NRA, Sugar-Daddy to the Democratic Party
Are we backing away from reenacting an assault weapons ban? In a recent Newsweek article two members of Obama’s cabinet seem to get shot down with regards to reenacting the assault weapons ban. First, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then, Attorney General Eric Holder.
Clinton said that reinstating the U.S. ban on assault weapons—which was passed in 1994 and expired in 2004—is one step this country could take to curb the flow of guns to Mexico’s drug cartels. “These military-style weapons don’t belong on anybody’s street,” Clinton told NBC. Within hours, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that he was unaware of “any plans” to push for such a ban—even though Obama had backed one during last year’s campaign.
Attorney General Eric Holder had a similar experience a few weeks earlier. After he endorsed a ban at a Feb. 25 press conference, Justice officials were instructed by White House aides to drop the issue, according to administration and congressional aides who asked not to be named due to political sensitivities.
The assault weapons ban (1994 to 2004) expired during the dubya years and Obama campaigned on the issue of supporting a ban on assault weapons. Recall this big announcement:
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
Where are we with this? We don’t need them on our streets. Assault weapons are for shooting people-no other reason to have them in your possession. I come from a hunting family. I understand owning sporting weapons. I understand the 2nd amendment. I’m sorry, but I don’t understand kow-towing to the NRA. Absolute power=absolute corruption. Here’s what LaPierreof the NRA had to say:
NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told NEWSWEEK that Hill Democrats have “learned their lesson” from 1994, when they enacted the ban and subsequently lost control of Congress. They’ve also learned that cozying up to the NRA can pay big dividends.
Last year Democrats received 20 percent of the nearly $1.2 million that the NRA pumped into congressional campaign coffers—more than twice what it gave to Dems just six years earlier. The way things are going, this could be more than a shotgun wedding.
I’ll ask the question that I’ve asked before-
Where’s the change that I believed in?…….
Related posts:
it is also worth noting that a certain progressive party tied to a union in the area has been pressuring state folks on gun control. their deal i suppose, but don’t unions have bigger issues at the moment?
Specifically what?
working families/uaw members. and i would like to stress members. but members are using their affiliation which could hurt the party overall.
Where’s the change? You mean like overturning the stem cell research ban, expanding SCHIP, announcing an end date to troops in Iraq, closing Guantanimo, passing a historic stimulus package, giving priority to alternative energy, ending the ban on aid to family planning organizations, working to eliminate tax loops for oil companies,supporting infrastructure work across the US, devoting substantial efforts to reforming health care, tripling the size of the Americorps project, addressing global warming, etc…. in the first 2 months of office. You’re striking me as being way too impatient and cherry picking certain issues to complain about. Criticize when it’s warranted, but please don’t imply blanket statements that nothing is being done/changed.
kudos andrea. we didn’t get into this mess overnight and we won’t get out of it overnight either. there are still a lot of political realities to deal with in dc. give the guy a break, it has been a pretty eventful couple of months.
Why should we have an assault weapons ban anyway? The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give people the ability to defend themselves from a government that is out of control. Given current conditions, the wisdom of the founding fathers is shining through.
When I ran for office last year, I was impressed with the gun rights people I met. Most of them were better informed on their issues and more thoughtful than other organized voter groups I encountered. They really challenged my thinking, and I came away questioning the value of gun control.
Much like the “war on drugs,” gun control is a long campaign which doesn’t seem to have borne much fruit. I don’t feel that gun violence has lessened over the last 45 years, do you? I wish I had a snappy answer for the dilemma in which we find ourselves. I want to see less violence, but I’m not certain that gun control will bring it about.
Yes, that was part of the original intent, and if ever there was a gov’t “out of control” it was that of GW Bush. But these days can you really imagine a group of disgruntled citizens grabbing their guns and marching on government offices and trying to claim that right? How fast do you think the National Guard would be called in to shut down those “nuts” and “terrorists”?
Assault weapons should be banned and gun control IS needed. I can’t understand the mind-set that says we should all adopt a paranoid victim mentality and go around packing to “protect ourselves.” A world of accidental shootings and shoot first, ask questions later is not safer and not one I care to live in.
good luck taking on the army with a hand gun or an assault rifle. if all you want a gun for is to ‘protect yourself from tyrany’, then i suggest you find a muzzle loader and watch out for that jerk king of england. otherwise welcome to the 21st century.
You have assault weapons laying around on your streets in New York? I’ll be there this weekend to pick some up. I’ll give them a good home in my gun cabinet.
I also like the line about “assault weapons” are for shooting people. The misnomer “assault weapons” aside, I’d imagine that the thousands of High Powered Rifle competitive shooters in the US, not to mention the millions who own them for recreational, defensive or small game and varmint hunting purposes, would beg to differ. I know that none of the several rifles I own that you would consider an “assault weapon” has ever shot anyone. All they’ve ever done is make holes in pieces of paper at the range. Are they defective?
As far as your hunting heritage: congratulations; you are a member of a family that slaughters innocent animals for sport (not that there’s anything wrong with that). And somehow that grants you the power to determine that, since I don’t hunt, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to me? Interesting. Could you please point out the section of the Second Amendment that restricts the keeping and bearing of arms to hunters? I can’t find it. Heck, I can’t find any reference to hunting at all. Help me out here.
And finally, regarding Mr. Obrien’s comment: There are two problems with such a simplistic view: We the people don’t have to win an open battle against the government…we only have to have the means available to make any attempted usurpation potentially too painful to contemplate. That’s called “deterrent”. As long as the deterrent exists, we (most likely) will never have to use it.
Secondly…as a 21 year retired military vet, I can say unequivocally that at least half (hopefully all, but that’s probably overly optimistic) of the armed forces would be on our side in the battle. You see, the oath that we take is not to the government. It’s not to the President. It’s not to the congress. It’s to the Constitution of the United States. And we swear to defend it from All enemies, both foreign and domestic.
What’s really important is: I don’t remember ever being released from that oath. As such, I…and many others…intend to honor it to our last breath if the need arises.
As far as your question: Where’s the change? That just makes me shake my head in wonder at the naivete of some people. You were sold a bill of goods my friend. Get used to the idea because it’s going to be a long four years.
Then there is Binghampton…
…and in Greece early this morning:
“Greece Police: 1 dead after man confronts group he believed were intruders”
Chad Roberts • Overnight Editor • April 4, 2009
Wow.
You can’t even wait until the funerals are over before happily exploiting the tragedy to score cheap political points?
But, since you brought it up…your “point” demands a response.
Another person…as in many mass murders…in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country…blockaded victims into a building so that they had no hope of escape and then methodically executed them before killing himself.
No “assault weapon” was required and he could have accomplished his goal just as easily (and possibly with a higher casualty count) with gasoline and matches.
Yet had any of his potential victims been armed (or, preferably, several), the attack MAY have been stopped with minimal loss of life.
Yet you insist that this incident demonstrates the need to further restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens? Your attempted exploitation falls flat.
With that said…my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families…which is all we should be worrying about at the moment.
To Senator Shamrock and to all,
My name is Eric Martin and I chair the Working Families Party for this area and I am that UAW member you refer to. It is interesting to see how angry people are now at me for “coming out of the closet” about my pro-gun attitude and now I am going to “hurt the party”? I have helped to endorse, support, and get elected many people in this area because they are pro labor, jobs, union, etc. Tried to do what is right for the person who busts their ass for minimal wages. But now I’M A PROBLEM because I brought to light some Assembly bills that would enrage people if you looked them up.
I am not willing to submit my weapons to the NYS police for ballistic fingerprinting (that system has only worked in one case), and I’m supposed to believe that they will be returned promptly? Right……Try to sell that one to the Austrailian gun owners. They have a story that will open your eyes. AND I already went through backround an BATF checks whwn I bought them….why again? There is plenty more that is being proposed and these HAVE NOT BEEN VOTED ON YET. BUT you should all be aware of what is going on while the majority of the public is loosing their jobs and the economy is going down the drain. There are more important things to worry about right now. BUT I am watching. I will speak up. I will use my voice…….because without the second amendment the country would be AMERIKA!!
This issue is not a part of our endorsement questioning. I invite anyone…..Dems or Republicans to interview with us. Even Senator Ro…….I mean Shamrock has to admit we are thorough and fair. Our chapter is full of many smart, diverse people who have a lot of influence and voice in this community. These folks donate a lot of time from their families to do the right thing. It is unfortunate the so many pro labor people have this quiet agenda against the second amendment. i will work to find some common ground between jobs and paychecks and the bettering of our community AND a topic that I am passionate about. Thanks to everyone who do use their voice…….wheather I agree or not………many people died for that right. I’m sure I will hear more about this and look forward to more talk. ERIC J. MARTIN
Eric, I’ve known you for over a year and proudly carried the WFP endorsement,yet I had no had no idea you are personally “pro-gun.” I don’t remember gun issues in the WFP questionnaire or interview. This validates your point that this is not part of the WFP platform, and further that the party is home to people with a wide range of views beyond the progressive economic values upon which the party is based. Also, your well-written comments reinforce MY point, that Second Amendment advocates are, generally, thoughtful and well versed on their issues. Dave Garretson
Dave,
Thank you for telling the truth about our history together. I hope others will state the same.
Everyone here is entitled to their opinion and we have opinions as varied as we have readers.
Gun laws are but a single aspect of our society and like all single issues need to be viewed as part of the entire system. Re Guns. What is the answer? Total banning? No rules whatsoever? the answer is in between.
This post was about Federal laws and that President Obama appeared to be backing away from reinstating the ban on assault weapons. It morphed into discussion of state laws and comments about the WFP which have since been corrected.
All this conversation happened in the shadow of Binghamton where some guy walked into to building and killed 13 people and Greece where a citizen confronts 3 teens at a neighbors house and kills one.
This is a very complex issue one size fits all doesn’t work but we need something
Continue the discussion on this passionate topic, stay away from personal attacks on the commenters, assuming who particular commenters are, and putting in commenters mouths.
[...] lamented yesterday that we’re not doing more to curb people’s ability to do this kind of gun [...]
Do you know what was banned under the expired Assault Weapon ban? I don’t ask that to be snarky, but because an awful lot of people don’t actually know, and think what was banned as an assault weapon is somehow similar to an assault rifle.
The only meaningful functional feature that the ban covered was standard capacity magazines for many guns, those holding over 10 rounds. Everything else was an example of how similar “assault weapons” are to ordinary guns. Were bayonets really a problem? Is it a problem if my rifle can be adjusted in size to fit both me and my wife? Why does it matter where the magazine on a pistol is located?
These are all features covered under the ban.
Our elected officials don’t even know about the laws they propose–do a Google search for “shoulder thing that goes up” to see Carolyn McCarthy’s answer to “what is a barrel shroud”
Basically the 94 ban was for “guns that look scary”.
And the 2nd Amendment was written with a flintlock musket in mind. I agree with Stlo7. The answer lies somewhere in between. What I am really saying here is, If we campaign on an issue, we carry through with that campaign promise and do not allow ourselves to be bought and sold by the NRA, or big pharma, or the oil companies, or the chemical industry, etc, etc, etc…..
the 2nd Amendment was written with a flintlock musket in mind.
The first amendment wasn’t written with modern communication or transportation in mind-The founders certainly didn’t foresee ordinary people being able to publish and communicate so quickly and easily. Therefore, the only media that is protected is hand-set type, the Internet isn’t what they had in mind at all. speech is only protected if you are in the actual presence of the person you are talking to. Freedom of assembly certainly didn’t account for people traveling to demonstrations hundreds of miles from home…
[...] I’m not so sure that threat exists. [...]