Must read article (Tom Coburn debate)
- Thread starter StealthESW
- Start date
Grant
Well-Known Fanatic
The second amendment is not up for debate. So sick and tired of watching the "elite" decide what is and is not good for us. Vote them all out and start over!
Josh Beauchamp
Well-Known Fanatic
I used to have confidence in the elected officials in Oklahoma. I am really starting to think it is time for Coburn to retire.
Jackary
Well-Known Fanatic
Here is the reply I received from Senator Coburn regarding gun control.
[SIZE=11pt]Dear Mr. Thompson,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Thank you for taking the time to write me to express your opinion and concerns about the various gun control proposals. I am encouraged so many Oklahomans are making their voices heard. I have received an overwhelming number of letters, and in order to respond in a timely manner, I am writing a response that encompasses my entire position. If you have additional questions or concerns, please write me again. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] I want to be clear: I remain committed to defending and protecting our Constitution; namely the Second Amendment. I have long protected the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. I am opposed to a ban on assault rifles and I oppose limiting magazines. I will not vote for any bill that limits the gun rights of law abiding citizens. While I support a debate in the Senate on gun related issuesâ€"including reaffirming these rights and forcing gun-control advocates to have their votes on record and be held accountable for their votesâ€"I will not only support, but lead a filibuster to prevent the passage of any bill that limits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]The news reports are correct that I have been involved in discussions to write legislation improving the existing background checks to enable private citizens to check a database and ensure the person they seek to sell their gun to is legally allowed to own a firearm. I believe it is good public policy to make sure that those who are mentally-ill or a felon (both are already prohibited from owning a gun), do not have access to a weapon. However, I oppose record keeping and will not agree to legislation that expands record keeping to private sales.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]The concern I am hearing over and over is not just about people maintaining their right to own firearmsâ€"it is a concern about how to preserve liberty. When our Constitution was adopted, we had just won a war fought largely by Minute Men and localized, or unofficial, militias (Sons of Liberty, etc). The first shots fired at Concord were, in part, to preserve a local supply of firearms that the British sought to confiscate. Our founders believed very strongly that the individual right to bear arms would preserve the independence and freedom won in 1781, just as they had enabled our founders to win the revolutionary war. They feared tyranny and centralized powerâ€"which is why our Constitution was established. In addition to the checks created by balancing power between a legislature and executiveâ€"and checked by a judiciaryâ€"the Bill of Rights sought to limit the federal government and clearly stated that those powers not enumerated in the Constitution and delegated to the federal government would remain with the states and the people (the 9th and 10th Amendments). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Yet, our federal government regularly legislates on matters that belong to the states and the people. Our freedoms are being gradually encroached and choked by ever-increasing regulations, laws, agencies, and overspending. This concerns me greatly and I fight daily to rein in the size, scope and spending of our federal government. I believe the greatest threat to our Republic is apathy as our overindulgent federal government, through indebtedness, spends the money of future generations. James Madison, the architect of our Constitution, said something similar in 1788 in a speech in Virginia when he said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.†[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]I am aware of this and I work to push back on all attacks to our Constitution, including those to our Second Amendment. Congress must be careful not to legislate in a way that makes criminals out of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Thank you for being involved and allowing me these last eight years to fight to protect our Constitution. I daily think about the sacrifices of past generations and I am grateful. In these last four years, as I finish out my second term, I remain committed to protecting your Second Amendment rights and working to limit our federal government and reduce federal spending. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Sincerely, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Tom A. Coburn, M.D.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]United States Senator[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Dear Mr. Thompson,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Thank you for taking the time to write me to express your opinion and concerns about the various gun control proposals. I am encouraged so many Oklahomans are making their voices heard. I have received an overwhelming number of letters, and in order to respond in a timely manner, I am writing a response that encompasses my entire position. If you have additional questions or concerns, please write me again. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] I want to be clear: I remain committed to defending and protecting our Constitution; namely the Second Amendment. I have long protected the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. I am opposed to a ban on assault rifles and I oppose limiting magazines. I will not vote for any bill that limits the gun rights of law abiding citizens. While I support a debate in the Senate on gun related issuesâ€"including reaffirming these rights and forcing gun-control advocates to have their votes on record and be held accountable for their votesâ€"I will not only support, but lead a filibuster to prevent the passage of any bill that limits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]The news reports are correct that I have been involved in discussions to write legislation improving the existing background checks to enable private citizens to check a database and ensure the person they seek to sell their gun to is legally allowed to own a firearm. I believe it is good public policy to make sure that those who are mentally-ill or a felon (both are already prohibited from owning a gun), do not have access to a weapon. However, I oppose record keeping and will not agree to legislation that expands record keeping to private sales.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]The concern I am hearing over and over is not just about people maintaining their right to own firearmsâ€"it is a concern about how to preserve liberty. When our Constitution was adopted, we had just won a war fought largely by Minute Men and localized, or unofficial, militias (Sons of Liberty, etc). The first shots fired at Concord were, in part, to preserve a local supply of firearms that the British sought to confiscate. Our founders believed very strongly that the individual right to bear arms would preserve the independence and freedom won in 1781, just as they had enabled our founders to win the revolutionary war. They feared tyranny and centralized powerâ€"which is why our Constitution was established. In addition to the checks created by balancing power between a legislature and executiveâ€"and checked by a judiciaryâ€"the Bill of Rights sought to limit the federal government and clearly stated that those powers not enumerated in the Constitution and delegated to the federal government would remain with the states and the people (the 9th and 10th Amendments). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Yet, our federal government regularly legislates on matters that belong to the states and the people. Our freedoms are being gradually encroached and choked by ever-increasing regulations, laws, agencies, and overspending. This concerns me greatly and I fight daily to rein in the size, scope and spending of our federal government. I believe the greatest threat to our Republic is apathy as our overindulgent federal government, through indebtedness, spends the money of future generations. James Madison, the architect of our Constitution, said something similar in 1788 in a speech in Virginia when he said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.†[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]I am aware of this and I work to push back on all attacks to our Constitution, including those to our Second Amendment. Congress must be careful not to legislate in a way that makes criminals out of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Thank you for being involved and allowing me these last eight years to fight to protect our Constitution. I daily think about the sacrifices of past generations and I am grateful. In these last four years, as I finish out my second term, I remain committed to protecting your Second Amendment rights and working to limit our federal government and reduce federal spending. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Sincerely, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Tom A. Coburn, M.D.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]United States Senator[/SIZE]
Jack T.
Active Fanatic
He's not running again. . .said all along he wouldn't. So he's kinda a lame duck.Josh Beauchamp said:
dennishoddy
Moderator
The way I read that, as well as other information outside that article is that Harry Reid wants it to just come to a vote. No debate, nothing. Coburn and others are trying to block this, and want it brought to a debate in the Senate so everybody can see just who is standing beside the 2nd Ammendment, and who isn't.
Harry Reid knows its not going to pass, and doesn't want any political fallout to cause the dems to loose any seats in the senate with the upcoming elections.
If it goes to a simple vote, people forget quickly, and really don't see the big picture of why that person voted the way they did. The image of a gun grabber making stupid statements on CSPAN, and later youTube, is burned into our brains.
There are more compelling truths to retaining the 2nd Ammendment, than there are in the half-truths spewed by those attempting to limit it.
I agree, bring on the debate.
Harry Reid knows its not going to pass, and doesn't want any political fallout to cause the dems to loose any seats in the senate with the upcoming elections.
If it goes to a simple vote, people forget quickly, and really don't see the big picture of why that person voted the way they did. The image of a gun grabber making stupid statements on CSPAN, and later youTube, is burned into our brains.
There are more compelling truths to retaining the 2nd Ammendment, than there are in the half-truths spewed by those attempting to limit it.
I agree, bring on the debate.
Jackary
Well-Known Fanatic
^^^^^^ This is what I took from it as well
and I believe this should be debated that way it is clear where everyone stands and hopefully some of those that blatantly disregard the constitution will be voted out
and I believe this should be debated that way it is clear where everyone stands and hopefully some of those that blatantly disregard the constitution will be voted out
scubor2
S.L.C.G.A.
If I'm not mistaken Tom Coburn has always been about limiting terms of Senators and has placed a self imposed term limit on himself. Therefore he is not running again. I too think he is wanting to let voters know what their elected officials are doing on 2nd ammendment rights. One as a deterrent of them voting unwisely and 2 to get their asses voted out next term for not heeding the rights of their constituients. Of course some states are so flakey they support the infringement on their liberties.
Josh Beauchamp
Well-Known Fanatic
Perhaps I am just being overly sensitive. I have strongly held beliefs about firearms as I am sure most everyone else on here does as well. However, here lately people I know well and some I consider friends seem more interested in attacking me and my beliefs than having a calm and rational debate. I am all for listening to and participating in a good debate but I tend to shut down and pull back when the debate turns hostile.
threegungeezer
Well-Known Fanatic
I believe there several things at work here. First, is some have an irrational fear of guns that borders on a phobia. The mere thought of a gun just scares the bejeezes out of them and it is hard to act rationally when you a scared. The second is reason is Transference. They know that they themselves can not be trusted with a firearm, so they therefore assume that no one can be and hence are afraid of and demonize anyone who owns firearms. I believe it is the fear aspect that precludes the rational and thoughtful debate on this issue. Now, this is among the populace, I believe that the power brokers can't discuss the issue rationally because they know that they are arguing a false premise and strictly want to limit access to guns to those they deem "unworthy" for purpose of control.Josh Beauchamp said:
StealthESW
Well-Known Fanatic
I think there is also a group of people that believe they are the only ones responsible enough to handle a firearm and think no one else should have them.threegungeezer said:
Unfortunately, I see that many people will not understand what they are doing by forcing these changes until the unthinkable happens, like us being attacked by some bad government foreign or otherwise. I'm sure we can all remember when we were kids and our parents told us not to do something because we could get hurt, which we often ended up with a skinned knee or worse.
Some of us are very stubborn and don't even try to see things from the viewpoint of others or take into account the history of this country and others. Many of the decisions people make are purely selfish in nature. The fact is the documents that this counrty were founded on were not drafted for me or you alone, they were drafted for the People. They were drafted to allow for communication and protection of our country and our families. They granted us a voice in the way the country progressed. Some of us in this country do not see it that way anymore, or so it seems.
Hoping those people will open their eyes and see the big picture is, frankly, just not going to happen in most cases. Those whos minds can be changed already had doubts of their own to begin with, whether they admit it or not. At this point, the best way to combat the climate change towards the 2A is to educate the ones we can including our children.
I know I am preaching to the choir, but for now it seems the choir is the only ones listening.
oldglock
Well-Known Fanatic
Today's vote for cloture did not go well. Something like 62 to 31 with 60 needed to end debate and allow a vote. Some Republicans jumped ship, some Dims sticking with gun owners.
This sets up some real political gamesmanship akin to John Kerry's " I voted for it before I voted against it". In this situation a Repub can now swiitch his vote to no and proclaim that he voted against the bill. Remember, it only takes 50, not 60 to pass a straight vote.
We are toast in the Senate but I see no way the House will roll over. Maybe not even allow a vote.
This sets up some real political gamesmanship akin to John Kerry's " I voted for it before I voted against it". In this situation a Repub can now swiitch his vote to no and proclaim that he voted against the bill. Remember, it only takes 50, not 60 to pass a straight vote.
We are toast in the Senate but I see no way the House will roll over. Maybe not even allow a vote.
StealthESW
Well-Known Fanatic
New found article.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/04/2013411164113805502.html
The US Senate has cleared the way for a long debate on proposals to curb gun violence, rejecting an effort by conservative Republicans to block consideration of gun-control legislation prompted by December's Newtown school massacre.
The Senate voted 68-31 on Thursday to open debate on President Barack Obama's proposals to expand background checks for gun buyers, tighten restrictions on gun trafficking and increase funding for school security.
The Senate easily cleared the 60-vote hurdle needed to break a Republican filibuster on a bill that has sparked intense lobbying on both sides, including families of the Connecticut victims as well as the powerful gun lobby the National Rifle Association.
"The hard work starts now," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said after the procedural vote to open debate, which won the support of 16 Republicans.
Al Jazeera's Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington DC, said while the senate vote was a "significant victory for gun-control advocates", 30 hours of debate still lay ahead.
"And it's not a continuous clock - which means it could be days, it could be weeks, likely, before we see a vote in the senate on the gun control bill.
"Now, at the same time, Republicans are vowing to continue to try draw this out as much as they can to try and rally support and get votes against this. So there still is a long way for this to go."
Gun-friendly states
Twenty-nine Republicans and two Democrats voted to block the gun-control debate.
The Democrats were Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska, who face tough re-election campaigns next year in conservative, gun-friendly states.
The legislation still faces many hurdles, including a weeks-long debate in the Senate featuring many amendments that could make the bill unacceptable to senators who now support it.
And if it clears the Senate, it would face a tough reception in the Republican-led House of Representatives.
No major gun legislation has passed the US Congress since 1994.
The vote to proceed with the bill came a day after a compromise agreement on background checks between prominent defenders of gun rights from each party - Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania.
That agreement to expand criminal background checks of gun buyers to include commercial sales made at gun shows and online was expected to boost bipartisan Senate support for the measure.
Reid said the expanded background checks, a provision that polls show has the support of up to 90 percent of Americans, will be the first amendment offered in debate.
Some elements unlikely
Obama is unlikely to get some elements of gun control that he has advocated, including a ban on rapid-firing "assault" weapons like the one used in Connecticut and limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines.
Reid said amendments to add those provisions to the bill also would be considered by the Senate. Both amendments appear to have a slim chance of winning on the Senate floor.
Obama has called the Newtown tragedy- a shooting incident at a Connecticut school which left 20 children and six adults dead - the worst day of his presidency and has made passage of legislation to curb gun violence one of his top domestic policy priorities.
He has given recent speeches trying to build public support for gun control, including an appearance last week in Colorado, scene of two of the deadliest gun massacres in American history, and in Connecticut on Monday.
Some family members of Newtown victims flew to Washington DC from Connecticut on Obama's Air Force One jet to press senators to move forward on gun legislation.
610
Source:
Al Jazeera And Agencies
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/04/2013411164113805502.html
The US Senate has cleared the way for a long debate on proposals to curb gun violence, rejecting an effort by conservative Republicans to block consideration of gun-control legislation prompted by December's Newtown school massacre.
The Senate voted 68-31 on Thursday to open debate on President Barack Obama's proposals to expand background checks for gun buyers, tighten restrictions on gun trafficking and increase funding for school security.
The Senate easily cleared the 60-vote hurdle needed to break a Republican filibuster on a bill that has sparked intense lobbying on both sides, including families of the Connecticut victims as well as the powerful gun lobby the National Rifle Association.
"The hard work starts now," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said after the procedural vote to open debate, which won the support of 16 Republicans.
Al Jazeera's Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington DC, said while the senate vote was a "significant victory for gun-control advocates", 30 hours of debate still lay ahead.
"And it's not a continuous clock - which means it could be days, it could be weeks, likely, before we see a vote in the senate on the gun control bill.
"Now, at the same time, Republicans are vowing to continue to try draw this out as much as they can to try and rally support and get votes against this. So there still is a long way for this to go."
Gun-friendly states
Twenty-nine Republicans and two Democrats voted to block the gun-control debate.
The Democrats were Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska, who face tough re-election campaigns next year in conservative, gun-friendly states.
The legislation still faces many hurdles, including a weeks-long debate in the Senate featuring many amendments that could make the bill unacceptable to senators who now support it.
And if it clears the Senate, it would face a tough reception in the Republican-led House of Representatives.
No major gun legislation has passed the US Congress since 1994.
The vote to proceed with the bill came a day after a compromise agreement on background checks between prominent defenders of gun rights from each party - Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania.
That agreement to expand criminal background checks of gun buyers to include commercial sales made at gun shows and online was expected to boost bipartisan Senate support for the measure.
Reid said the expanded background checks, a provision that polls show has the support of up to 90 percent of Americans, will be the first amendment offered in debate.
Some elements unlikely
Obama is unlikely to get some elements of gun control that he has advocated, including a ban on rapid-firing "assault" weapons like the one used in Connecticut and limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines.
Reid said amendments to add those provisions to the bill also would be considered by the Senate. Both amendments appear to have a slim chance of winning on the Senate floor.
Obama has called the Newtown tragedy- a shooting incident at a Connecticut school which left 20 children and six adults dead - the worst day of his presidency and has made passage of legislation to curb gun violence one of his top domestic policy priorities.
He has given recent speeches trying to build public support for gun control, including an appearance last week in Colorado, scene of two of the deadliest gun massacres in American history, and in Connecticut on Monday.
Some family members of Newtown victims flew to Washington DC from Connecticut on Obama's Air Force One jet to press senators to move forward on gun legislation.
610
Source:
Al Jazeera And Agencies
oldglock
Well-Known Fanatic
Excuse earlier post based on incomplete information from TV.
This vote was only to begin debate on the issue.
A cloture vote is to END debate and needs 60 votes.
Sorry and we'll see what happens.
This vote was only to begin debate on the issue.
A cloture vote is to END debate and needs 60 votes.
Sorry and we'll see what happens.
StealthESW
Well-Known Fanatic
Related Article
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2013/03/201332265455576847.html
An estimated 3,000 people have been killed due to gun violence since the Newtown shootings in December of last year. But the emboldened push for greater gun control that followed the aftermath of the Sandy Hook murders which left 20 children dead appears already to be losing strength.
"To say that it wouldn't work, that it wouldn't impact crime, I think it's an absurd sort of generalisation. When the first assault weapon ban was introduced in 1984, it did have an impact on assault weapons being used in certain crimes, that was in a case where we didn't really have much time to study the long-term impact. The other part of it is, looking at overall crime statistics, sure it's a small percentage, but look at the kind of crimes that we see being committed with these assault weapons, Aurora, in the theatre shooting, Newtown with 20 first-graders, I mean sure we can make the excuse that it's a small amount of crime, but are we really comfortable saying that we don't want to do anything about it for that reason?
-Robyn Thomas, the executive director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
{C}The gun control package that the US senate is due to vote on next month will now not include a ban on assault weapons. The measure does not have enough support even amongst democrats in the senate, and this has angered those seeking tighter gun control.
On Thursday, the parents of Sandy Hook's victims held a press conference appealing to the country to actively support comprehensive reform.
“December 14 was the last day I saw my son alive. I ask everybody to stand up and speak out, Congress to step and make a change. There needs to be a ban on assault weapons,†said Neil Heslin, the father of six-year-old Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victim Jesse McCord Lewis.
Lynn McDonald, mother of six-year-old Grace McDonald, who was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School said: “After the shooting there was a real sense that what happened in our town might be a tipping point. We ask everyone who has power to influence legislation in this area, and of course those whose job it is to vote on the legislation, to ask themselves if they are doing enough to bring about real and meaningful change. And if they are not, to ask themselves, ‘why not?'â€
During the press conference, Vice President Joe Biden, surrounded by the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, promised that the Obama administration will continue fighting for the assault weapons ban:
{C}"Three months ago a deranged man walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School with a weapon of war. That's what it is, a weapon of war, and that weapon of war has no place on American streets, and taking it off America's streets has no impact on one's constitutional right to own a weapon."
But some gun control experts say that an assault weapons ban would do little to reduce gun violence and could hamper more effective legislation. Could such proposals be more harmful than helpful in the campaign to reduce gun deaths in the US?
Joining Inside Story Americas, with presenter Shihab Rattansi, are guests: Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California and author of the book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America; David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard University; and Robyn Thomas, the executive director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
"I don't think this was a particularly wise proposal on the part of the administration or democratic senators. I think they should have invested their time, focus ... on universal background checks, which is a meaningful reform that will make a big difference. The truth is rifles make up a very small percentage of gun crime in America, assault rifles make up even a smaller percentage of that crime, and the law itself is kind of silly. It bans firearms that are semi-automatic, that have a detachable magazine, and one or more military style characteristic, like a pistol grip or a folding buttstock, but you can sell the exact same weapon, with the exact same lethality, so as long as it doesn't have the pistol grip or the folding buttstock, those are cosmetic features, and they are not going to have a serious impact on gun policy."
- Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California
809
Source:
Al Jazeera
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2013/03/201332265455576847.html
An estimated 3,000 people have been killed due to gun violence since the Newtown shootings in December of last year. But the emboldened push for greater gun control that followed the aftermath of the Sandy Hook murders which left 20 children dead appears already to be losing strength.
"To say that it wouldn't work, that it wouldn't impact crime, I think it's an absurd sort of generalisation. When the first assault weapon ban was introduced in 1984, it did have an impact on assault weapons being used in certain crimes, that was in a case where we didn't really have much time to study the long-term impact. The other part of it is, looking at overall crime statistics, sure it's a small percentage, but look at the kind of crimes that we see being committed with these assault weapons, Aurora, in the theatre shooting, Newtown with 20 first-graders, I mean sure we can make the excuse that it's a small amount of crime, but are we really comfortable saying that we don't want to do anything about it for that reason?
-Robyn Thomas, the executive director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
{C}The gun control package that the US senate is due to vote on next month will now not include a ban on assault weapons. The measure does not have enough support even amongst democrats in the senate, and this has angered those seeking tighter gun control.
On Thursday, the parents of Sandy Hook's victims held a press conference appealing to the country to actively support comprehensive reform.
“December 14 was the last day I saw my son alive. I ask everybody to stand up and speak out, Congress to step and make a change. There needs to be a ban on assault weapons,†said Neil Heslin, the father of six-year-old Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victim Jesse McCord Lewis.
Lynn McDonald, mother of six-year-old Grace McDonald, who was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School said: “After the shooting there was a real sense that what happened in our town might be a tipping point. We ask everyone who has power to influence legislation in this area, and of course those whose job it is to vote on the legislation, to ask themselves if they are doing enough to bring about real and meaningful change. And if they are not, to ask themselves, ‘why not?'â€
During the press conference, Vice President Joe Biden, surrounded by the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, promised that the Obama administration will continue fighting for the assault weapons ban:
{C}"Three months ago a deranged man walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School with a weapon of war. That's what it is, a weapon of war, and that weapon of war has no place on American streets, and taking it off America's streets has no impact on one's constitutional right to own a weapon."
But some gun control experts say that an assault weapons ban would do little to reduce gun violence and could hamper more effective legislation. Could such proposals be more harmful than helpful in the campaign to reduce gun deaths in the US?
Joining Inside Story Americas, with presenter Shihab Rattansi, are guests: Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California and author of the book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America; David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard University; and Robyn Thomas, the executive director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
"I don't think this was a particularly wise proposal on the part of the administration or democratic senators. I think they should have invested their time, focus ... on universal background checks, which is a meaningful reform that will make a big difference. The truth is rifles make up a very small percentage of gun crime in America, assault rifles make up even a smaller percentage of that crime, and the law itself is kind of silly. It bans firearms that are semi-automatic, that have a detachable magazine, and one or more military style characteristic, like a pistol grip or a folding buttstock, but you can sell the exact same weapon, with the exact same lethality, so as long as it doesn't have the pistol grip or the folding buttstock, those are cosmetic features, and they are not going to have a serious impact on gun policy."
- Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California
809
Source:
Al Jazeera
scubor2
S.L.C.G.A.
Maybe I'm not getting it. Aljazeera as the voice of reason? Maybe I should check them out before CNN or MSNBC. Although I really never pay attention to any of them.
So we have more support from Aljazeera than Bloomberg or Cumberg, Obama, Joe Biden, Pissluci, Frankenstein or the rest of the money grabbing turds in D.C.?
So we have more support from Aljazeera than Bloomberg or Cumberg, Obama, Joe Biden, Pissluci, Frankenstein or the rest of the money grabbing turds in D.C.?
dennishoddy
Moderator
When world events are happening I'll check several of the foreign news outlets. Its amazing how close they are to the truth vs the American media, and I'm including Fox.scubor2 said:
jtischauser
I'm addicted to kicking ass
Tom Coburn better not run for reelection in Oklahoma.
dennishoddy
Moderator
He has term limited himself. He won't be up for re-election.Jesse Tischauser said:
StealthESW
Well-Known Fanatic
Inhoff votes: NO
Coburn votes: YES
Speechless.
Coburn votes: YES
Speechless.
