I’m updating and re-titling this post in light of this appalling story in today’s Globe that reveals Scott Brown’s brave and heroic response to new questions about gun laws:
US Senator Scott Brown said Monday that it should be left up to lawmakers in individual states to decide whether to approve new bans on assault weapons.
The senator’s comments follow a shooting rampage in Colorado that left 12 people dead and 58 others injured at a midnight screening of “The Dark Knight Rises.”
The shootings also prompted supporters of tighter gun laws to renew their call for the reinstatement of a federal ban on 19 types of military-style assault weapons that expired in 2004.
Brown, a Republican, said such restrictions are better left to states.
“Scott Brown supports the state assault weapons ban here in Massachusetts, and believes that the states are the appropriate venue for making these types of decisions,” a spokeswoman for Brown said in a statement.
“Stupid” is a strong word, but it seems to fit pretty well here. If you don’t want an assault weapons ban, man up and make the case for why such a ban is a bad idea. But it’s almost uniquely pointless to advocate for state-level bans as a U.S. Senator. There used to be a federal ban on assault weapons, and it worked pretty well. Pressure from the worst special interest group in the country, the NRA, resulted in its lapsing. Brown is one of a handful of Senators who could actually do something about that. And it would seem to go without saying because it’s so blindingly obvious, but apparently Brown doesn’t get it so we’ll say it anyway: it’s trivially easy to move guns across state lines, so state-level bans are not likely to be effective, yet Brown makes no effort to explain why he thinks state governments are the proper venue for dealing with assault weapons.
Mayor Menino (along with many other big-city mayors) gets it. Here’s hoping Senator Brown watches this video. He might learn something.
lanugo says
There are many things frustrating about American politics, but at the top of the list has to be the complete block the gun lobby has on sensible checks on gun purchases. It defies all logic. It is disgusting.
Ryan says
1 person can go to some gun show in Georgia and buy 60 guns in one day, with no waiting period or background check, then go to Dorchester the next day and sell them all on the black market. There’s a huge problem with that.
Ditto high capacity magazines, with dozens or a hundred or more bullets in a single clip. If you look at all the biggest massacres in this country over the past 10 years, I’d stake money that each and every one of them had one thing in common: high-capacity magazines.
Getting rid of gun show loopholes, capping the amount of guns that can be purchased in a single month to about 3-5, banning assault weapons and eliminating high capacity magazines would save literally thousands of lives a year — without materially preventing anyone from buying guns and lots of them.
Anyone who opposes those very reasonable policy changes is, as far as I’m concerned, complicit in the 10,000 Americans a year who are murdered by guns.
demeter11 says
First, thank you Mr. Mayor. Maybe it’s time to consider endorsing a senate candidate, the one with the heart and the guts to do something about these horrors.
The glitch: From the story, “A spokeswoman for Brown’s Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren, said she supports reinstating the federal assault weapons ban, and also backs Massachusetts’ law.”
But the story also says that neither opponent has called for overhauling the nations guns laws.
Well, EW didn’t use these words but she still took a stand, one that will make her the target of NRA ire. And one that increases my respect for her.
kirth says
As you say.
danfromwaltham says
Has he filed a bill yet? Where is his leadership on the issue? All I hear are crickets from the White House.
David says
I wish he would. But the point of this post is that Mayor Menino makes a strong case for why a federal ban is needed; Elizabeth Warren agrees; and Scott Brown does not.
What do you think, Dan?
danfromwaltham says
I understand Brown tying to have it both ways, supports MA gun laws but wants the states to do what is best for them.
Very concerned, Bob, you don’t care that Obama, again, is failing to lead. What is he, the Queen of England? He is suppose to lead, that is his job. I won’t bother replying to Kirth, we have different standards of what leadership is all about.
My concern with the assault weapons ban is the Dems, like clockwork, would then file laws that would ban guns that could be modified into semi-automatic capabilities. Hence, I get impacted and and would have to rely on persuasion skills or my good looks to prevent me from being harmed by some crazy. Then they will change the meaning of assault weapons to include BB guns. Then only criminals will have guns.
Most on this board question the 2nd Amendment and don’t believe I can legally own, let alone, carry a firearm. I live in a state where it is illegal to light a sparkler on the 4th of July, why would I not expect pols in this state to take away my guns, if given the chance.
David says
I’m not saying I don’t wish things were otherwise. I do wish Obama would show some leadership on this issue, and you’re not wrong to call him out on it.
But this post is not about Obama or presidential politics. It’s about the Senate race, and about Mayor Menino, who could play a major role in it if he chose to do so. Glad you’re with us on this issue.
danfromwaltham says
Then the issue comes off the table in the senate race.
David says
Obama has little to do with what is important in a MA Senate race. That’s up to the candidates, local media, and most importantly MA voters.
danfromwaltham says
If there is a lack of enthusiasm for Obama and his margin of victory is less than 10 points, Warren will not be pulled across the finish line. I could be wrong.
Brown will just cloud his views with Obama’s, and the lack thereof. We all agree if Obama came out strongly supporting a ban, then that would help Warren. So the opposite is true, no?
David says
Overall, of course enthusiasm for Obama will help Warren in terms of turnout etc. But we were talking about one specific issues, and your previous comment seems to flatly say that if Obama chooses not to talk about assault weapons, then the MA candidates can’t turn it into an issue in the Senate race. To me, that makes no sense, and your last comment doesn’t shed any light on it.
danfromwaltham says
Then won’t Brown just say, the POTUS is in VA and WI and MN promising no changes to the federal gun laws, which is the exact same position as Brown. So you know what is next, Obama and Brown agree, yet on another issue and of course, will work together if both are elected. He will turn this on Warren and make her criticize Obama as well.
Now you have people not swarming to the polls to vote for Obama in the same numbers as in 2008, Brown will surely get his vote out, my guess approx. 1.3 million. Unless you think there is an anti-Romney vote, which there isn’t.
whosmindingdemint says
for big city mayors
kirth says
The list of guns that can be converted to fully-automatic is wholly populated by military weapons. The parts required for such a conversion are already illegal to own or manufacture, and carry the same penalties as owning or manufacturing a machine gun, and have done so for many years. “The Democrats” are not going to impact duhfromwaltham unless he is planning to tinker with a military weapon to make it into a machine gun. If it “impacts” him to be prevented from doing that, I am pleased.
danfromwaltham says
Or can I call you two Danny Davis, my favorite WWF referee back in the 80’s
kirth says
Duh
HR's Kevin says
The President can’t file a bill. That is 100% up to Congress. There isn’t much point for Obama to hand a bill to Congress that won’t even be debated in the House. The Congress is tightly in the grips of the NRA, and Obama knows that legislation is not going to go anywhere. Of course, you already knew that.
jconway says
1) Brown does not understand or care about public policy
I intend to apply to MPP programs soon and really feel its important that our lawmakers actually understand what policies work and do in the real world and how they help people. Senator Brown continues to show over and over again that he is tone deaf on whether policies work or not. Instead of having the debate about the policy differences between Romneycare, which he supported and Obamacare which he opposed (hint there are NONE) and how those policies have affected average people he toes the ignorant ‘states should do it, feds shouldnt’ line on every significant domestic policy issue which is a massive cop out for a Senator and a way to avoid specifics that he fundamentally does not understand or cares to understand. Same with gun control since *facepalm* guns cross state lines the feds should get involved.
2) The BS Moderate Stance
Brown is having it two ways by saying he is a Weld Republican at home at a Walker Republican on the federal level. He is NOT doing this because he is sincerely a moderate Republican libertarian federalist, if he were he would never have voted for the Blunt amendment or to get the federal government even more embroiled in the war on drugs. There is not enough consistency to defend that position. Instead he is Grover Norquists perfect Senator, someone who will vote ‘yea’ on whatever bills his money men tell him to and ‘nay’ on the ones they are against. When those bills he strikes down are very popular at home, he will then use the tried and true cop out ‘i support it in MA but oppose big government at the federal level’. His act is so obvious and its time Warren starts calling him out on the inconsistency.
dont-get-cute says
It’s funny you and David both seem to fault him for not being consistent to his Libertarian principles. David says he should man up and explain why he doesn’t want an assault ban, rather than explain why he likes the Massachusetts one, and you say he is NOT a sincerely moderate Republican libertarian federalist, horrors!
He’s apparently very worried about losing the wingnut 10th Amendment Ron Paul Libertarians, who just might stay home or vote for the Democrat if they think Brown is not fully on board with all their stupidity.
jconway says
I was charging even his libertarianism is inconsistent, it’s one thing to support big government at the state level and oppose it federally, Felux Frankfurter made a career of it. But even that us inconsistent and seeing how few votes Paul or Joe Jennedy got here I would argue its more to satisfy the Randian wet dreams of his financial suitors than anything voters in Massachusetts might actually want.
dont-get-cute says
Yeah, I forgot about the national donors, that explains it better. The libertarian voters he can count on probably, but he needs to blow the various Freeper and Libertarian dogwhistles to bring in donations from across the country.
Christopher says
The President has not led on this issue. He’s fallen back on the existing laws excuse. He can’t directly file legislation the way our Governor can, but I think it’s safe to say we know what Dan meant. The White House believes (probably rightly) that they couldn’t get anything through. With Wayne LaPierre insisting there is a secret plan to confiscate the guns despite abysmal ratings from the Brady Campaign, any strategy would have to involve taking more hits from the NRA in the short term and absolutely crushing them in the long term.
danfromwaltham says
Because it may not pass? How about showing some spine?
Get real, Obama is trying to win VA and NC. It’s all political, admit it and it is disgusting.
David says
about why Obama’s being reticent, since he surely would sign an assault weapons ban if it landed on his desk. Perhaps it would be churlish to point out that it’s no different from what Romney has been doing for months on virtually every issue. At least Obama showed some leadership on, for instance, gay marriage and immigration. He surely lost some votes in VA and NC over those issues. Whereas Romney, to my knowledge, has not shown leadership on anything since he started seriously running for president in 2005.
danfromwaltham says
600 vetoes while governor, $500 million on his last day in office. He is clearly leading on entitlement reform, telling me and you that the age we can collect will be older that what is allowed today. He ousted Billy Bulger. He brought MA which was 49th in the nation in job creation in 2002 to 28th in 2006, and he was part-time governor by then.
You say Mitt has been running for POTUS since 2005. He has been running since 1994 and I predicted then, when he won the Rep nomination, that he would possible be a future Prez. If unemployment goes up any further, I will be correct.
HR's Kevin says
In fact it highlights Mitt’s problem: all he knows how to do is to say “no”. We have yet to hear any real details from him on pretty much any policy. All we have gotten so far is platitudes and hand waving.
Christopher says
In fact I found myself once again rolling my eyes and just adding it to the list of things he doesn’t fight for.
danfromwaltham says
Two things, she will take questions from him but not Dan Rea? And she talked about big businesses not paying taxes to pay for roads and bridges. I ask again, what about Harvard University? They surely seem big business to me, why don’t they kick in a few bucks?
SomervilleTom says
Harvard does, in fact, pay taxes to both Cambridge and Boston under the “Payments in Lieu of taxes” (PILOT) program. This year, for example, published reports confirm that Harvard pays a significant amount (emphasis mine):
danfromwaltham says
$5 million in property taxes sounds okay to me. Now, can we get a pilot program so Harvard kicks in a little to the Federal Government? Do you agree if we are asking large corporations to pay more, or their fair share, as Warren states, then certainly Harvard can start paying too, no?
dont-get-cute says
And tax property locally.
Students should pay a 10% federal tax on their tuition, perhaps a progressive system, where the first 5K is exempt, and above 20K is taxed at 15%.
SomervilleTom says
Today’s students already bear a crushing financial burden. You would add to it. If anything, we should be moving in the opposite direction and making post-secondary education available to American as it currently is to most Europeans.
When our wealth concentration as measured by the GINI index is in the range of about 30 — comparable to Germany, Austria, Japan, Switzerland, France, Canada, and so on — then we can talk about middle-class tax increases. At the moment, we are in the company of nations like Senegal, Cambodia, Iran, and so on. Maybe you want to emulate their economies, I do not.
In any case, college tuition is about the last area that we should tax.
dont-get-cute says
And it is regressive, it keeps the rich rich and the poor poor and widens the gap, resulting in increased suffering and injustice.
I think we need a lot more public funding of education for skills and trades and agriculture and engineering and nature conservancy, and of primary education in the three R’s and history, etc.
DId you see the progressive ladder I proposed? The taxes that we would get from taxing expensive tuitions would come from rich people who have decided they can afford to spend $40,000 a year to get a diploma, and go to subsidizing the education of poor people attending pubic schools. There would be no tax on the first $5K of tuition a year.
SomervilleTom says
First, do you mean just “tuition” or do you mean “tuition and fees”?
Do you understand that $5K/year is NOTHING today?
More importantly, a college education is still the single best way for those at the very bottom of the socio-economic ladder to climb to the middle or top. College education narrows the gap, contrary to your assertion. You would make that college education even more expensive.
I strongly encourage you to inform yourself about how much college costs today. I think you’ll find that $40,000/year is nowhere NEAR the top.
dont-get-cute says
The idea of the tax brackets is to have the people that can afford the expensive schools (the rich) pay even more, on the theory that if they can afford that much they can probably pay even more, in order to subsidize public universities and vocational schools. The first 5K/year shouldn’t be taxed, but above that start taxing a little, but not as much as the richest schools.
dont-get-cute says
That’s a lot of money for people to invest in an education. It’s hard enough for people to have a cell phone and a place to live, so coming up with tuition for a public university or vocational school should be do-able. People shouldn’t have to take out giant loans or be indentured into social work programs in Alaska, right?
danfromwaltham says
Great link below, Harvard Univ. is Robin Hood in reverse. FYI, in 09, Harvard gave Boston $1.9 Million for property taxes. If they were to pay taxes on the full value do the real estate, it contribution would be 10X more. By paying zilch in federal taxes as their endowment swelled to over $37 billion at one point, is disgusting, to say the least, IMO.
http://rdwolff.com/content/harvards-finances-tale-two-countries
David says
If Harvard is a “pig” and a “tax cheat” because they take advantage of tax laws that benefit them, surely Mitt Romney is even worse. Because, as pointed out by somervilletom, Harvard actually pays *more* taxes than it is legally required to pay, via the PILOT program (which is entirely voluntary). Whereas Romney has proudly said that he pays not one dollar more than the law requires.
Who’s the pig and the tax cheat now?
danfromwaltham says
Just look at the assets and revenue generated at Harvard vs Mitt and his income. I am not against raising the tax rate on unearned income, but at the same time, private universities as filthy rich as Harvard, must pay something in federal taxes. And folks on this board need to mark their words when they call Mitt a tax evader or using nefarious methods of avoiding taxes by using “blockers” or things as such when there is a pig in Cambridge, when it comes to paying their fair share, simply make a mockery of the tax system.
HR's Kevin says
I can see an argument for why colleges should pay local taxes or make payments in lieu of taxes to compensate communities for the cost of public services, but I don’t understand why they should pay Federal Taxes or what exactly would be taxed. But the same argument could be made for any non-profit entity. I don’t see that you can suggest that Harvard should pay Federal taxes but not the Mormon Church or the NRA etc.
danfromwaltham says
How about 10% tax on tuition paid for by taxpayer backed student loans?
As far as taxing churches, if that is what it takes, go for it.
SomervilleTom says
Why do you hate education? Why do you hate religion?
You’re just grasping at straws.
danfromwaltham says
Ridiculous comment, unless you are joking, then it’s pretty funny.
whosmindingdemint says
taxing people making $20K or less?
dcsohl says
A tax cheat is, by definition, somebody who has violated the law. There’s absolutely no evidence Harvard has done anything of the sort.
Is the law enormously favorable to them? Yes. Should it be? I tend to agree with you that it shouldn’t be tilted quite so much in their favor, but don’t know how much it should be changed.
Are they tax cheats — that is, violating the enormously favorable law? Probably not. At least, no more so than Mitt Romney (and probably a good deal less).
danfromwaltham says
I feel like I’m banging my head on this issue, some just yell out “off topic” or “troll” when I bring it up.
I cringe when I see EW lament against “big businesses” not paying their fair share. All I see is a Harvard professor who worked for a wealthy university who pays nothing. I guess the saying is clean up your own backyard.
Appreciate the respectful post above (take notes Demintfan and kbusch)
waitiseesomething says
In the wake of gun-related tragedies, such as the recent shooting spree in Colorado, the pro-gun part of the population always comes to the same conclusion: had there been ‘just one more gun’ – in the hands of one of the victims – they would’ve been able to defend themselves, and stop the shooter.
It’s easy to deal in the theoretical, and simply say that more guns would’ve fixed the problem… because apparently ‘guns are just awesome like that.’ But let’s look at the facts of three well-known mass-shootings: the recent “Batman” shooting, 2011’s Gabby Giffords shooting, and the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.
The one thing that ties these three together is that they lasted only a matter of minutes, and yet many people were hit before the shooter could be stopped. If pro-gun advocates are so tied to the “one more gun” myth that they want it to be true, the reality is that high-capacity assault weapons must be banned.
Continued at my blog: http://waitiseesomething.com/2012/07/24/debunktion-junction-myth-of-1-more-gun/
David says
in the circumstances of what happened in Aurora – a crowded, darkened, smoky movie theatre, with the shooter wearing body armor. The likelihood that a patron carrying a weapon and using it would have harmed the shooter is low; the likelihood that he or she would have harmed another patron is much higher.
Christopher says
I believe I have heard that both at the Aurora and Tucson shootings there WAS in fact at least one law-abiding citizen who was also armed. Problem with the theory is that the one who fires first has a huge advantage.