Email from the Senator-elect:
[W]hen I get to the Senate, I will sign onto Senator Feinstein’s bill to re-instate a ban on assault weapons and other commonsense gun control measures. …
Re-authorizing the assault weapons ban is a responsible first step that we can take now. Is that all we can do? Of course not. Is it a full solution that will stop all gun violence? No, but it is a start.
Senator Kerry has made the same commitment.
Good first steps, indeed, but our Senators should lead, not just follow Senator Feinstein and whoever else may happen to introduce “commonsense gun control measures.” What is the good of being one of the most prominent politicians in the country, or a stellar law professor, from the greatest state in the nation, if you can’t draft the best laws?
Military-grade technology like that used to massacre 20 six-year olds and their teachers should not be permitted in private hands. This technology is relatively new in our society, and its impact is now being felt. Anything less enables future atrocities, which will happen again without fundamental change.
No semi-automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, and blow-a-six-year-olds-head-off ammunition, no Newtown. Effective anti-massacre legislation in Australia and England is a powerful example. No fatalities in a Chinese madman’s knife attack on school children and their teacher last week underlines the point.
Brian McCrory was closer to the mark in his column today:
To start, we need a comprehensive national ban, free of loopholes, on the weapon of choice for massacres: the lightweight, semi-automatic assault rifle known as the AR-15. Ban the high capacity clips that feed them. Require background checks for all purchases, including at gun shows and in private transactions. Fund a national buyback.
The AR-15, however, is a symptom, not the disease. What needs to be banned is not any particular weapon but the military-grade technology used at Newtown: semi-automatic rifles and handguns, high-capacity magazines, and special ammunition.
A more constructive approach is the estimable Peter Porcupine’s suggestion on Red Mass Group for affirmative legalization of a limited number of weapons with everything else prohibited. Single shot rifles and shotguns, which are useful for hunting and effective for self-defense, are plenty. If that had been the law, there would likely be a lot of six year olds and their teachers at home with their families this Christmas instead of buried in tiny coffins.
Our fabulous national representatives should lead, not follow.
Leave a Reply
14 Comments on "Warren offers full support to assault weapons ban"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wading through the comments was tough to do – massive kudos to Simple J Malarkey for engaging those folks!
Wow, those comments are scary. I particularly liked this poster:
Yes, it’s obvious that our morals/religion are responsible for our troubles. Of course, a bit earlier in the thread, he wrote:
Hmm. If Jesus returned to earth, do you think he would be high-fiving the assault weapon owners?
No, I will not negotiate & surrender my right to keep & bear arms”
I can’t say the original source of that comment, but it sounds like a paraphrase of something the late Charlton Heston said as president of the NRA just before he died. He said it while holding an assault rifle aloft as if in salute to the cause.
It was a popular slogan in the NRA crowd even before they picked Heston as spokesman. I don’t recall seeing him say it while holding an assault rifle, but he said it a lot, so it’s possible. I do recall him saying it while waving a flintlock musket over his head – as if anyone was trying to ban those.
Speaking of muskets. As long as conservatives are fond of taking the words of the Constitution literally, without considering the time in which they were written, how about if we interpret the Second Amendment to mean that citizens can own what was available when it was written? We have the right to own muskets, black powder, lead ball, flintlock muskets. Everything else is subject to the whims of any laws we choose to enact.
I think this is worth printing:
This is Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution. This explicitly states that it is treason to levy war against the United States.
This should be repeated every single time someone suggests that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow people to rise up against (or defend themselves from) an oppressive government.
This line of thinking must be called out for what it is. People who believe in that are expressly advocating treason.
nor Kerry, nor Feinstein. At least, they shouldn’t be public leaders.
I want legislation passed which reduces the problem. Lots of ways to reduce the problem, and more than one bill could help. Thing is, I want them passed.
The fact of the matter is, fair or foul, the GOP has demonized California, Massachusetts, NYC, Chicago, and other deep blue areas. Ergo, the public leadership on this issue needs to come from folks like Senator Reid and Senator Manchin — senators who use guns, from states full of voters who love guns. It simply gives the proposal a better starting place, even for an identical proposal.
I want these things to pass, and if the public leaders are senators from California and Massachusetts, the optics are hard on senators from states with voters more favorable toward gun ownership. It’s harder for Manchin to vote for a Feinstein bill than for Feinstein to vote for the identical Manchin bill. So why not have Manchin lead the charge publicly?
Both our Senators, as well as whoever is next (and it appears increasingly likely there will be a next soon), have their niches. If Feinstein was first out of the gate on this one I see no problem with others jumping on board. In fact I would probably prefer that to multiple Senators all thinking they need to be leaders offering competing legislation just so they get their own names in the press.
This afternoon, the president announced that he is tasking Vice President Biden with coming up with a set of recommendations by January. This, IMHO, is very good news. Here are his opening remarks:
In January 2011, following an Arizona shooting that killed six people and injured US Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Brown offered more pointed opposition to federal gun restrictions, saying he was “not in favor of doing any additional federal regulations with regard to any type of weapons or federal gun changes.’’
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/27/brown_warren_mostly_divided_on_gun_control/?page=2
(Of course Brown’s statements are all over the map, but this one is clear and we should remember it.)
but little of it is politically workable, and most of it is ineffective.
Unlike Australia and the UK, we have an affirmative, constitutional right to bear arms, so all the talk about “banning” will instantly shut down any national conversation about “the problem,” however defined by app parties.
The tragedy in Newtown is a terrible thing. I was very deeply effected by it for many days, sick to my stomach. I cannot watch news about it on television. I never want to see this happen again.
I know BMG is a convenient megaphone for the progressive point of view, but on this issue, it’s a minority view.
1. Nobody is talking about banning guns.
2. That study you link shows that people think that banning semi-automatics would be effective, 64-34. That’s a majority view if I ever saw one.
However, Dems would do well to notice where Indies line up closer to the GOP respondents, and where the Indies line up closer to the Dems. That might be a big help on figuring out what part of increasing gun control can be perceived broadly as sensible and effective.
(1) Bob Neer is talking about banning. Australia and UK references are about banning, even retroactive banning, and gun prohibition.
(2) Right, I misread the “Somewhat” column. However, it’s fourth on the list of what people think would be effective. Except for restrictions on semi-autos, I think D/I/R opinion is pretty similar. (As for the mental health question, I think it is poorly worded. Many gun owners, even the NRA, are all for reporting in some fashion mental health problems to prevent gun/ammo purchase and access.)