The message is clear, and it’s one that most lawmakers seem to have absorbed: Not only is access to guns irrelevant to this discussion; bringing it up would be downright insensitive.
USA Today's Joel Pett sums it up:
Can't even consider how Loughner got a handgun, and extended magazine or two, and ammo. Congress is only tinkering around the margins at best.
The signal piece of gun legislation to come out of the Arizona shooting looks to be a bill that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) plans to bring up as soon as this week. It would ban the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines such as the one Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s would-be assassin, Jared Lee Loughner, attached to his Glock 19, allowing him to fire off 33 bullets without reloading, rather than the 10 or so in a typical clip.
“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly,” Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who plans to introduce McCarthy’s legislation in the Senate, said in a statement. “These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market.”
But McCarthy and Lautenberg are up against a political consensus that has only hardened in recent years as Democrats made inroads into Republican territory largely on their ability to neutralize the gun issue. Some of their red-state victories were with pro-gun candidates such as Montana Sen. Jon Tester and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb.
“The battle over gun control is over in the sense that it’s decided that you’re allowed to have guns in this country,” former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a pro-gun Democrat elected governor of Vermont with the endorsement of the NRA, told POLITICO in an interview.
What needs to be reopened, he said, is a debate on “common sense” measures such as whether people can buy weapons without background checks at gun shows, where and how firearms can be carried, and bans on certain types of weaponry.
He pointed to recent initiatives, such as New Hampshire’s party-line vote to allow guns to be carried in the halls of the state Legislature, as extreme measures that may provoke a backlash. “I come from a hunting state. Vermonters are very practical,” he said. “Last time I checked, there were no deer in the New Hampshire statehouse.”
Gun-control advocates hope that, because one of its own has become a victim, Congress will see things differently. But with a new, solidly pro-gun Republican majority in the House and a Senate stocked with red-state Democrats up for reelection, there are few indications of widespread conversion on the issue.
And so it goes. Not even a law banning extended magazines has any chance of passage, even after the attempted assassination of a Congresswoman and six dead around her. It's a question that won't even be asked anymore as we wonder why and how this tragedy occurred.
Not even one of Saturday's heroes will be heeded.
This evening on the Situation Room, Blitzer had on retired Army Colonel Bill Badger, in order to tell the story of his part in the takedown of Jared Loughner. I can't find any video of it, but Badger's composure and recall of detail in retelling the story makes the segment worthwhile on its own. As the interview is wrapping up, the Colonel makes use of his brief moment of fame to actually try and make something good come out of this travesty:
BLITZER: Colonel, do you own or carry a gun?
BADGER: No.
I have got a 21-year-old son. And when he was born, my wife made me get rid of .38. I had one up until that time.
But, you know, if I could say something right now, that something is drastically wrong with what's going on in our United States right now. And when an individual is turned down to get into the military and then can be -- is able to go out and buy a .9-millimeter Glock pistol, and he had one of the -- or his clips were the extended clips that were limited to law enforcement only, and, you know, that -- or somebody has to put a stop to that.
But we won't even ask.
Posts
24 comments:
I will reiterate what I said in a previous thread.
Pima County Sheriff Dupnik knows his office has had run ins with Loughner before (here and here). Apparently, Loughner made death threats against someone, not Giffords, and Dupnik admits he knew about it. And yet all he's done is blame the same people you blame. While I'm not ready to say Dupnik is irresponsible in the performance of his job as a crime preventer, this is troubling. What it also means is that it's possible that the inaction of Sheriff Dupnik allowed Loughner's record to remain clean, which allowed him to legally purchase a gun.
But that isn't mentioned anywhere here.
Dupnik has made it a point to appear on as many news shows as possible trying to implicitly indict those he has determined use "violent rhetoric". Dupnik is also a liberal Democrat. I am reminded of another recent liberal Democrat who used innuendo as "evidence" and spent a lot of time talking with the media about how guilty those he was prosecuting were. That liberal Democrat was Mike Nifong of the Duke (Non-)Rape Case. Another was liberal Democrat was Jim Garrison, the "hero" of Oliver Stone's completely fictional JFK; Garrison was an asshole and very stupid.
Speaking of the JFK assassination, and as I also mentioned in the previous thread, Media Matters' Eric Boehlert continues to blame the right for the JFK murder, despite nearly 50 years of evidence proving otherwise.
I guess liberals never learn.
Not even a law banning extended magazines has any chance of passage, even after the attempted assassination of a Congresswoman and six dead around her. It's a question that won't even be asked anymore as we wonder why and how this tragedy occurred.
That's right. Because it isn't relevant.
Not even one of Saturday's heroes will be heeded.
With respect to Col. Badger, I don't believe he is a lawyer or has knowledge of the law he is mentioning. I have no doubt that Blitzer doesn't know what he's talking about. Bob Owens links to the now-expired law, listing in his post the relevant sections of that law as it existed. Bottom line, neither the weapon or magazine used in the killings were ever banned.
I see people asking about Jared Lee Loughner's politics, his state of mental well-being, his philosophy on life, his history growing up as child, his words and his Youtube videos, but the question I don't see people ask is "How did Jared Lee Loughner get a handgun with an extended magazine?"
That's because it's the wrong question. The right one is, what did Sheriff Dupnik know and when did he know it?
Loughner was only stopped while he reloaded.
If he had only 10 rounds to fire instead of 33, and was stopped when he reloaded, how many people would still be alive right now?
It is extremely relevant. But you don't care about facts, only your ideology.
This is pretty low even for your standard of trolling bullshit.
It is extremely relevant. But you don't care about facts, only your ideology.
Again, it is not relevant. And to paraphrase you from a previous thread, it's settled law.
If he had only 10 rounds to fire instead of 33, and was stopped when he reloaded, how many people would still be alive right now?
He still could have killed six people with a six-shot revolver or kill and hurt nearly as many people with an 8-shot pump-action shotgun. The weapon is immaterial.
SteveAR:
Is your position really that "if it is theoretically possible to kill as many people with a 6 round revolver as with a 30+ round semi-automatic then these weapons are equivalent"?
That is bafflingly stupid. I doubt you're really that dumb, so I'm left agreeing with the above that you're just a blind ideologue.
He might have killed 6 people with a musket if he was really good at reloading powder and everyone stayed real still, would that make a musket equally lethal to a glock?
Are you also saying if you were heading into combat and could have a 6 shot revolver or a 30 round glock, you'd pick the revolver?
Not even the police agree with you which is why almost all police now carry the semi-automatics rather than the old revolvers. So does the US military which moved from the 20 round magazines in the M-16 circa vietnam to today's 30 round magazine.
A pretty good example of the irrationality of gun rights defenders. You can still oppose restrictions on magazines but at least acknowledge they could have prevented deaths in these situations of mass murder.
Is your position really that "if it is theoretically possible to kill as many people with a 6 round revolver as with a 30+ round semi-automatic then these weapons are equivalent"?
Nope. My point is, it doesn't matter what kind of gun is used in the killing; gun control advocates will politicize any gun used for any crime, whether it's a six-gun, a shotgun, an assault rifle, or a .9mm Glock with a 33-round extended clip.
Think I'm kidding? The politicians running Chicago, and I believe other cities as well, do their best to demonize guns for the criminal activity that goes on there instead of the criminals. They make it a point every so often to get people to turn in legally purchased firearms because those politicians say reducing the number of guns reduces crime, a theory that has no merit whatsoever. Especially in Chicago, as the crime rate, especially gun crimes, goes up regularly. So even though this is happening, and there are less legally owned guns on the streets, then it's obvious the city continually pursues a failed policy. Yet, the city never admits it, and goes on with that policy, which then leaves only the police and the bad guys with guns, and the rest of the people having to rely only on the police for protection, and there ain't enough cops.
You can still oppose restrictions on magazines but at least acknowledge they could have prevented deaths in these situations of mass murder.
Take a look at my first comment on this thread. It isn't as if Sheriff Dupnik didn't know who Loughner was. Could Dupnik have done more that might have prevented Loughner from legally purchasing his weapon and then using it in his crime? The facts aren't in yet. But it is the relevant question. Unfortunately, it's the one question liberals aren't asking.
We've had our disagreements, I'm going to have to go with SteveAR on this one.
“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly,” Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who plans to introduce McCarthy’s legislation in the Senate, said in a statement. “These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market.”
The only reason? No. Sure, it's one of the reasons. But it's not the only reason. Perhaps you're a competitive shooter, and having to stop to reload gives you a professional disadvantage. Perhaps you are as perfectly sane as any human being can be, and you simply choose to have a high capacity magazine for your handgun. Perhaps you find them aesthetically appealing.
Perhaps, as a law abiding citizen, you plan to use your handgun for self defense. A substantial number of the members of - for example - Glock Talk are of the opinion that a higher capacity magazine is better for those purposes. Given that a large number of the members of that forum are military and police, it seems as if they may have some expertise in the matter.
The simple fact of the matter is that, when a politician starts spouting "the only reason..." rhetoric while proposing to criminalize something, he (or she) is attempting to "poison the well" against his (or her) opposition before the opposition gets a chance to speak.
Not even a law banning extended magazines has any chance of passage, even after the attempted assassination of a Congresswoman and six dead around her. It's a question that won't even be asked anymore as we wonder why and how this tragedy occurred.
I'm glad it has no chance of being passed. I'm always glad when the attempt to criminalize a legal product for being unpopular fails. I'm always glad when the attempt of a politician to capitalize on a tragedy fails.
And the question is being asked. It's being asked by people who, for personal or political gain, are willing take advantage of tragedy to punish and criminalize law-abiding behavior.
It was reprehensible when it was used to pass the USA PATRIOT Act. It was reprehensible when it was used to all but criminalize Sudafed. And it is reprehensible now.
Which is an argument I can respect.
I don't agree with it, but it's intellectually consistent rather than ideologically driven.
SteveAR raises a valid question about Sheriff Dupnik and his personal culpability for what transpired last weekend.
I'm not he, but I think he would respond to that point something like this:
Yes, I do blame myself. Anytime innocent citizens in my jurisdiction fall victim to senseless violence, I take it as a failure of law enforcement.
My department has, for years, coordinated with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to deal with threats against elected officials and judges in my jurisdiction. My officers have responded to the scene when Rep. Giffords' office has been vandalized, and when someone carrying a gun at another of her events dropped it. I worked with the FBI to coordinate the protection of Judge Roll when he was targeted by local right wing hate radio. I saw the vivid and direct relationship between the vitriol directed at the judge and the resulting death threats.
It's a terrible failure of our systems that multiple individuals who interacted with Mr. Loughner and had concerns about his mental health never resulted in any kind of intervention that might have made a difference.
I accept responsibility for my department's role in that, and I look forward to finding ways that we can better share information and take more proactive approaches to persons with mental illness who begin exhibiting signs of threat to others.
And right now, the fact that I knew two of these people closely and personally, and one of them is dead and the other has a bullet hole in her head, makes me uniquely qualified to say, hate speech from the right kills.
You were doing fine until the last sentence, asshole.
It's always about blaming the right, isn't it?
But that is just the norm for liberals. It's always someone else's fault.
Liberals assign blame. Blame the right. Blame talk radio. Blame the Tea Party. Blame the Republicans. Blame the corporations. Blame Bush. Blame Cheney. Blame the banks. Blame guns. Blame the media. Always, always someone else's fault with a liberal.
Conservatives accept responsibility.
Allow me to correct your last paragraph, Allen.
"And right now, the fact that I knew two of these people closely and personally, and one of them is dead and the other has a bullet hole in her head, makes me uniquely qualified to say that I need to do my job as Sheriff of Pima County to have my office complete their investigation so that the facts fully come out so that Mr. Loughner can face a fair trial for the horrendous crimes he is accused of. In no way will I do or say anything that will prevent this from occurring, especially interjecting opinions that aren't based on those facts."
There. That's what he should say.
"Conservatives accept responsibility."
Thank you. All I wanted was for you to admit that you are responsible for the murder of a nine year old child.
I appreciate you accepting responsibility for that.
"You were doing fine until the last sentence, asshole."
This is also a tacit agreement with my statement that there was a direct link between the hate rhetoric on Tucson radio and the death threats against a federal judge.
Thanks for accepting repsonsibility for that as well.
Allan,
All I wanted was for you to admit that you are responsible for the murder of a nine year old child.
And you've just admitted guilt to committing libel. Good job, shit-for-brains.
Will you trolls be suing me for libelling your anonymous identities before or after you get Zandar fired?
Oh, I wouldn't sue you (can't squeeze blood from a turnip), and I never said I wanted to see Zandar fired. I'll just know that you aren't a rational person.
There's also that pesky little problem of standing.
I take it back, Allan. It's not that you're not a rational person. It's that you're a hyper-partisan hack.
I'm pleased to accept your retraction, and even the modifying "hyper-partisan," but your imaginary lawyers will be hearing from mine about the "hack."
And you've just admitted guilt to committing libel.
I see that, like all trolls, you have a firm grasp on the law. It's shocking to me that you haven't been picked up by a major firm by now.
It's shocking to me that you haven't been picked up by a major firm by now.
It's amazing I wasn't picked by Obama to be on the Supreme Court (I could complain about Bush not doing so either, but he put two good people on the Court). Here that President Obama? I'm waiting (but I'm not holding my breath).
Don't you have some homework to do, Steve? Your parents will be very upset if you bring home another D in civics.
Keep up the good work, Zandar!
Fortunately, the Left took control of this narrative almost immediately, and now Conservatives are backed into a position where they have to criticize law enforcement officials and defend the right of crazy people to kill strangers with combat-modified sidearms, just because Obama used "guns" and "knives" in the same sentence. As an added bonus, Palin's whole "Grizzly Mama" shtick now looks increasingly like Travis Bickle talking to his mirror and shaving his head with a straight razor. At this point, her "wholesome" image has become so creepily inverted she would lose the Presidency to Son of Sam.
I spent the day listening to Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity, and you can tell in their voices they know they can't dodge their public record of lies and incitement, and that the shadow of the electric chair is falling heavy upon them. It's only a matter of time now before one of them freaks out and turns on the others -- probably Beck, because he is mentally weak and emotionally incapable of coping with "hard time" in a Supermax facility.
@Allan -- Don't worry about the libel thing. I know a great anonymous attorney who'd be willing to fight your case all the way to the Anonymous Supreme Court, if necessary.
Bwa-ha-ha, etc. Yrs, Strange
"here that" = steveAR really is an idiot.
Post a Comment