is an accountant from a district south of Houston - Steve Stockman - who served one term in the '90s under Speaker Gingrich and believes he understands the debt ceiling because of his accounting background).  When gun control comes up for discussion. all these teaparty reps, who have an NRA ranking of 85 or above, will be justifying their opposition to gun control with the most wild conspiracy theories imaginable, and they'll be backed up by most, if not all, of the rest of the TX delegation - something to look forward to.

    The good news for Texas Democrats is:  Florida Democrats have to explain to their friends how 11 House candidates supported by the teaparty managed to get elected from that state.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:20:52 AM PST

  •  I follow Ezra on twitter and read most of what he (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    writes. He's all over the place on gun stuff, nutty almost. Posts graphs showing "assault" that include pummeling with feet and gives polling questions about "clips" when they have as much to do with most modern firearms as do fingernail clippers.

    I suppose his objective isn't to inform but to cause people to feel one way or another, and that isn't real good. I excuse him figuring it's just his background.

    Then again that's how we got the last "assault weapon" bill which did absolutely nothing to end firearm homicide.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:22:29 AM PST

    •  my take is he is collecting facts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ban nock, a gilas girl

      sometimes randomly.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:29:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suppose the whole issue will get either ignored (0+ / 0-)

        or we'll get another feel good does nothing bill, which is too bad. America seems to be leaving gun laws to the states because no one wants to touch it, or those who come from places where it's not a toxic issue are informed more by

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:41:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  too early to tell (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a gilas girl

          I remain optimistic. The Sandy Hook kids just went back to school today for the first time. It's not ancient history.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:50:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Of Ezra's choices, no way in hell #1 happens. Of (0+ / 0-)

    his choices exactly as written, I'd say #2 is the most likely.  But if I could tweak, I'd say what WILL happen is a deal with 1:3 to 1:5 ration of tax increases to spending cuts.

  •  A GOP problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SueDe

    The United States is on a glide path to anarchy so long as we continue to let a small minority of the country -- in the form of TEa Party lawmakers -- essentially tell us all what to do and block anything reasonable on extreme ideological grounds. Any issue is ripe to be hijacked by these thugs if they or their basement-blogger base decide to make a stand and fight, no matter the consequences. This is not a "Congress" problem. This is a Republican/Tea Party/extreme conservative problem. America is being slowly choked to death by the obstinacy of a few lawmakers elected by a couple thousands neo-secessionists.    -  progressive

  •  Ezra Klein there is an option 4 (0+ / 0-)

    The Debt Ceiling gets "neutered" in two months time. It's just not a legal reason to throw the U.S. into default. Our currency is set up so as it cannot be thrown into default. So if there is a fight in two months over the concept of holding the Debt Limit as hostage, it might be a fourth option.

    The GOP may have learned it's lesson that business leaders don't like it when the country goes into default. And the White House might have finally decided that it's "done" hearing these threats of financial Armageddon from the GOP House on this.

    My fourth option would be that we simply keep moving forward exceeding the damn debt ceiling as we have been. We cannot afford any austerity policy if we are to grow our economy. WE ARE DONE!

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:08:08 AM PST

  •  Killing a few dozen adults and teenagers doesn't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a gilas girl

    seem to get people worked up much and for very long.  Killing 6 and 7 year old children does seem to have a bigger impact and longer half life.  I don't expect any changes to come of it.

    •  I do (0+ / 0-)

      people in congress were shaken, as they were elsewhere.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:42:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That longer half life (0+ / 0-)

      IS the opportunity.  

      Have to see if reasonable people take it and act reasonably, or if the forces of unreason (of which there are many from several different perspectives on this issue) win again by muddying the waters with too much emotional baggage and hyperbole.

      While I'm not optimistic, since the issue IS gun regulation and this IS the United States of America we're talking about, I am hopeful that this time it is different (and comments/positions like Greg's in the comment above and throughout this thread help to fuel that hope.)

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:12:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It Never Ceases To Amaze What Obamapologists (0+ / 0-)

    Ezra Klein and Matt Ygelesias are.

    Whatever President Obama does to hurt the working class, poor and elderly, those two hacks will be trotting along behind him, apologizing for him and bleating "It could have been worse."

    Yeah!  Ya know what?  It could have been better if we had a real Democrat in the White House who actually cared the effect cutting programs and benefits have on the poor, elder and working class.

    Fuck those two hired feather smoothers and apologists with a dick big enough an elephant could feel it!  FUCK THEM!

    If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

    by stewarjt on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:57:45 AM PST

  •  thx/alot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg Dworkin

    clime parches on. terms: ocean rise, weather re-patterning, storm pathology, drout-famine, acceptance of nature.

    by renzo capetti on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:14:15 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site