Democratic Senator: I’m Not Interested In An Assault Weapons Ban
Alaska Senator Mark Begich is one of seven Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2014 who hail from states that Mitt Romney won last November so, it’s not surprising that his enthusiasm for gun control legislation isn’t very high:
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, expressed skepticism of gun control measures reported to be under consideration by the Obama administration in a Thursday phone call with members of the media.
The Washington Post reported last Saturday that a working group on gun violence led by Vice President Joe Biden “is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors.”
Asked which gun control measures he would support, Begich said, “I’m not supporting anything at this point, and I want to see what those recommendations are.”
Begich continued, “We have to be very careful that we don’t jump to the clamor of emotion. … I don’t believe that we just need to pile on new laws and suddenly that solves all the problems.”
Mental health is also a key consideration in averting incidents like the Newtown, Conn., school shooting that claimed 27 lives on Dec. 14, 2012, Begich said.
“We have to look at the broader picture,” Begich concluded. “So I’d be very cautious about any new laws.”
Responding to another question about whether he would support a renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which outlawed the manufacture of several types of semiautomatic firearms for civilian use from 1994 to 2004, Begich said he is “not interested.”
This is the political reality that I referred to yesterday. In addition to the rather obvious fact of a Republican House, there are many Red State Democrats like Begich, including as noted above seven of them who are up for re-election in 2014, for whom gun control issues could become a serious complication in a General Election. This is why one can expect whatever does come out of Congress on this issue to be far less sweeping than gun control proponents hope and gun rights supporters fear.
I guess there were no lessons learned in 2012. When you speak of “political realities” you are cowering in fear of D.C. punditry, which has proven to be useless and outside the mainstream. Ironic for a blog named Outside the Beltway.
As in 2012, Progressives and Independents are watching this debate closely. All the airtime is being sucked up by these gun nut lunatics and scared redstate Dems. You will be in for a big surprise, just as you were in November, if you think the electorate is going to allow this to become a one-issue election that somehow favors a distinct minority in this country- the insane gun nut lobby.
Wait, “gun control” is all about “assault weapons bans?”
I didn’t know that!
Basically you disgrace yourself with that false equivalence.
@john personna:
The AWB has been at the center of the discussion ever since the gun control crowd latched on to the tragedy in Newtown to move their agenda forward.
@Doug Mataconis: So? It’s an idea, no worse than “guns in schools” and slightly better than “1776 will commence again.” Got anything better?
If one desires a continuation of status quo, there is an easy and shallow tactic one can always use. It works for anything, in any climate.
There will always be many proposals for change. Pick one that is actually unpopular and supported by a minority. Claim that this represents the only real alternative to the status quo.
Since it is the “only” alternative, and unpopular, ta-da, all change is impossible.
(Of course, this depends on either an audience which can be lulled (gulled) by the argument, or fellow travelers who will buy the same charade.)
Amazing analysis. Such insight.
Duh…isn’t that what Democracy is about?
Negotiation and compromise?
Was it Otto von Bismarck that said politics is “the art of the possible.”
We should be forbidden from even discussing the AWB as an option, just as the CDC should be forbidden for investigating gun violence as a public health issue, because these are justified restrictions on the First Amendment, which yields to the Supreme Amendment-the Second, which protects the Greatest Freedom : the freedom of gun owners to buy any firearm , in any number, and to carry those firearms, any place, any time . Just so we understand.
Here is a poll that shows strong support for gun law reform measures.
Some findings:
Looks to me like strong support for a number of gun law reforms . Somehow I can find such polls in thirty seconds online, whereas Doug never seems to be able to find such polls.Maybe Google is different on his computer, though.
I have no expectation that we will enact even the most sensible of gun regulations – such as background checks for all retail and gun show gun purchases.
The cult of gun ownership in this country is a public health problem.
Just like drug use/addiction/abuse, which is treated instead as a crime problem…
@An Interested Party:
That’s insane. The idea that you consider people who wish to defend themselves to be part of a cult tells me that it really isn’t guns you hate. You hate the people who own guns. You hate the people. And that’s just pathetic.
Somebody help me out, here… please.
Please name one single gun law that criminals respect.
That’s right, none. So, all more gun laws will do is further disarm and criminalize the law-abiding. Idiotic gun laws create felons out of honest people for stupid reasons, such as having an empty high-capacity magazine in your possession. Gun laws are as misguided as the nation’s marijuana laws and have largely the same unintended consequences.
Also, with the exception of the Giffords shooting, all the mass shootings in the last twenty years have occurred in Gun Free Zones. Like other laws, criminals don’t respect these rules, either.
They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Passing more anti-gun laws don’t work. One only has to look at Chicago, DC, New York, Oakland and so on. Instead, allow trained citizens to carry concealed weapons, which has been proven to lower crime.
@An Interested Party:
Let’s see… the Left has a rabid determination to defend abortion rights and gay marriage rights, none of which appear in the Constitution but are instead, creations of the SCOTUS and lower courts. Yet, they see the Second Amendment as something that engenders cult-like behavior?
Only only needs to look at the partial-birth abortion issue to see a cult in action. The Left sees any limit on abortion on demand as somehow undermining a woman’s right to exist as a sentient human being, and even in a one-in-a-million scenario refuses to give an inch. Apply the Left’s logic (or lack, thereof) to Gun Rights, and everyone would be able to carry a fully automatic weapon, with ammunition made available free of charge from the government.
I challenge anyone who has not done so to take a concealed carry class. Right up front, they tell you that if you use your weapon, you will be arrested and put into the criminal justice system, pursuant to the applicable laws in your state of jurisdiction. It is no accident that almost half of the people who complete a CCL class never carry a weapon on their person. Yes, it is an awesome right, but unlike other parts of American life, there is a corresponding, equally-awesome responsibility to go with it.
@Dash Riprock:
You say “all more gun laws will do is further disarm and criminalize the law-abiding.”
A big element in gun legislation in many states is the requirement for safe storage, and child safety locks.
Are you not thinking about those kinds of gun laws?
@Dash Riprock:
Yeah, yeah…..we all know criminals break the law. That’s kind of what makes them criminals.
We’re constantly reminded by the rabid 2nd Amendment people of this fact. We’re also constantly reminded that all of the guns used in these kill-crazy rampages were purchased legally.
Therein lies the problem. We don’t expect criminals to obey the law. But it sure would be nice if they weren’t able to legally purchase the weapons they will then use in crimes.
That’s the whole point. “The Left” wants to keep these weapons out of the hands of people who will use misuse them.
You don’t. Here’s your sign.
@Dash Riprock:
Ahem.
As you can see, gun law reform works very well when its properly and fully implemented, without the opposition of a powerful gun industry lobby and an army of wingnut gun cultists who unknowingly do the gun industry lobby’s bidding.
@john personna:
Responsible gun owners already do that to the extent possible.
Consider this: Your gun is locked up and someone is breaking into your house. Do you have time to open the safe or remove the trigger lock? Everyone’s situation is different. A person with small children is in a different situation than someone who doesn’t have children. With my kids, gun safety was taught from early on, and neither of them ever bothered a weapon. Other people may need different options. The problem with one-size-fits-all laws is they don’t work.
I have two gun safes, where I keep my collectables and long-guns. I have my concealed carry weapon that also travels in my vehicle with me, which is legal without a permit in Texas. That weapon is always on safe, and when I’m home and remove it, it is unloaded and put away. I also have a .410 shotgun to defend my home, which is in a rural area. The police are 20-30 minutes away, unless it’s a busy night. The .410 is loaded with birdshot, ratshot, 00-buckshot and then 2-slugs. That weapon is always close at hand but someone visiting my home would never know it. I do not want to hurt someone or take a life, but I won’t be a crime statistic, either.
It just takes a modicum of common sense, folks… which is not DC’s strong suit.
@Dash Riprock:
Okay, let’s get one thing straight.
When we’re talking gun control….we’re not talking about “responsible gun owners.” We’re talking about Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza. Do you honestly think that they should enjoy the same access to guns as you?
@stonetools:
Where is the statistic for Mexico, where guns are outlawed? Let’s see… there were 3,000+ is Juarez alone, and what 10-12 in El Paso, just across the river. In Switzerland, every male is part of the militia and has a real assault weapon (not the media-created kind like here) in the home. Israel. Ever been there? I didn’t think so. Armed people are everywhere. So, obviously… it’s not the guns that are doing it, is it? It must be… criminals, who are not allowed to have guns, under the existing laws.
How about violent crime statistics for the UK. Happen to see the riots there last year? Britain is now trying to ban knives.
As much as you try to deny it, an authorized, well-trained, armed citizen is the ultimate deterrent. The cities in the US with the worst gun crime are the ones with the toughest gun laws. Chicago immediately comes to mind.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the police do not have the responsibility to protect you. So, if not them, then who?
You can trust the government. I’ll rely on myself.
@Herb:
Nope. They should’ve been locked up in hospitals.
However, between the Federal courts and litigators, it’s now impossible to keep anyone who is mentally ill in confinement. Fear of the legal consequences of reporting and recording aberrant behavior drives schools, families and friends away from this. How many people, in retrospect, said, “Yeah, old ____ was a time bomb waiting to explode.” So, why wasn’t old _____ in a hospital? Why were those records not available when he went to buy a gun?
Fix that problem, and we’ll talk about gun laws.
Doug, these guys don’t want to defend themselves. They want a man card.
You don’t need a semi automatic version of an M-16 to “defend yourself”, nor do you need a 30 round magazine to hunt deer (What you need is practice!). They just want a bad ass looking, fully tricked out gun, because it makes them feel like some Jack Reacher type hero.
These cultists,or if you like hobbyists, put the good of society over their interests. They’re no better than the people who refuse to be vaccinated and therefore are at risk to spread disease, because they want the “freedom” not to use Western medicine. We rightly regard such people as crackpots and cultists. I see no difference between both sets of people.
@Dash Riprock:
Easy answer: Because people like you freak out about tyranny and self defense whenever anyone on “the Left” suggests we make buying guns a little bit more difficult.
Responsible gun owners should be able to endure a little inconvenience if it means keeping these weapons out of irresponsible hands.
@Herb:
Your straw man is looking ratty.
I think mentally ill people should not have access to weapons. Period.
However, when these laws get written, there is very little thought given to unintended consequences. What about returned veterans who may be having some problems? Is PTSD a disqualifier? What criteria is used to determine whether a person is fit to own guns? Odd? A little strange? Bat sh!t crazy? Do you have to file sanity papers to buy a gun, or is there some big database to be built for this information? How long does is stay there? If you took Ritalin when you were a kid, does that make you ineligible to own a gun? What if you took Prozac for a couple of years after a divorce?
Folks like you have all the answers. They sound good, but they’re just dressed up platitudes. The devil is in the details. Most people lack the vision, intelligence and foresight to think out details and unintended consequences.
H.L. Mencken said that for every problem there is a clear, easy solution that is also wrong.
@Herb:
You are assuming. Read my last response.
@Dash Riprock:
Those safe storage laws were written because child visitors hsbr wandered off and found a gun.
For all I know you are making the correct decision for where you are, and you will never lose sight of a visiting child. But we aren’t really worried about the average sane person here. We are worried about all people in the past who thought they’d put a gun where no one would find it, and found themselves wrong.
Regardless, we are past your claim that gun laws only take guns away from the law abiding. Now you want them to leave storage to the … lowest common denominator.
“hsbr = have” for some reason.
@Dash Riprock:
These are all good questions.
They will not be answered with “You can trust the government. I’ll rely on myself.” You’re going to have to trust the government…..just a little.
@stonetools:
Oh, look… ad hominem. He doesn’t have an argument, so he plays the insult card.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It never was.
In Heller, the SCOTUS said that “scary looking” is not a disqualifying criteria. The AR15 is the most popular rifle in America. It is not a murder weapon as you suggest. Police widely carry it to save their life and others. I challenge you to watch this video. There’s no screaming or yelling. Yes, it’s from Cato, but even my Left of Lenin sister called it “thoughtful”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swSM_nqCnk
It’s 12:54. I know that’s a long time to sit still, but watch it, unless you’re afraid that it will change you.
Oh, he also explains what an assault weapon really is.
@Herb:
You are confusing two points I made. Read carefully:
First, I will trust ME, when it comes to my safety, not the government.
The second point I made is that mentally people should not have guns, but you folks on the Left turned them loose, made it easy for them to sue over their rights, and now you want to put the genie back in the bottle. That will not be easy to doable, if doable at all.
Don’t confuse the two to “win” and Internet argument. You do know what they say about arguing on the Internet, don’t you?
@Dash Riprock:
… doesn’t that mean the police need to “gun up” in an arms race?
I would personally like the police to outgun any bank robber fresh from the sporting goods store.
@stonetools:
For what it’s worth, I think this guy wins the man card:
Javelina hunt with a flintlock in Arizona
(part 2)
@john personna:
Really? Have you been in my house? If any kid is 6-feet tall, he might get hold of it, if he knew where to find it, as it’s well hidden but close at hand. Then, he’d have to figure out that it was cocked, put on safety, then loaded. There’s never one in the chamber. He or she is more likely to be struck by lightning while riding my horses. Should I worry about that, too?
As for “lowest common denominator” look in the mirror. You want a completely safe society. No risk. Gun storage laws make sense if they are fairly broad, but requirements like separating ammunition and weapon, mandatory trigger locks, etc. only criminalize law-abiding people and/or put them in danger.
Laws have thrown out common sense in haste of the quick fix, political sop.
@Dash Riprock:
That’s cute. It is a dangerous world, that’s true. But if you’ve ever been in a situation where you needed a gun in your hand to protect yourself, I would be very surprised…or very suspicious of your lifestyle.
Please…..who is resisting any and every effort to make it more difficult for mentally ill people to get weapons? Not “the Left.”
(Not sure if you’ve noticed….there’s not much of a “Left” in this country.)
@john personna:
Your ignorance is now showing.
Watch the video if you dare. Really, you don’t have to worry about a sudden testosterone burst or anything. It’s really quite academic.
@Herb:
The reason mentally ill people are loose on the streets is that our friends on the Left went to court and changed the nature of our mental health system. Before, if in an institution, it was harder to buy a gun, I would imagine. Like I said, the nuts on the Left turned them loose, now they can fix it.
@Dash Riprock: Who is this “Left” you’re talking about? Can you cite the court case you mention or are you just making things up?
Okay, kids… it’s been fun. I actually have a life. Dinner at 2000 with friends. Have fun and keep the Internet safe from divergent opinions!
@Dash Riprock: Enjoy. If you see a bad guy….shoot ‘im.
@Dash Riprock:
Does it actually address my question?
Are you familiar with the North Hollywood Shootout?
That video is here.
Dash Riprock is clearly over-compensating…for at least one short-coming.
The number to 2000 in Albequerque NM is +15052320900.
Someone should call and page Douche…I mean Dash Riprock.
@C. Clavin: Ha! No offense, but I’m pretty sure our friend is having dinner at 8PM, not driving to Albuquerque from Texas.
@john personna:
When the Masai want to prove their manhood, they hunt lions with spears. They don’t prance around with “tactical looking” weapons and pretend they are the last best hope against a tyrannical government.
Maybe we need a proper manhood rite . Instead, we have guys playing “Soldier of Fortune” with their “Bushmasters”- a name that’s phallic on a couple of levels.
I’d be happy for them to pursue their interests, if they would agree to laws that would help society keep those weapons out of the wrong hands.But no, they’re not that grown up.Such laws are “tyranny” , according to these children (Actually, they’re merely inconvenient, but that’s too much for them).
@stonetools:
Two or three guys with spears(*) need fear little. When Eskimos with spears saw a polar bear, it was “oh boy, new pants!”
* – and dogs.
@john personna:
Let’s face it, hunting with high powered rifles is for pu$$ies compared with hunting with spears. These kings of the Bushmaster don’t impress me at all, really.
Umm, actually I was referring more to the idiotic War on Drugs, so you can put away your misguided effort to read my mind…
It just surprises me that as sympathetic as libs are that they are not using this opportunity to tackle mental health, the real issue in this gun debate. Lanza killed his mother who legally obtained and owned the firearms, who let her sons mental issues manifest for years. No paper law is going to protect against this. Aurora shooter, had mental issues that no one bothered to report, thus legally enabling him to buy his guns and ammo. No paper law stopped this. North HWood shooters, career criminals with automatic weapons which e were illegal. Paper law didn’t stop them.
When was the last time u read a robbery story about a gun doing the crime? You wont bc theres w person………a criminal…….doing the deed. And we all know…….at least some of us do….that criminals don’t pay attention to laws. So pass that law restricting that inanimate object. Criminals don’t care, they will obtain their guns anyhow bc they don’t pay attention to paper laws.
@Dixon:
I am not a lib, I am a mod, but I think the mental health thing is a canard.
When I thing through what would really be necessary in a Lanza scenario, I don’t see anyone, even or especially cons, accepting it.
Lanza’s mom was semi-sane, and purchased arms. Her son became crazy at a later date. For his mental illness to cause either him to be hospitalized, or the guns to be removed, the state would need power to intercede.
Mom calls government, says adult son is acting funny. Cops pick up son for psych eval. Son fails eval, and his freedom is revoked.
Are you really comfortable with moms causing incarceration of adult children? Can she do it for a neighbor? If it was a coworker that she thought was acting funny, could she call that same 800 number?
See, I don’t think I really need to object to all that, because I don’t think you are really, honestly, for it.
(What if mom is drunk? Can someone else call and initiate the process? A neighbor again?)
Favorite gun cultist talking point post Sandy Hook:
“Don’t impose reasonable restrictions on the rights of us gun owners! Instead, lock up all the mentally ill , because massive violations of the rights of the mentally ill is a lot better than inconveniencing the gun owners and reducing the profits of the gun industry.
How do you we pay for incarcerating the mentally ill? Certainly not by taxing the gun industry or the gun owners. Why, the whole of society has to pay.”
@Dash Riprock: “The reason mentally ill people are loose on the streets is that our friends on the Left went to court and changed the nature of our mental health system.”
Yes, it was that noted lefty Ronald Reagan who closed down state mental hospitals and threw the residents out on the street when he was governor.
Amazing how once you get a gun nut talking about anything other than the specifics of the guns he owns, it turns out he’s completely ignorant.
@Dash Riprock:
Interesting how you have redefined Ronald Reagan as “our friends on the Left …” As you know President Reagan signed off on legislation that let many of our friends on Right out of the mental hospitals and on to the streets.
@Dash Riprock:
Adding on to WR and al-Ameda’s comments – are you arguing that the Right is now proposing massive public spending for proper mental health support for our veterans and others with mental illness? Feels like a slippery slope toward that dreaded single-payer system that is the devil’s handiwork (but, as it turns out, actually works great for Medicare and the military).
To summarize: I find it ironic (and not a little amusing) that “conservatives” are now forced to advocate for improved public-health in order to keep up their ridiculous argument over unfettered access to weapons of all sorts.
You know the last spike in school shootings happened right in the middle of the AWB right? Crime rates continued to decline after the AWB expired.
@stonetools: They want a man card.
You don’t need a high horsepower version of a car to “drive to the store”, nor do you need a 20 foot bed to drive to work (What you need is a small fuel efficient car). They just want a bad ass looking, fully tricked out car, because it makes them feel like some Dale Earnhardt type hero.
These cultists,or if you like hobbyists, (should) put the good of society over their interests. They’re no better than the people who refuse to be vaccinated and therefore are at risk to spread disease, because they want the “freedom” not to use Western medicine. We rightly regard such people as crackpots and cultists. I see no difference between both sets of people.
@stonetools: Ahem
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2013/01/great-fact-little-fact/
AHEM
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf