Skip to main content

View Diary: Newtown changed everything (573 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Good lord! (16+ / 0-)

    The president announced his initiatives last week.  And you want all of them enacted into law and policy already?

    The NRA continues to have major sway over the majority party in the House of Representatives.  It's going to take some time to smash their power.

    When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

    by litho on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:20:22 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Good Lord, LOL... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101, Laconic Lib

      Apparently you've not been paying attention to what congress is actually doing, or more accurately, what they are not doing.

      It took congress what? Fifteen months to pass a transportation bill in 2012?? This was legislation providing transportation funding for just over two years-- a "long term" bill had not been passed since 2005.

      Prior to the hopeless gridlock which congress is now mired in, I'm guessing transportation bills passed easily in a few weeks-- not after months of wrangling/stalling.

      You appear to be suggesting precedent can be ignored because of Newtown.

      I disagree. If it takes over a year to pass something as simple and UN politically-charged as transportation legislation, I'm not not sure how congress is going to promptly addess our gun violence/death problem.

      Given the ongoing trend, there will be more rampage killings over the next year. They're not going to stop while congress ponders what actions to take.

      http://www.reuters.com/...

      "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

      by Superpole on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:38:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what am I supposed to do (6+ / 0-)

        while Congress refuses to act?  Look at the sky and tut-tut?

        Or can I organize my butt off, taking advantage of the changed political environment, and use every single new mass killing as yet another weapon to pound my Congressmen over the head, blaming the NRA and the legislators themselves for their lack of action?

        The times have changed.  We've still got work to do.

        Roll up your sleeves.

        When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

        by litho on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:07:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Stop Pretending Congress CARES (0+ / 0-)

          for starters...

          FYI, there's a reason why public approval rating of congress is ten percent.

          "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

          by Superpole on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 06:58:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  What has changed isn't in Washington (20+ / 0-)

        It's out here.  It's us.  Even here at dailykos, where guns were not on anybody's radar.  Until the Newtown gun massacre, that is.  

        The NRA and its parroters have been squelching the conversation about even admitting our nation's gun problem for decades, out of fear that the solution to that problem might infringe on their lifestyle.  

        So, we remained silent.  We didn't really believe their excuses, but we felt they had the political heft to let them be and to be wary of them.

        What happened to all our rage and righteous anger at the death and destruction that come from these instruments designed for death?  It pent up, like a reservoir behind a dam.  A dam that kept getting cracks with every new gun massacre: Columbine, Red Lake, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, and so on. Then came Newtown.

        The Newtown gun massacre was the crack that broke the dam.  Once a dam breaks, neither you nor I nor the NRA itself can put the water back in the reservoir; they can only try to scurry to safer ground.   So far, they're failing miserably, and the conversation continues.   If legislation doesn't come, well... those trying to stop the water cascading down the valley aren't going to have much luck.

        That is what has changed.

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:14:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Amen n/t (7+ / 0-)

          "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 20, 2013 at 07:24:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The first step (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness, Laconic Lib, blue in NC

          with any addiction is to admit you have a problem. Most Americans have taken that step, we need to have an intervention for the rest. The gun addiction needs to be addressed for those who aren't hunters, but true 'overthrow the goverment, I need a gun to protect what's mine' crowd. With conservative media morons fostering a terror of the goverment this will not be easy. There is a difference between having a gun and carrying a military grade weapon everywhere you go.

          They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

          by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:42:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  My AR15 is not a "military grade weapon". (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            noway2, FrankRose

            If they tried to issue me one for my military duties, I'd force them to give me a real military firearm.

            •  Why? (5+ / 0-)

              Why do you need it? Before you start, I have an AR15, also an AK47. Other than target shooting or collecting I really can't think why.  I was raised with guns, I was in the military as was my husband. I'm not afraid of guns. There are too many people who have too many guns. Many of them shouldn't have guns. No one said they were going to confiscate your gun. But can we not at least do something to make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to get guns?

              They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

              by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:41:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why? well, why not (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher, FrankRose

                Why does one have a Macbook Pro when a desktop PC would do the job.  Why does anyone drive a BMW when a Honda would get them to work.  Why does anyone have a 60+ inch TV when they can see a standard model just fine.

                Like any other product the AR was marketed to appeal to people in various ways.  Obviously the marketing has been successful as it is one of, if not the one, most commonly owned rifle in the USA.  

                At the same time, those who own or want to own them don't need to explain their preferences and certainly don't need to justify their choice.  What matters is that they are obtaining them within the parameters set forth by the law.

                I ordered an AR last December.  I had planned to get one someday.  I know people who own them and they enjoy shooting them at the range.  The possibility of a ban caused me to expedite my plan and put one on order now.

                Like anyone else, I feel for the parents and families of the children slaughtered at school.  The difference seems to be that I blame the person not the AR.

                •  I blame the person as well (8+ / 0-)

                  But we have a problem with unstable or incompetent people buying massive guns and lots of them. I live in the middle of nowhere surrounded by tea party crazies. A rifle is needed (rabid animals, feral dog packs), I've never had to shoot the dogs, but I have had to scattered them. I understand need, I understand want, I don't want anyone else shredding children. So, to protect our right to have a gun, can we not promote responsible gun ownership? I really don't want to face a rabid coyote with a machete, so I am responsible. This means background checks, training and safety, it means keeping crazies from getting guns. So far I've seen nothing that threatens my rights. I've seen a few comments that are unrealistic, but nothing Obama said threatens me.

                  They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

                  by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:32:21 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What is a "massive gun"? Just curious. n/t (0+ / 0-)
                    •  Any gun carried in public (5+ / 0-)

                      By someone I neither know nor trust. Anything modified to fire full auto. If you are wearing an AR at the mall (permit or not) you are wrong. Anyone who 'shows off' that they are carrying is not to be trusted. Anyone who target shoots without an impact zone is also dangerous. Many who buy guns because they can...not competent to own one, not all, but many.

                      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

                      by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:46:55 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Who's carrying full-auto firearms... (0+ / 0-)

                        except the LEO's?

                        Please don't carry books in public, that would just be "showing off".

                        But my question remains unanswered.

                        •  I confiscated my fathers (5+ / 0-)

                          Gun (full auto) when he devolved Alzheimer's. I have had a couple of instances of people (I left I didn't ask names) stroll into stores I was in carrying large capacity weapons. A BAR is not a welcome sight in the hands of a stranger. Had some fool show up at a ham fest with a freaking tommy gun.  I am aware of a guy a county over who owns a howitzer (why he has it I don't know, and yes it works). It's a shade over the top don't you think?

                          They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

                          by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 05:36:53 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I don't. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            noway2

                            Are you claiming to have an unregistered full-auto firearm?  The BATFE doesn't joke on that subject.  Please tread carefully and consult a lawyer.

                            "large capacity weapon" is pretty vague, and does not mean "full-auto weapon".

                            Was the "tommy gun" full-auto?  They do make replicas in semi-auto-only these days.  Fun, but expensive, range toys, and props for reinactors.  

                            Howitzers are generally not exactly portable side-arms.  And essentially are nothing more than metal tube and aiming devices.  Harmless.  Now, if he has the money to afford the ammunition for it, and the land to use it safely, more power to him.  One of my buddies at school was son of a gun-shop owner/gun-smith.  He also had a small mortar.  We used to launch cement-filled beer cans via black powder, across the small valley they were the only inhabitants of (rural Vemont) into an abandoned gravel quarry.  

                            Fun times.

                          •  No I do not (5+ / 0-)

                            I removed and delt with the problem legally. You are picking an argument where none exists, you are also not helping your cause any. One does not stand in Vatican square during mass and scream 'all gods are fake'. I answered you as you seemed sensible enough. But you are picking a fight where none exists, this does not help your credibility. No I don't think anyone anywhere should own whatever gun they can afford with it being no ones business. There should be accountability before the fact, not after. Since your only objective was to be as rude as possible and pick a fight, mission accomplished, be happy. Now, this conversation is over and you have lost a lot of ground for your point of view. Have a beer and a laugh with your buddies and congratulate yourself Air Force. We are done

                            They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.

                            by Shippo1776 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:20:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's what PavePusher does. (5+ / 0-)

                            PR for the RKBA.

                            *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                            by glorificus on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:47:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  full auto weapon with all licenses..... (0+ / 0-)

                            owner dies and two sons inherit it and dozens of other weapons.  Still have it, can't sell it.  I am sure they are out there.

                            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                            by murrayewv on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:50:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If it was Federally registered... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            43north

                            it is transferable.

                  •  Nobody in their right minds wants to see (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    happy camper, PavePusher, 43north, ER Doc

                    anyone shredding children.  However the answer is not to ban the AR and magazine limits.

                    I too advocate responsible ownership.  Responsible ownership does not equal banning the AR and magazine limits.

                    There is nothing wrong with background checks, training, safety, and checks and measures to keep guns from crazies.  None of these things equate to banning the AR and magazine limits.

                    The only thing those items do is lash out at citizens who have done no wrong.  This is why I keep saying I support most of what Obama is proposing.  In fact, I would go further in some areas.  Somehow, the anti gun nuts don't see this and start screaming at me about dead kids and blaming me for the NRA.

                    •  fair point (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Shippo1776, 43north, ER Doc

                      although there's room for disagreement.

                      "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 Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 05:11:59 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  meaning fair point (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        43north, ER Doc

                        about the reasonable suggestions gun owners have contributed.

                        While I'm for a high capacity magazine ban, and I'd be for an AWB if it were workable, the background checks seem to be to be the consensus important step.

                        "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 Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 05:21:10 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  I own mine for target shooting, defensive purposes (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                happy camper

                and hunting.  All legitimate reasons.  Not that I need any justification to exercise a Constitutional Right.

                But I have no problem with working to keep them out of the hands of unstable people.  What I object to is doing so in a way that makes them unavailable to stable people.

              •  Let's Face It: (0+ / 0-)

                Not only is our nation Chock-Full-O-Nuts (with guns) it's also Chock-Full-O-Bigots (with guns).

                The Trayvon Martin murder proved just how far the bigotry still goes in our nation. The Sikh Temple shooting is another prime example

                "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

                by Superpole on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 07:02:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

              I believe there's a YouTube video demonstrating how to convert an AR-15 into a fully automatic weapon.

              "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

              by Superpole on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 07:00:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  an intervention is a nice idea (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shippo1776
            we need to have an intervention for the rest
            When you're driven by strong paranoia, as "the rest" you mention are, no intervention makes a difference--- anything anyone says will be interpreted through the lens of confirmation bias.  

            The good news is, the thing about a democracy is that we don't have to get every last person on board.  

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:43:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Excellent point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shippo1776

            When a person has a drinking problem, we commend them for acknowledging it and taking steps to change behavior.

            Our country has a gun problem, and I'm really surprised that the gun apologists are not the first in line to admit it.  After all, the words "well regulated" are part of the amendment they love so much.

        •  recent polls show this demand for action slipping (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          CNN:

          According to the survey, 56% support a ban on semi-automatic guns, but that's down from 62% in a CNN poll taken in the days after the shooting at Sandy Hook. The same is true for a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips - 62% in December, down to 58% now - as well as a requirement for all gun owners to register their firearms with the local government - 78% last month, down to 69% now.

          "Those changes are likely due to the passage of time, as the initial shock of the Newtown tragedy has begun to wear off, and may indicate why the White House has put the gun issue on a fast track," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

          A reminder, the White House put the USA PATRIOT Act on the "fast track" too.  Eliminating much of the 4th and 5th Amendment via an illegal "roll-back" of our Rights.

          We're entering the 5th year of the Obama reign, and that's still the law.  

          Similar slippage via NYT/CBS.

          Now to be fair, there's a half-dozen blogs and opinion pieces who claim a seismic shift in American politics, long-enduring, which will result in our becoming another Australia (gun wise).
          If that's the case, then why the fast-track?

          Name the most effective gun control law since 1980.

          DiFi's AWB.  Right?  Removed the production and importation of automatic weapons "Assault Weapons" from the hands of the gun nuts, teabaggers, freepers, birthers, etc... Right?  I mean that's the one - right??

          No.
          Hughes Amendment.  Attached to a pro-gun bill.

          Think on that.
          A youtube of the sausage-making as it happened.

          Synopsis offered on wikipedia:

          Machine Gun Ban

          As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4] that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.
          In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.

          •  I read it as enduring majority support (11+ / 0-)

            ymmv.

            People see what they want to see in polls. it was always ever such.

            I acknowledge the 1994 AWB didn't do what it needed to. But not studying the issue is flat out stupid (Congress tried to ban THAT).

            That alone won't do it, but in concert might. or not. Discuss.

            The background checks are the most important.

            But change has occurred in the public. No going back.

            "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 20, 2013 at 07:56:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Greg, let's look at background checks (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, noway2, FrankRose

              If we ignore the NRA "demonizing the mentally ill" then what use is a background check if HIPPA regulations (or successors) can serve to validate non-reporting of a troubled individual to the Courts.

              I say Courts, as "adjudicated mentally defective" is the law for permanent debarment.  There should also be a "hold for evaluation" temporary status, applied to pending divorces, restraining orders, accusations of stalking, and "I think my son is troubled" situations.

              "I think my son is troubled" is met currently with "Nothing we can do M'am, as he's committed no crime."

              Cho. Loughner. Lanza. Holmes.

              So IF I accept my long-standing rhetorical foe Wayward Wind's requirement for a "comprehensive background check" there has to be legal standards set first:

              a) who's paying for this?
              The recent DKos answer is high permit fees, high excise taxes on guns and ammunition, high local tax assessment fees based on number or value of firearms owned, fees per inspection, high dollar liability insurance - and a prohibition on a policy written specifically for firearms. Thus precluding the NRA, or Gun Owners of America from underwriting the per-policy costs.
              If The Hartford won't insure you without a $50,000 per year premium for Lloyds of London co-insurance?
              FUCKING EXCELLENT - turn 'em in bitches!
              After you pay $2000 for a non-refundable application/investigation fee.

              Redlining.

              b) standard for disclosure.  The right to privacy and medical privacy ends with your desire for a gun permit.

              Damn good precedent to set if we ever want single-payer health care.  We should know now who's addicted, who's in need of high cost mental health treatment, who's got genetic pre-cursors for high cost diseases - and marginalize them in some fashion.
              A newly created Drain on Society Penal Colony?
              I suggest Delaware/Maryland eastern shore, as it's predominantly bordered by water.

              Now if my "edgy" son is living at home, aged 22 - and he wants a gun permit?  I disclose on my parental interview that I'm concerned with his mental condition? The matter becomes one for the Housing Authority Police:

              "He leaves, or all y'all leaves, as we can't have someone who's a likely threat in Public Housing."
              There's incentive for me to keep silent if I can' afford or apply-for other housing.  "My boy?  He's a good son, he tries so hard."

              c) standards for denial and standards for issuance.
              So... my comprehensive investigation reveals that you're of even temperament, a solid provider, a family person with good ties within your family, respected and respectful of your neighbors.  While not/religious you accept the beliefs of others, you're politically active, but never one to take physical actions against your opponents, and generally what we'd like to see in an applicant.

              DENIED.  Insufficient need.
              You are neither a threat to, nor threatened-by anyone.
              You are also not sufficiently rich to be targeted by persons engaged in criminal enterprise, nor are you a celebrity who may have obsessive stalkers intent on physical contact and/or harm.

              There's also that matter of being black and Muslim this concludes our interview.  I must remind you that your permit filing and investigation fees are non-refundable.

              Note to Self:  seek a warrant for illegal firearms @ applicant's residence - calendar alarm [on], send [email], [30] [days] from [today's date].

        •  Not nobody.. there were a few (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness

          Interested in the issue for a few years. It had no traction until Newtown, however.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:23:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  guns have been on my radar for years..... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glorificus, WakeUpNeo, nominalize

          and the RKBA diaries were mainly intended to assure us that gun control was political suicide so stop talking about them.  Those who pointed out the harm done by firearms were called ghouls.  Newtown has changed the conversation because there were no survivors in those classrooms of death.  That man shot and killed all the children he saw.  No wounded.  Every child had 3-11 wounds.  They were blown to bits.  It took something more horrible than even Virginia Tech to appall us.  I am sad it took this much and I won't let go this time.

          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

          by murrayewv on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:46:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This Issue Has Been on MY Radar (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nominalize

          since Loughner committed his rampage killing in Tucson last year:

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

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

          I agree with you-- it's about us, it's about complacency, it's about the near total lack of empathy in our nation.

          The organization M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) was started by-- yes, a mother who lost a daughter to an accident caused by a drunk driver. Americans tend not to act-- until someone in their immediate family has their life taken from them, due to stupidity, gun violence, etc.

          Note how it took several hideous rampage killings after the Loughner meltdown in Tucson (which nearly killed a member of congress) for Obama to finally act.

          ???

          "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

          by Superpole on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 06:51:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's just the thing (0+ / 0-)

            "Note how it took several hideous rampage killings after the Loughner meltdown in Tucson (which nearly killed a member of congress) for Obama to finally act"

            Obama knows that politicians should be out leading the charge on change, but they should not be too far out in front, or it will be all for naught.   That is, he won't act until we make him.  Until he knows we've got his back. That's why it's up to us.

             We can't just sit around and vote every 4 years and wait around for the President to do things while we go on with our lives.  Democracy is a 24/7 gig, and that's hard for us to manage as ordinary citizens with lives outside politics.

            That's why the Newtown gun massacre was so epochal.  It stirred US.  

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 01:13:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Democracy is a 24/7 gig (0+ / 0-)

              Not for congress-- for them it's more like three days per week-- for part of the year.

              "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

              by Superpole on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:31:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site