Skip to main content

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Advisor Elizabeth Warren listens to a question at the Reuters Future Face of Finance Summit in Washington March 1, 2011.
Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren is staking out strong, common sense ground on gun violence, and is willing to say so out loud, supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
“There is a huge difference between the guns of a sportsman or homeowner and high-powered assault weapons with 100-cartridge magazines,” she said. “I grew up around guns and gun owners, and I will work to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. But the law must reflect the reality that, in the wrong hands, guns can be used for violent crimes, disrupting communities and making families and neighborhoods less safe.”
Scott Brown, unsurprisingly, "has tried to walk a difficult middle ground on the issue." He's supports the ban for Massachusetts, he says, but thinks it should be left up to the states. That kind of waffling isn't cutting it with anyone, apparently.

Goal Thermometer

Brown’s nuanced position has drawn criticism from both sides and has caused gun rights groups to cool in their support of him. “It certainly kept us out of getting involved in that race,” said Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America, a national group that will not support Brown.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is taking a principled stand, even though it might hurt her with some voters. That's the kind of courage that has been definitely lacking in the Senate.

Send someone with courage to the Senate. Donate $3 to the Elizabeth Warren's campaign.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:38 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  Good for her (15+ / 0-)

    I can understand why not all Democrats can afford to take this risk right now, but if she can, more power to her.

    "Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Isaac Asimov

    by tytalus on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:42:55 AM PDT

  •  Aaaaand cue the NRA attack ads. (4+ / 0-)

    All of which will be conveniently disguised as "Issue ads" and totally off the books as far as public knowledge.

    Glad she's taking a stand, even though I don't think it goes far enough.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:43:02 AM PDT

  •  Just compare NYC and Chicago (6+ / 0-)

    NYC has the toughest gun control laws in the country, and one of the lowest murder rates among cities with over a million people worldwide. Chicago has far less stringent laws and is quickly becoming the murder capitol of our country.

    I'm no philosopher, I am no poet, I'm just trying to help you out - Gomez (from the song Hamoa Beach)

    by jhecht on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:50:57 AM PDT

  •  When "I want to keep assault weapons out.... (12+ / 0-)

    of the hands of criminals" becomes a "controversial statement" that could hurt you with "some voters"....

    especially after one lunatic with an assault rifle just killed and injured scores of innocent people....

    that is when you know you have left the land of the sane and have gone through the looking glass.

    I weep for America.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:53:11 AM PDT

    •  we have a LONG way to go (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee, Hohenzollern, CuriousBoston

      no sugarcoating. But i don't think all is lost.

      elizabeth warren gives me hope. :)  

      Progressives have had major victories since the supreme court ruling of obamacare.

    •  It's controversial because it's nonsense. (4+ / 0-)

      There's no such thing as an "assault weapon."

      •  "Assault weapon" in the common vernacular (4+ / 0-)

        is understood to describe a semiautomatic weapon adaptable to be fitted with large capacity clips or drums. This may not be the correct technical definition, but you know very well what people mean when they use the term.

        The gun rights diehards are not going to win this policy argument by continuously falling back on, "nya nya nya, you got the definition wrong."

        Republican Healthcare Plan: Everyone will be encouraged to move to Chris Collins' district, where noone dies of cancer.

        by WisePiper on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:52:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fair, but (4+ / 0-)

          Any actual law as written is going to have to be specific, and that means effectiveness requires having definitions correct.

          Those who support banning cocaine are no better than those who support banning cheeseburgers

          by EthrDemon on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:58:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I see. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Like this one?

          Here's your obligatory lesson in the difference between a clip and a magazine.  And don't worry about how us diehards are going to win the policy argument.  We already have.

        •  Partial birth abortion (4+ / 0-)

          is understood to describe a medical procedure known as "intact dilation and extraction."  This may not be the correct technical definition, but you know very well what people mean when they use the term.

          The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association[7] nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.[8] This term was first suggested in 1995 by Congressman Charles T. Canady, while developing the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.[9][10] According to Keri Folmar, the lawyer responsible for the bill's language, the term was developed in early 1995 in a meeting among herself, Charles T. Canady, and National Right to Life Committee lobbyist Douglas Johnson.[11] Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it.[12] "Partial-birth abortion" was first used in the media on 4 June 1995 in a Washington Times article covering the bill.
          In other words, it's a strictly political term designed to shill for an agenda, and has no real meaning.
          Like, "defense of marriage."
          Or, "assault weapon."

          "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

          by kestrel9000 on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 04:28:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually it has worked for them so far. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          By getting bogged down in the weeds they prevent a real discussion by refusing to agree on nomenclature and continuing to argue about it without offering any real definitions of their own and sharing it with the rest of us. I will agree to accept their terminology if only they will tell us what it is.

          For many of us the important issue is what these guns do. And we want legislation to attempt to decrease the amount of gun violence. the current gun control system failed to keep guns out of the hands of Holmes, who we are finding out may have been a schizophrenic. If mentally ill people are not allowed to buy guns legally then how did he buy guns legally? Another case, in Coral Gables, FL saw a mentally unstable man who had legal weapons and a legal concealed weapons permit shoot a door to door salesman outside of his house in broad daylight. Everyone in the neighborhood was afraid of this guy and the cops told the neighbors to avoid this guy and keep their kids away from his driveway. The shooter put two bullets in the back of this guys head while the victim lay on the ground and the shooter said that this was to send a message. The shooter also claimed he was afraid and was standing his ground.

          These are the issues we care about. Not the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle. Or arms and ordinance. The Supreme Court has held that some sort of regulation is permissible and so this is a political issue. The court decides on constitutionality not the NRA or RKBA. The key is that Democrats are seen to be doing something about gun violence. And if that does not happen then it is a political failure.

      •  This resorting to technicalities is annoying and (0+ / 0-)

        changes nothing.

        •  Wrong. In Denver, for example, it becomes an ... (8+ / 0-)

          ...assault weapon if it's loaded with a magazine holding more than 20 rounds. In California, the law, backed up by a California Supreme Court decision bans the sale, transfer and possession without registration prior to Jan. 23, 2001 of specific kinds of rifles  (in general, AK-47s and AK-15s regardless of manufacturer and weapons with certain characteristics of these firearms).

          You can argue until the Rapture how nonsensical these provisions of the law are, but they are the law. Which means you haven't won the policy argument everywhere and could still lose it nationally if Congress displays some spine in the matter.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 09:08:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Undoubtedly there's work to be done. (0+ / 0-)

            On the other hand, it's not that Congress lacks spine to enact new gun control.  It's that Congress looks contemptibly upon the very notion.  You already have a majority in both Houses for national reciprocity.  That's an enormous victory in and of itself.

            Also, a case could be made that California at least could be cracked wide open by ballot initiative, especially if the case is made by pointing out the disparate impact the state's oppressive gun control regime has on underprivileged minorities.

            I believe you mean AR-15.  AK-15 is a cargo ship.

          •  The 1994 assault weapons ban was unpopular (3+ / 0-)

            with gun owners (as I understand it) because it banned guns that had certain features .. and those seemed pretty arbitrary, and not always related to how lethal these guns are. I'm not a gun fan in any way, don't own any. But I think the technicalities matter, and if laws are enacted they have to be related clearly to a public danger posed by certain weapons. Plus in the US we are handicapped in any such effort by the huge number of guns in circulation. You can ban new sales but that's a bit late because so many guns are in private hands already.

            •  You're very close. (3+ / 0-)

              It did not ban the ownership of any guns -- only the manufacture or import of certain firearms with certain cosmetic features which are strictly cosmetic and have no bearing whatsoever on the deadliness of a gun.

              And even with that, already existing guns were not impacted by this law -- except to make them more expensive, I guess.

              Basically, a lot of gun owners thought it should be, more accurately, called the "ban of manufacture or import of scary-looking guns" law, but I guess that wouldn't fit on a bumper-sticker.

              Basically, if a gun looked "military," it was on the list.

              Silly law -- doing nothing to fight crime.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:15:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  This exposes as nonsense Bloomberg's endorsement (11+ / 0-)

    of Brown based on gun control.

    Warren's position is clearly superior on this issue, even considering that Brown has (maybe) departed an inch from the NRA and the GOP.

    Bloomberg is almost certainly motivated more by anti-tax/ anti-regulatory motives than Brown's supposed position on gun control.

    The GOP: "You can always go to the Emergency Room."

    by Upper West on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:53:30 AM PDT

  •  Imagine that... Elizabeth Warren (6+ / 0-)

    showing common sense and courage.

    There's something about this woman that I like. Can't quite put my finger on her but gosh darn it she seems like someone that might get a thing or two done and done right.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:04:36 AM PDT

  •  Good for her--tough stance to take in a close race (6+ / 0-)

    You know the NRA will go after her----whether or not they support Brown.

    A few more dollars for Elizabeth!!

  •  the regulatory solution without commenting on (3+ / 0-)

    banning assault weapons, is the use of certain accessories in the commission of a crime, so that possession itself is not a problem given the large number of such objects in civilian possession already, but the "special circumstances" of using large capacity magazines like 100 round drums in commission of such heinous crimes. This is the same problem of the existing machine gun possession regulations, and the proliferation of full-auto machine giun entertainment enterprises such as those featured on the American Guns TV show where a proposed Colorado business included the firing from helicopters of full-auto machine guns for public entertainment purposes.

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:51:53 AM PDT

  •  Common sense... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lungfish, CuriousBoston

    Via Greg Sargent at WP:

    ...the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence distributed a new statement of purpose to every Senator and member of Congress. It reads as follows:

    I believe these people should not be able to buy, own, or carry a gun anywhere in our nation:
    · Convicted felons
    · Convicted domestic abusers
    · Terrorists
    · People found to be dangerously mentally ill

    Guess how many members of Congress have signed it? So far, only 10.

    And from NPR:
    At the same time, a poll of NRA members and other gun owners that was conducted in May by Republican pollster Frank Luntz reveals broad support for some of the very same restrictions.

    For example,

    -82% of gun owners support criminal background checks for gun purchasers (74% of NRA members voiced support for background checks).
    -Sixty-eight percent of NRA members believe that individuals who have been arrested for domestic violence should not be eligible for gun permits.
    -And 75% of NRA members believe that concealed weapon permits should not be available to people who have committed violent misdemeanors.

    The Luntz study was commissioned by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The findings are a useful reminder that the NRA's extreme rhetoric on the topic of gun control doesn't even necessarily reflect the beliefs of its own members.

    The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

    by SoCalSal on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 11:59:01 AM PDT

    •  Did you realize... (4+ / 0-)

      ...that those "common sense" items about who should not be able to own a firearm are already the law?

      Persons prohibited from possessing a firearm by NICS (the link is to the Wiki, but it is accurate):

      Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
          Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
          Is a fugitive from justice
          Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
          Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
          Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
          Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
          Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
          Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
          Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
      That being the case, what's the point of the Brady Campaign's statement of purpose -- it's already been done.

      Well, I'll grant that there is no specific mention of "terrorist," but one would assume that would fall under one of the other criteria.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 04:20:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then how did Holmes get his weapons? (0+ / 0-)

        Has he avoided being committed or being adjudicated? Do we need to tighten that standard of the law? Should we instead require that anyone diagnosed as mentally ill be put on a type of "no fly list"? And how do we keep private sellers from selling to the mentally ill? How do we keep any of the people listed above from buying weapons without a way of tracking buyers and sellers? Do we expect the mentally ill and the criminal to work on some sort of honor system? And how do we keep people who are legally barred from buy weapons from buying weapons on the internet?

        These are serious questions and I would like to hear from some pro-gun advocates on addressing these problems.

        •  Good question. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Otteray Scribe, oldpunk, 43north

          As far as I know, at this point, he would not have been a prohibited person -- though there has been some recent talk about him having been in psychiatric treatment.

          Basically, I'm not sure we have the information available, at this point, to declare whether or not he legally bought his firearms (though I could easily be wrong on this, if there is new info that I've missed) -- though his explosives were almost certainly illegal.

          Personally, I think that the NICS background check system needs to be strengthened -- states should be required to keep that information up to date (currently, many of them do not), and there should be repercussions if someone who knows they are a prohibited possessor tries and fails a background check.

          Actually, let me back up a bit, and respond to some of your questions specifically.

          Should we instead require that anyone diagnosed as mentally ill be put on a type of "no fly list"?
          Currently, anyone adjudicated mentally ill by a court of law is a prohibited person and is meant to be in the database.  For this to be the case, the courts must so declare -- medical privacy laws prohibit other disclosures.  I'm honestly unsure how to handle that -- privacy vs safety is a whole other discussion.
          And how do we keep private sellers from selling to the mentally ill?
          It is against the law to do so -- but you are correct, those who ignore the law will not follow that law.  Personally, I suggest stronger enforcement of the laws we already have.  How do we prevent anyone from breaking the law?  
          How do we keep any of the people listed above from buying weapons without a way of tracking buyers and sellers?
          We already do track licensed sellers, and they must perform the background check for each buyer.  "Tracking" those buyers becomes another privacy issue.  Is it law enforcement's business how many and what firearms I own, as long as I do so legally?  I think not -- you may well disagree with that.
          And how do we keep people who are legally barred from buy weapons from buying weapons on the internet?
          Anyone buying a firearm on the Internet must still abide by all other laws -- NICS check if from a licensed dealer (or across state lines) and it is unlawful for a private seller to sell to someone who they have reason to believe is a prohibited possessor.

          Criminals are not going to obey any of these laws -- if they would, they would not be criminals.  That being the case, they won't follow new laws, either, so our only option is to punish those who do break the law.  Again, stronger law-enforcement would seem to be in order, in my opinion, rather than new, redundant ones that will also not be enforced.

          Hope some of those answers are helpful -- I'll check back in for any responses, but it's already ninety degrees at nine a.m.  Please don't expect much from me today -- my brain is largely already cooked.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:11:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But I am in a prohibitted class. And there is no (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            way to keep me from legally buying a gun. And by prohibited I mean that I suffer from a mental illness. Depression to be specific. But I have never been sent against my will to the hospital. I have been in the hospital four times but always on a voluntary basis. I do not show up on any list prohibiting me from buying a gun. Should I be on such a list. I would tend to say yes.

            If we track weapons to keep them out of the hands of the unstable then registration of guns does become a matter for law enforcement. Just like cars. I do not have a weapon because I choose not to have a weapon. Should I, as a mentally ill person, be allowed that choice? I can easily get a concealed weapons permit because I have never been convicted of a crime and show up on no ones list. Shouldn't I be on a list? Or should you just trust my judgment as a mentally ill person?

            And are private sellers compelled by anything other than the honor system to follow gun laws?

            Thank you for your reasoned response.

            •  Whether or not... (4+ / 0-)

              ...clinical depression should be on the prohibited person list is, honestly, a whole other discussion.  In all honesty, I'm not knowledgeable enough to make an informed decision on that, specifically.

              In my opinion only, those who have been adjudicated to be a risk to themselves or others should be on the prohibited persons list.  I do realize that this leaves off people who may well should not be allowed to own a firearm simply because they have no been so adjudicated, but that is where we get into that other discussion -- rights, privacy, and security.

              Again, my opinion, but no one who has not committed a crime should not have their rights curtailed because they might, someday commit a crime.  It's like saying no one can own spray paint because they might, sometime, commit vandalism with it.

              If you want to go down that road, then there's not much that would still be allowed -- any right can be abused, and any activity can go too far.  Do we punish everyone for the actions of a very few?  Do we abolish all rights because some few people may abuse them?

              There is a trade-off between security and freedom -- exactly where that line is to be drawn is where the discussions (and, all too often, the fights) come in.

              These are, of course, somewhat subjective points on both sides -- we have differing opinions on what should or should not be allowed.

              For this, more specific question:

              And are private sellers compelled by anything other than the honor system to follow gun laws?
              Yes -- depending on specifics, providing a firearm to a prohibited possessor can be anything from a misdemeanor to a felony offense.  From what I understand, it varies by state, by exactly why the prohibited possessor is so prohibited, etc.

              This is why, were I to decide to sell a firearm to anyone other than a family-member or one of the very few people I happen to know the medical and legal history of, I would do so through a licensed dealer who can perform the NICS check -- it seems the most responsible way to do so.

              But, that does bring us back to the point that criminals will continue to break the law -- all we can really do is punish them when they have been caught doing so.  It is basically not possible to prevent all crimes, so we have to punish those who do so after the fact.

              I do hope that rather lengthy and, probably rambling, reply made some sense.  As I pointed out earlier, it's just too bloody hot today to expect me to not make a mistake here and there, or even lose my own thread of thought.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:13:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Trust me, if you have depression you should (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                not be allowed near guns. When you are depressed your thinking is irrational. If you are in a lengthy depressed episode it gets worse. Many people who suffer from forms of depression like clinical depression and bipolar disease find it difficult to stay on meds. Even with insurance. Some people go off meds because they convince themselves that the meds are not needed or that the side effects are not worth it or because the meds are harmful. This is a problem even for people who have good health care so health care reform will not solve this problem.

                You should do some research into mental illness as it relates to violence, and not just gun violence. People like Holmes were under the radar. No therapist or shrink is required to report mentally ill or unstable people to any agency without first being convinced of immediate danger to self or others. And no one is required to seek medical help for a mental illness. And if you are not an immediate danger to self or others you appear on no-one's radar. Twelve people might be alive today if mandatory reporting were the law. But there is nothing we can do about that now, for them.

                Yes criminals will continue to break the law, but why make it easier for them? Do we just give up and arm everyone? We could just get rid of the criminal justice let everyone settle it man to man.

                •  Now you're taking my argument further... (5+ / 0-)

                  ...than I actually did -- if only rhetorically.

                  Do we just give up and arm everyone? We could just get rid of the criminal justice let everyone settle it man to man.
                  I, of course, said nothing of the sort -- and I have never seen anyone seriously put forth any such suggestion, even the dreaded NRA has said nothing of the sort (the NRA deserves much criticism, but we should limit it to what they've actually done or said).

                  The problem is, as I mentioned before, finding that fine line between freedom and safety.  

                  Yes, on one extreme one could argue that it would be safer if no one was allowed weapons of any sort -- but we would be less free.  (As a bit of an aside, I maintain that we would not necessarily be safer, because that would put us at the mercy of armed criminals, or criminals in groups, etc.)

                  On the other extreme, we would be much freer in this one regard if there were no limits on weapons whatsoever -- but we would be much less safe.

                  Clearly, the answer is somewhere between the two extremes -- it, almost by definition, always is.  The discussion is where on that continuum is best.

                  We are never guaranteed safety -- it is impossible to do so.  And, since we know that many millions of firearm owners have never and will never commit any sort of crime with those firearms (the vast majority of said owners, in fact), I do not subscribe to the idea that the best way to provide safety is by limiting their rights.

                  We should prosecute those who actually commit crimes rather than limiting the rights of those who don't.  Yes, criminals will continue to break the law -- and we will continue to prosecute and punish them for doing so.  Should we do the same to those who do not break the law?  I think not.

                  When someone shows that they cannot be responsible with a weapon (or, along those same lines, exercising any of their rights), then, and only then, should we limit or restrict those rights.

                  There is still room for reasonable controls -- and I believe that most of the controls we have now are pretty reasonable, particularly the criteria in the NICS system (though it can and should be strengthened -- a stance that even the NRA agrees with).  I'm also fairly comfortable with our current restrictions on what firearms may be owned (true automatic firearms, for instance, are so tightly controlled and artificially expensive that they are, for the vast majority of people, for all intents and purposes, banned).

                  There are many other suggestions of things that could be proposed to help curb violence -- the problem is, most of them we see proposed here about guns have been tried and have shown no such effect on violence (the so-called "assault weapons ban," for example) or would infringe upon other rights (the $500 bullet example would restrict this right only to the very wealthy and therefore be discriminatory).

                  I would much prefer to focus on the causes of crime, rather than the tool used -- poverty, the wholly failed "war on drugs," and our rapidly failing social safety nets, for instance.

                  These are my opinions, of course, I am not making these statements as though everyone must agree with me.

                  And, yes, I did not respond directly to your comments regarding mental health because I am no more informed about them that I was before -- and am still inclined to hold my original opinion on the issue at this point.

                  I'll be away from my computer for some time, so I might not be able to get to any response to this for a while -- but I will try to do so.  

                  I do think we both deserve a pat on the back, though -- we clearly disagree strongly, but have managed to keep the discussion civil.


                  Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                  by theatre goon on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 01:07:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Are we not entitled to do everything we can do (0+ / 0-)

                    to keep people safe. Can you please explain to me the difference between your point of view and the NRA? Are you a NRA member. What is your attitude towards the NRA?

                    My reference to arming everyone was a question of if we are not going to try and stop crime then why not close down the police and the jails. Then are arguments could be settled Old West Style.

                    •  There's always a limit. (5+ / 0-)

                      The idea of doing everything we can for safety -- including giving up our Civil Rights -- is what got us the PATRIOT Act.

                      That is generally considered a bad thing when it comes to Liberals and Progressives, is it not?  Or is that just when it comes to those other Civil Rights?

                      As Benjamin Franklin famously said:  "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."

                      What other rights would you be willing to give up in the name of safety?  Allow police officers to search anyone at any time, with no probable cause?  That would help prevent crime, would it not?  Personally, I would oppose something like that every bit as strenuously as I do pointless restrictions on this one.

                      How about doing away with the right to freely assemble or protest?  That has recently been severely curtailed, often with the excuse of security.  That was roundly criticized here.  How is that different?  In my opinion, it is not.

                      No, I am not a member of the NRA.  I was given a membership by my uncle when I was very young -- it expired and I never renewed it.

                      One of the largest differences between my views and that of the NRA as an organization is that they are willing to lie to achieve their ends -- and, in some instances, they oppose gun-control laws that I may well support.  Some of the things they oppose I also oppose.

                      The NRA-ILA has become more a lobbying organization for firearms manufacturers than for firearm owners, in my opinion.  I believe that they have largely stopped supporting the right itself and, rather, promote sales.

                      And, again, at no time have I said anything about not trying to stop crime -- only that we should not do so at the cost of our Civil Rights.

                      Again, punish those who commit crimes (and thereby try to prevent them from committing more crimes in the future) rather than restricting the rights of those who have never committed any crime.

                      The vast majority of those who use guns in crimes have long histories of criminal behavior -- which means they can and should be prevented from committing more crimes.

                      I probably won't catch any responses before morning, I'll be turning in soon -- but I will check first thing.

                      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                      by theatre goon on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:13:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  kmackle: (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ER Doc
                      Are we not entitled to do everything we can do
                      to keep people safe
                      As cited by TG, the PATRIOT Act was "for our own good".
                      As a result, we lost "reasonable suspicion" and court issued warrants that were held to a standard, not issued like a pack of Post-Its.

                      As a result, law enforcement can break-and-enter any home, business or vehicle, and search any personal property such as a briefcase or backpack - looking for evidence that will result in a Post-It Note® warrant.

                      "Yep!  Found it.  An unfilled prescription for anti-depressants, and a box of 9mm ammunition.  

                      We'll wait until kmackle comes home, then we'll kick the door at 5AM, and take him at submachinegun point... as he's presumed armed, dangerous, and likely a threat to himself and others."

                      The fact that you, have an unfilled prescription?  

                      May be that you needed to remind the prescribing physician that Wellbutrin® is contra-indicated with your history of hypertension - and you received a different script.

                      At 5AM with the door laying on the floor, and you reaching towards the night table for eyeglasses?

                      GUN!!!!  bangbangbangbangbangbangbang.
                      All over an unfilled prescription as presumptive evidence, brought about by a "sneak-and-peek" warrant, made legal by the PATRIOT Act, "for our own good".

                      Where does this end?

                      •  The Patriot Act was not intended to keep Americans (0+ / 0-)

                        safe. It was intended to allow the government to spy on us. But the Patriot Act did nothing about guns. The Act curtailed much of the Bill of Rights. But it did not impact gun rights. The Patriot Act needs to go away now. But that has nothing to do with being safe from gun violence. Guns did not play a role in the past terrorist attacks. So I get your point but I do not think it applies.

                        We want to be safe from gun violence. We do not want to be victims of a mass murder. But we do not need to throw out the constitution in order to make us safer. Just do a better job of tracking and regulating gun sales and possession. More reporting of mental health patients. If there is legal justification for a no fly list then why can't we have a no buy list? If I can only by Sudafed once a month why can we not extend that to ammunition sales?

          •  Great comment TG. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, 43north, ER Doc

            You inspired me to add my two cents to one of your questions.

            How do we prevent anyone from breaking the law?  
            The thing about laws is that they don't, can't and I don't believe are intended to prevent crime because we cannot prevent people from breaking the law short of locking them up before they break the law. The only thing criminal laws do is tell people what the consequences can be if someone is arrested, prosecuted and convicted of violating a particular law.

            If we want to encourage people not to break the law then the consequences of doing so have to be so severe, so exceedingly unpleasant that anyone in their right mind wouldn't be willing to expose themselves to the potential risk of being caught. Of course this only works on people who are not inclined to break the law anyway and it wouldn't have any affect on the kind of people who commit mass murder.

            Thanks for posing the question.

            By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

            by oldpunk on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:32:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm going to disagree, but only slightly. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, 43north, ER Doc

              And, only on one specific point:

              The thing about laws is that they don't, can't and I don't believe are intended to prevent crime...
              I believe that laws are, to a certain degree, meant to deter crime.  There are those who will not commit a crime because they do not want to fact the punishment.

              There are others, however, who will not be deterred by any punishment, as we see when people commit crimes, even in the face of truly draconian laws.

              I know you touch on this later in your comment, so my disagreement is strictly and only on that one narrow point, and that really only on the way you worded it -- apart from that, agreed completely.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:37:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Principled stand? (0+ / 0-)

    She's running to be the junior Senator from Massachusetts.  This is hardly a profile in courage.  

    It's a shame that so much of the party is so invested in the stupidity of gun control, but fortunately we're past the point where certain coastal types can in anyway influence in the outcome.  At least that means Bay Staters who actually care about gun rights can vote for Warren with a clean conscience.

    •  Sure it is. Warren knows she will never win the (0+ / 0-)

      gun nut vote, so that's why she can tell it like it is.

    •  You mean most of the party. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If you find you can not embrace the agenda of the Democratic party then you can go be a Republican. Those of us who support gay rights had to hear a lot of STFU and "we have more important things to do than gay rights" for a couple of years. So now it is your turn

      •  Don't know about that. (0+ / 0-)

        I know most Americans are done with this gun control nonsense, and that gun owners of all stripes can count on a bipartisan majority to slap down the Antis.

        But don't worry, I won't tell you STFU.

        •  And continue to ignore the carnage. You can close (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          your eyes and pretend that there is no problem as America gets more violent. Or you can choose to help find a solution. It is really up to you.

          •  More violent? (0+ / 0-)

            Last I checked, violent crime is on the decline.

            •  Link to statistics, please. Violence is up when (0+ / 0-)

              economics are down. Domestic violence is an example. Unemployed parents feeling they are not doing what they should to support their family. Parents that have send children to another relative, or pulled children out of an expensive school. Parents that cannot afford the activities the children were involved in.

              Parents, especially males, shoot the family, then shoot themselves.


              My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

              by CuriousBoston on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:44:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here you go. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                2011 report:

                Violent Crime

                In 2011, all four of the violent crime offense categories—murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault—declined nationwide when compared with data from 2010. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter declined 1.9 percent, while forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault each declined 4.0 percent.
                Violent crime declined in all city groups. Cities with populations of 50,000 to 99,999 saw the largest decrease (5.2 percent) in violent crime. Violent crime decreased 6.6 percent in metropolitan counties and 4.7 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.
                Within city groups, murder and non-negligent manslaughter offenses increased the most (18.3 percent) in cities with populations under 10,000. Cities with populations of 50,000 to 99,999 showed the largest decrease of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses (14.4 percent).
                All city groupings experienced a decline in forcible rapes except in cities with 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants, which had the increase in forcible rapes (0.5 percent). Forcible rape offenses declined 6.8 percent in metropolitan counties and 9.0 percent in non-metropolitan counties.
                Robbery offenses decreased in all city groupings, with the greatest decrease (5.3 percent) in cities with 50,000 to 99,999 inhabitants. Robberies decreased 7.5 percent in metropolitan counties and 3.6 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.
                Aggravated assaults decreased in all city groups. Cities with 50,000 to 99,999 inhabitants experienced the largest decrease at 5.3 percent. Aggravated assaults declined in both county groups, with a decrease of 6.3 percent in metropolitan counties and 4.2 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.
                Violent crime decreased in all four regions (4.9 percent in the Midwest, 4.7 percent in the West, 4.5 percent in the South, and 0.8 percent in the Northeast).

                And the longer trend (through to 2009).
                •  This is a link to Houston, TX, there are many (0+ / 0-)

                  links from the USA and the UK.


                  I am sure the DOJ or CDC or NIH could provide similar links.

                  My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

                  by CuriousBoston on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 09:00:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Pardon postscript. A suburbanite that hunts, also (0+ / 0-)

                    uses pistols for gun protection, nearly shoots his son. The son is using his key to enter the house at night. The intelligence, reaction time, and strengh of the son prevent tragedy.

                    How many similar "deliberates" happen every year? (I classify car "accidents", as deliberates, too.

                    My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

                    by CuriousBoston on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 09:05:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  We expect fluctuation in the signal. (0+ / 0-)

                    But the long term national trend is clear.  Violence is declining across the board.

                    •  Not for domestic violence. It is going up. A (0+ / 0-)

                      reverse of the national trend. it is getting worse. It is not a "signal", it is people being killed.

                      My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

                      by CuriousBoston on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:50:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It is a signal. (0+ / 0-)

                        That's precisely what a time-series data set is.  

                        The national trend is declining.

                        The percentage of female victims (22%) of intimate partner violence was about 4 times that of male victims (5%). The NCVS defines intimate partners as current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends. The rate of intimate partner violence for females decreased from 2009 to 2010. In comparison, there were no significant differences in the numbers and rates of intimate partner victimizations for males from 2009 to 2010 (table 6).
                        That's not to minimize suffering and death of victims, but this is a discussion of the public policy response; not a forum for emotional outrage.
            •  I did not say violent crime. I referred to the (0+ / 0-)

              cultural glorification of violence in American society. As in the huge support for the war in Iraq before people realized that Bush was lying. The belittling of the peace movement. The embrace of torture by the American people. The mean spiritedness of American society. Did not Heinlein say that an armed society is a polite society? I do not see a lot of politeness in our society. And it has gotten worse over the past 12 years or so.

              Violent crime is down in the US. But it is still more than twice as high as crime in the rest of the industrialized world.

              •  Pretty words. (0+ / 0-)

                What does any of it have to do with gun control?

                •  OK Pete I am going to tell you what happened to (0+ / 0-)

                  me. About 20 years ago I was at a friends house. He shared this house with another guy. So I am sitting at a Commodore 64 playing Frogger. And without warning friends house mate comes in the room at puts a .357 pistol up against my temple. Not aimed at, but right up against my head. And then I hear the gun cock. My friend shuts off the computer, house mate lowers gun and I leave with my friend. I said to him "What an asshole, good thing that gun was not loaded." My friends response was "OH no, it was definitely loaded." The house mate had a small arsenal, all legally obtained. My friend moved out two days later and I never saw the room mate again.

                  What kind of an asshole pulls a gun on a guy just for playing a video game without any warning? I'll tell you a gun owner thats what kind of an asshole does that. But I guess as a fellow gun owner you understand what that guy went through, wouldn't you?

                  This is a violent country and the violence is causing us to rot from within. It is the marker of a civilization in decline. A government that can not protect its people is a government that has outlived its usefulness. The right to own a gun is unconnected to any of the political or criminal rights in the Bill of Rights. We need to be protected from crazy people with guns. My right to live and not be murdered is more important than your right to own toys that go BANG BANG. We could get rid of the 2nd amendment tomorrow and it would not mean the decline of the other rights in the bill of rights. You are putting people in the position of having to go to war in order to protect citizens from people armed with guns. Do you really mean that you will use your firearms to defend your right to own fire arms? Why did you not use your firearms to defend the other amendments. Like Haebas Corpus? Or search and seizure? You will not use your fire arms to defend against torture? Is the 2nd amendment more important than the rest of the amendments. Does only the 2nd amendment matter? Because I do not see you standing up for the resty of the constitution.

                  •  Didn't call the police? (2+ / 0-)

                    Why not?  What happened to you is at least felony assault in any jurisdiction.  Instead, you craft this strange eschatology and pursue an extremely dubious public policy cause.

                    Our right to live and to keep and bear arms are not in conflict except in you own imagination.  And what's with this lunatic call to take up arms against perceived violations of other rights?  This is America. There's no truncheon of oppression bearing down on our heads.  A small part of that is because culturally and practically it's the next best thing to impossible for government here to get out of line.  But for the most part, it's because the country is made up of good and decent people.

                    I don't accept this dead ender view of the country.  Part of that's because I've seen far worse parts of the world in my life.  But even then it should be obvious to anyone that what you imagine to be the state of things bears little to no resemblance to reality.

                    •  If you were good and decent you would not argue (0+ / 0-)

                      in such a disingenuous manner. You would respect that other people feel real pain and suffering because of your attitudes towards your "rights". It is not the guns that worry me so much as the attitude of gun rights suppoters like yourself. You always have an excuse, someone or something else is to blame. You will not take responsibility for what your guns do. You talk about rights as if they are sacred, and then you talk about how we lost the popularity contest.

                      I did talk to the cops. They encouraged me to let the matter drop. See the guy with the gun was a friend to many cops and politically well connected. Funny how you did not ask if anything could be done to prevent this guy from coming at me with a gun. Nor do you call him out for the irrational and dangerous act of putting a gun to my head. If this is America and there is nothing to worry about then why do you need a gun?If not for protection then why? Because you really like guns. Disable them then and hang them on the wall. If it is because you like things that go bang then consider maturing out of adolescence. This guy decided that his right to show off and frighten me with his weapon was more important than my right to not be murdered. And he was shielded from taking any responsibility for his reckless actions.

                      I fully understand reality. I too have visited other countries. But I visited other countries that lack our fetish for guns and gun violence. It is not that difficult to go from being a law abiding gun owner to a criminal. All it requires is a victim. An unarmed victim who is minding his own business. So the victim has to live with the consequences of somebodies else's choice.

                      Your guns do not protect you from tyranny. The armed forces are better armed than you are. I hear a lot of people talk about the consequences of confiscation. And that many would fight to keep there guns. Violence would ensue. So if the police and or the army come knocking on your door, knowing they outgun you what are you going to do. hand over the weapons or engage them in a fire fight. And if you are willing to do that to protect your gun rights would you use force to protect the rest of the constitution?

                      Things are not as rosy as you would like them to be. We are a nation that tortures people. We fight illegal wars of conquest. We violate all the treaties governing warfare. We spy on our own people. We are well on the way to tyranny right now. And the only thing you care about is your guns.

                      •  This is rich. (0+ / 0-)

                        Oh.  I get it.  You were dealing with a Frogger loving psychopath who has run of the whole damn town.  Sounds to me like you and your friend had bigger problems than a gun.  

                        I didn't ask because quite frankly, I don't believe you.  Your story was fishy from the get go and it's not getting any better.  I might be wrong.  If I am, then what's stopping your friend's room mate from acquiring a pistol illegally with the help of his friends on the force?  I mean come on, if you're going to pretend you live on the set of Hobo with a Shotgun, you might as well go full bore.

                        I didn't say I visited other countries.  I lived in other countries.  I was born in another country.  You know nothing of this experience, just as you know nothing of gun owners.  And again, what's up with your lunatic call for gun owners to go all Red Dawn?

                        You're full of it, and that's that.

        •  Are you not agreeing with her statement, or (0+ / 0-)

          saying she does not deserve a vote because of it?

          MA has very strict gun laws. Gun violence has been traced to guns bought in other states.

          I believe that a majority of citizens are not done with gun control laws. These citizens do have the lobbying(money)power of the NRA.

          The Association of Police Chiefs favor tougher gun legislation.

          My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

          by CuriousBoston on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:51:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  By all means, vote for Warren. (0+ / 0-)

            If for no other reason, her position on gun control is as inconsequential as it is stupid.

            Bay Staters would do better to strengthen firearm ownership.  National reciprocity is one way to finish undermining these last bastions of oppressive gun regulation.

            The IACP is an association of bureaucrats, and a political non-entity compared to the NRA.

            •  Then I am stupid, too. And the Police Chiefs and (0+ / 0-)

              Patrolmans' Associations in MA and across the nation. I believe you are saying that law enforcement is a non enitiy compared to NRA. I disagree. Does the NRA have more money, do a more effective lobbying job? Yes.

              We Baystaters would do better with the rest of New England, and New York, adopting our laws. There is nothing in those laws to prevent citizens from owning a resonable number of guns for protection. Or hunting. MA is hardly that "last bastion" of oppressive gun regulaltion.

              Concord. Lexington. Crispus Attacks. The Underground RailRoad. Same sex marriages.

              What speciffically about MA/Boston gun laws or regulations do you disagree with? How are they oppressive, comparing them to any state you choose?

              My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

              by CuriousBoston on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:53:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hardly. (0+ / 0-)

                I'm saying the IAPC and PA are not single issue organizations, and on the matter of gun control they are irrelevant.

                You're not going to see movement in your preferred direction on gun control.  Pick another strategy.

                •  My preferred direction is right where I want it (0+ / 0-)

                  in the state where I live. I can't do anything about other states. It is your opinion that those organizations are irrelevant, we will have to disagree on that.

                  My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

                  by CuriousBoston on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:53:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Reciprocity will change that. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    I can't say whether the courts will, of course.  I don't know what state you live in, and the level of scrutiny the courts choose to apply remains to be seen, but footnote 27 in the Heller opinion rules out "rational basis."

                    •  MA. I don't see reciprocity changing that. (0+ / 0-)

                      I wish to end this conversation, OK? I don't know what footnote 27 is, and frankly, do not care. Regina, marabout, and Ociyap are things I would like to pay attention to.

                      My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

                      by CuriousBoston on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 12:12:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Means I can carry in Massachusetts. (0+ / 0-)

                        Even without a permit, if I'm a resident of say AZ.  And footnote 27 in Heller essentially says that the state will have to, at minimum, show that a gun control law substantially furthers some legitimate state interest.  It may mean, upon further decision, that the Courts will adopt  strict scrutiny when considering challenges to gun control laws.  That is the state must have a compelling interest to enforce the law, that its enforcement is narrowly tailored to pursue that interest, and that said enforcement is the least intrusive measure available.

                        You can exit the conversation whenever you'd like.

  •  With NRA Long Ago Turned Up to 11 out of 10 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pale Jenova, Hohenzollern, Miggles

    there's no penalty for standing for sensible gun control. We've been weathering the attack ad cost of confiscating all the guns on the continent for 3 years now. Where do they go from that? Calling us poopy heads?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:36:28 PM PDT

  •  That'll play well in Arkansas (3+ / 0-)

    Oh wait - She's running in Massachusetts.

    Knock him dead, Professor Warren.

    I want a living planet, not just a living room.

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:52:51 PM PDT

  •  Gun culture is to "culture" as (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pale Jenova, Hohenzollern

    Prison-rape is to lovemaking?

    I want a living planet, not just a living room.

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:55:29 PM PDT

  •  It will only hurt her (4+ / 0-)

    with voters who wouldn't vote for her anyway.

    Sometimes . . . I feel . . . like a redneck with chopsticks . . . Dreaming of squirrel while I'm sucking down squid . . .

    by Pale Jenova on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:57:16 PM PDT

  •  Seems to me that a ban on all semi-auto weapons (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is the way to go. The reason is that they are so dangerous is because they are so high capacity and quick to reload. My guess is that this is a position that might not win a politician any votes, but it will not lose any either. This is a compromise that might actually do some good.

    Now, for putting any policy in place that involves taking guns away from people, we will face that nightmare when we are closer to the legislation.

    I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

    by shann on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:58:57 PM PDT

    •  Good luck with that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      If you feel that strongly about it, vote with your feet, come back to America, and volunteer to be on the team that goes door to door collecting them.

      "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

      by kestrel9000 on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 04:34:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is just my opinion. This is a problem for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        those of you resident in the USA to work out. Believe me, I am out of range of any and all of your guns, so whatever you do is just internet columns to me.

        Another beauty of outlawing semi-autos is that then there is no argument of subjectively having limits of 10, 20, or 30 bullets per clip - with no clips, no limits required.

        I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

        by shann on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:11:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  except that there's no research (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, theatre goon, kestrel9000

    to suggest it would make a difference ...

  •  i would hope, our President & Warren (0+ / 0-)

    will say they are just following Mittens lead

    Our president has his failings, but compared to Mitt Romney he is a paradigm of considered and compassionate thought.

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:56:37 PM PDT

  •  I'm very happy Warren is saying this (0+ / 0-)

    and she fully deserves credit (and yes, she is running for a Senate seat in Massachusetts so it's not likely to cost her much politically, but she still deserves plaudits nevertheless).  All those things said, I would be remiss if I did not point out that a number of Democratic politicians have actually been saying these kinds of things for many years, including some that aren't very popular here on Daily Kos (like Chuck Schumer).  

    While I'm sad about what happened in Colorado, I am pleased that at least here on Daily Kos, there is (finally!) consensus on gun control; I can't count how many anti-assault weapon and pro-background check diaries and comments I've seen (including this one, of course).  Yes, there will always be bitter-enders like Kestrel9000, but at last Daily Kos is beginning to reflect the reality that much of the US populace, and most liberals, support gun control.  

    Don't crash the gate--take back the keys.

    by lungfish on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 05:26:22 AM PDT

  •  Elizabeth Warren would make a great senator (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:30:51 AM PDT

  •  Love her. Gun owners know something needs to go (0+ / 0-)

    Reasonable, smart gun owners know there needs to be some changes to our gun laws.  It's just most have jobs, and families, and very little time to act like raging lunatics on the tee vee machine.    The NRA actually has bought and paid for most of our elected officials, NOT counting Elizabeth Warren, who I love.  

    Once the lunatics are not focused on by the news, and they start to talk to the educated, things could shift. Common Sense laws could be discussed, and implemented.

    It's going to take a Republican to do the right thing.  So far, I can't name one Republican that love this country more then what ever it is they are getting from the NRA, and that is a sad fact.   But I am going to look for that Republican that isn't looking to get re-elected so he can speak as an American looking out for our countries best interest.  

    All Republicans appear to be held hostage by the GOP or the NRA when it comes to talking about gun's and gun laws.  These aren't elected officials, these are bought and paid for shills.

    Democrat's are also guilty of this, but not 100% of them.

    " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 10:07:45 AM PDT

  •  Gun laws for living in a forest, or city ? (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, there really should be some consideration for gun laws when you take into consideration, living in a forest , or living in a city filled with gangs and murder.

    That should  not be difficult to discuss.  Unless, you are bought and paid for by the NRA.

    " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 10:09:42 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site