Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
AP
President Barack Obama pauses during a moment of silence for the victims of the Aurora, Colo., shooting during an event at the Harborside Event Center in Ft. Myers, Fla., Friday, July 20, 2012. Obama said the tragic movie theater shooting in Colorado that left 12 people dead is a reminder that life is fragile. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
By Karoun Demirjian (contact) 
Wednesday, July 25, 2012 | 2 a.m.
As Congress holds moments of silence to honor the victims of the Colorado shooting rampage that claimed a dozen lives and wounded 58 others, some Democratic lawmakers are raising a sharp cry for stricter gun control laws.
Nevada Democrats would rather they didn’t just now.
Sen. Harry Reid danced around three gun control questions in a row on Tuesday, finally rebuffing reporters wanting to know whether Reid supported calls to revisit at least the federal ban on assault weapons.
“You guys, I am not going to be here with each of you debating gun control,” Reid said. “We have to be very, very patient, and by that I don’t mean forever patient, but I think we have to wait and see how this plays out. ... I think we should just wait for a reasonable period of time before people go around saying what we should and what we shouldn’t do.”
Reid would not say how long a reasonable period of time might be. But a group of gun control advocates are pretty convinced the debate should start now.
Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette, longtime gun control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, and New Jersey Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg made a formal appeal Tuesday morning to take up a new ban on the large-magazine weapons that were banned from being sold in the United States from 1994 to 2004.
The assault weapons ban covered semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, the largest firearm the gunman used when he began firing into a midnight showing of the latest Batman movie in a crowded Aurora, Colo. theater.
“Even though the police responded rapidly — within 90 seconds — with his high-capacity magazine, the gunman had more than enough time to carry out his reign of terror,” Lautenberg, the author of a new assault weapons ban, said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “The victims of these tragedies and their families deserve more than solidarity and mourning. They deserve our attention, our action.”
Rep. Shelley Berkley, exiting the House chamber after a moment of silence for the victims Tuesday afternoon, agreed that gun control is something “that the United States Congress and the American people need to have a conversation about.”
But not now.
“I just don’t think this is the time to reopen any political discussions. ... We can have a more substantive conversation when this tragedy is behind us, and right now it’s still pretty raw,” Berkley said.
Gun control is an unpopular issue to raise in fiercely libertarian Nevada, and a risky one to discuss during an election year, even when you’re fairly clear about your affinity for the Second Amendment. Reid voted against the Assault Weapons Ban in 1993; Berkley wasn’t in Congress then but says she is “in favor of responsible gun ownership” and “believe[s] in the Second Amendment and people’s right to bear arms.”
Every summer or fall, the National Rifle Association comes out with rankings and endorsements of lawmakers in electoral contests. In 2010, the group refused to endorse in the matchup between Reid and his opponent, Sharron Angle. An NRA spokeswoman did not respond to a request Tuesday for the organization’s latest assessment of Berkley and her chief competitor for the Senate, Dean Heller.
The NRA has not yet officially commented on the Colorado shootings, but in the aftermath of past tragedies, it has endorsed the view that looser gun laws would enable victims to fire back on assailants, disabling the attack. In anticipation of such a response, gun control advocates say the level of bulletproof gear the shooter wore, and the firepower of the weapons he chose, make defense of the right to buy semi-automatic firearms untenable.
But not necessarily with voters. According to a collection of polls posted in the Washington Post, a majority of Americans wanted tighter gun control laws when the assault weapons ban was passed. Now a majority of Americans don’t.
Reports of another poll, however, conducted recently by Republican strategist Frank Luntz showed that a majority of gun owners, and nearly three-quarters of NRA members, would support some gun control measures, like criminal background checks. The poll apparently did not ask about an assault weapons ban.
Congressional gun control advocates, however, may not have to worry as much about public opinion as they do pressure from the upper ranks of the Democratic party to keep quiet. Reid’s natural reticence to take up gun control issues was on full display Tuesday, and while President Barack Obama has supported the idea of gun control in the past, his White House staff is sending dissuading messages.
“The president’s view is that we can take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them under existing law,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Sunday. “That’s his focus right now.”
That makes it unlikely that a small band of Democrats — however vocal — will be able to effect stricter gun control laws anytime soon.
Guns don't destroy people -- young, gifted, intelligent college grads whose only employment hope became McDonalds do.
: {
Reid and Berkley want to increase gun control -- just not before the next election
Automatic weapons were banned in 1986 and there has been no downside. The same could be applied to assault weapons. Collectors could have dissabled assault weapons the same as automatic weapons. Assault weapons are made to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. There is no justification for individuals to possess operating assault weapons with large capacity clips or magazines. They are killing machines. Time for politicians to show some backbone.
Mitt Romney banned assault rifles while in office, but Obama has not.
Drinking that Romney kool-aid does magic on gun nuts it seems, you betcha..
Let's have Holder walk a few assault rifles over and check them out.
Romney banned assault weaponsm Obama expaned gun rights by allowing CCW in National Parks.
All this discussion on gun control will start a run on guns and ammunition. People don't trust the government, that why firearms are a hot item. President Obama and every Democrat know gun control is a losing issue. After the election is over who knows what will happen. All the individuals who commited these mass shootings telegraphed to all their mental problems and no one did anything. No one contacted the authorities.
I feel so much better knowing Harry's on it.
How's Harry going to get around endorsing and then pulling strings to get a shooting park built? How's Harry going to get the photo's of him holding a rifle and talking about killing rabbits?
Harry's a liberal......that's how!
As a lifelong Democrat it saddens me to see the leaders of my party slink away from the issue of common sense gun control.
When a deranged gun nut is allowed to have four assault rifles and 6000 rounds of ammo delivered to his doorstep, without any background checks whatsoever, then we are in fact living in a morally bankrupt nation that allows its inmates to run the asylum.
Meanwhile our political leaders turn tail and cower as if it's them, not us, who are caught in the crosshairs.
"without any background checks whatsoever, then we are in fact living in a morally bankrupt nation".... This not your mom and pop's democrat party there Rip Van Winkle, America even elected a President without a background check, made it illegal to even ask for ID, passes out assult weapons in Mexico and bans them in America.
With all the corruption in Nevada, we need our second amendment rights. See the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lN4YWCZM...
Let's ban all guns other than military & cops !! No private citizens allowed to have any guns !
That will cure the problem with guns, right.
Just like Mexico did over three decades ago !
How's that workin out ?
Only 50 thousand killed in the past year !!
Right!
We have over 100 thousand laws for guns on the books in the USA now.
What has that prevented, Aurora ? Not !
The dirtbag that did this broke dozens of existing laws.
Murder has been illegal for recorded history !
Only good people obey laws,criminals ,by definition are , wait, LAWBREAKERs!!!
Why blame the object, blame the person.
What would the death-toll been had he used a 5gallon can of gasoline and a flare with a blocked fire exit?
Just Sayin', think it thru people.
When a deranged gun nut is allowed to have four assault rifles and 6000 rounds of ammo delivered to his doorstep, without any background checks whatsoever, then we are in fact living in a morally bankrupt nation that allows its inmates to run the asylum.
--------------------------------------------------
Now that you've made the claims, I would like to see what evidence you have that 1) this guy has ever been diagnosed with any mental illness; and 2) that the guns were purchased illegally, or as you put it, without background checks.
How sick and corrupt are the elected officials who makes our laws? This sick and corrupt: It's OK for a deranged gun nut to have four assault rifles and 6000 rounds of ammo delivered to his doorstep without so much as a puny background check done -- but if granny wants to have low priced prescription drugs from Canada sent to her in the mail she can be in big trouble.
Yeah, those drugs from Canada that cost less than half what we pay here (and they're made in the US, no less) are *dangerous* while the assault weapons are A-OK.
If that doesn't reflect an extreme mental illness in our values as a nation then I don't know what does.
This is what conservative gun nuts want you to get over: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012...
"Since 1982, there have been at least 50 mass murders* carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states. We've mapped them below, including details on the shooter's identity, the date of the event, and the number of victims injured and killed. We do not consider the map comprehensive (and there are countless incidents of gun violence in America, of course). See below the map for the criteria we used to identify cases of mass murder. For a timeline listing all the cases--including photos of the killers--click here."
What do you call a mob of citizens with guns against an organized military?
Dead.
LastThroes, Here is the ACCURATE info you disingenuously refer to.
www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gun...
Mschaffer, the part of all this that you miss every time it comes up is that automobiles and cigarettes are way more lethal. This tragic event in the death of innocents has garnered attention but auto's killed more that day.
It is like an Airplane crash. More auto deaths on those days too.
I know you hate guns but at least try and stay relevant in your panty twisting.
I also didn't know you were willing to call Obama or Reid a gun nut. They are pushing this under the rug as well.
Mschaffer, "What do you call a mob of citizens with guns against an organized military?
Dead"
You have reached you limit of credibility with this. What in the hell is this referencing??
Q: "What do you call a mob of citizens with guns against an organized military?"
A: A Revolution.
: {
LastThroes from my recent experience Obamacare has reversed the Canadian pricing issue and it is now cheaper for us to order an RX locally.
"Bowling for Columbine", the definitive expose on the issue of Guns and FEAR Mongering in the USA. I recommend one view this film again at your earliest convenience (free on youtube).
While I echo the feelings of mschaffer and others on here regarding gun control, I think Mr. Moore's film points out what the real problem is. Guns are a symptom, among many. Ironically the issue is CONTROL using FEAR by the Elites. The reality is 180 degrees from what the typical gun owner thinks it is. Guns indicate fear, not security. Guns represent a population which is being controlled using Fear.
This issue is probably among the most important we face. The 2nd Amendment is about separation of powers. Clearly we have little of that. This Government in most ways is out of control and NOT listening to it's citizens. A record amount of guns has not done a positive thing regarding this. A gun is meaningless as a balancer when you have the scope of military assets we have. Guns today are a public health issue.
http://youtu.be/9jGtAcDefHg
Democrats constantly scream for gun control.
If you own a gun or believe in gun ownership rights then don't vote for Democrats.
Bowling for Columbine??? Really??? I guess inaccurate and heavily edited propaganda movies are OK as long as they fit your agenda.
How sad that the argument has now included Michael Moore. This guy is the ultimate parasite.
Stephen, you may use a gun as a phallic symbol but I use mine to hunt.
"What - me worry?" Alfred E. Neuman, Mad Magazine
"What - jeopardize my campaign contributions?" D.C. politicos, U.S. Congress
Heretic and Harley think we live in world of the blunderbuss.
Today's military's are a tadd better equipped than your joe blow citizen.
It is largely impossible to have an intelligent discussion on firearms with an anti-gunner as they are devoid of the basis for one, which is irrelevant to them.
The anti-gun fervor illustrates the vast lack of knowledge by those at its forefront. The misinformation, deliberate and unknowing is too great to catalog in any format short of a book, likely several volumes.
They love to throw around terms they neither understand nor can apply accurately as illustrated by two that they almost always misapply. That most of the anti-gunners do not know nor can describe what an assault weapon actually is or think a .22 caliber firearm is high power, is only telling to those with a modicum of knowledge. To the ignorant anti-gunners it is strictly and ideological objection not requiring specific knowledge, general knowledge or even a basic understanding of firearms and associated topics.
For them, that what they don't know is legion, what they do is wrong and matters not for after all, as in most things for them, the ends justify the means, well defined or not.
Dale,
Perhaps you could describe weapons that are safe to use on humans?
Mschaffer, Blunderbuss??? Dude, you need to get real.
Safe on humans?? You obviously have issues well beyond what a reasonable conversation will allow. I have been shooting guns since the age of ten and I currently am fifty. In my forty years of responsible shooting I have never fired at a human. I have killed game and many, many targets (paper and clay). Your argument isn't an argument at all but just some ill-informed rant.
This joke illustrates my understanding of your problems.
So the vegetarian asks a meat eater.... do you know what they do to those chickens....The meat eater answers....NO, but they are delicious! (Jim Gaffigan)
It was gun control that had a big responsibility in the deaths of these poor helpless people setting in that theater like sitting ducks! Had just a few been armed and been able to protect themselves, the story would different, more people would be alive, and the public wouldn't have to endure the next years of hearing about the guy, he'd be dead! Not to mention the millions of tax payer dollars that will be wasted!
Why is it that liberal like Mark can't seem to realize that the gun doesn't shoot by itself? Guns are not the problem. The welfare state of criminal that liberals have created is.
Saying that now is not the time for a national discussion on firearms is like saying after 9/11 was not the time to have a national discussion on terrorism and national security. What are the gun nuts afraid of? People making rash decisions that end up being very poor decisions like many policymakers did after 9/11?
That being said, I don't think gun control would have prevented this tragedy. Someone who wants to get their hands on guns and ammo will get their hands on guns and ammo. If it weren't firearms, he would have slid a bomb into the theater. Crazy people will do crazy things. I think we need to have a national discussion on mental heath care in this country more than we need to talk about gun control.
RedRocky: "Guns are inanimate objects as is ammunition."
This has to be the lamest excuse any teabagger has dreamed up with to justify the flooding of our communities with millions of firearms and the terrorizing and murder of innocent people.
I suppose since a nuclear bomb is an "inanimate" object" those too should be freely distributed to whomever can afford them, is that you're twisted logic, Red?
How are the good citizens of Colorado responding to the recent horrific acts of some Joker?
They're utilizing their Constitutional right to purchase more guns and ammunition while seeking "situational awareness" and firearms training, particularly women.
Ref:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48310795/
I have owned guns, been robbed by people with guns, and was almost killed by a gun because one didn't make sure the thing wasn't loaded before he pointed it in my direction.
Guns are deadly. They are not safe. Been my experience the last thing one wants to own is a stupid gun. You are just inviting risk into your life by doing so.
The dig on Michael Moore is old. How bout you address the claim the problem is FEAR mongering by Profiteers and the Elite? Hurry before time runs out! Do so here it is safe and secure!
What is sad is living your life in Fear. Living a Lie where you tell yourself having a pile of guns does not constantly remind you of how pathetic you are. How wimpy one is. How scared one is. If this is your idea of Freedom and Liberty fine, not mine. What is the point if you have to go out into society packing?
Look around, it is Fear and it is being used to control YOU. Guns are part of this control grid, wake-up Patriot.
Here's a link to a discussion by several former Policeman who cite most of the NRA claims as the BS they are http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jul...
Stephen, I think you are the one in fear. You fear an educated and armed populace that won't act like sheep.
btw, the police are geared toward gun control. They would rather not have everybody with a gun. They would lose power as well.
Keep trying though.
Heck and Heller and the Republicans also want the shooting victims to go bankrupt from the medical bills they will be faced with. Of course, they both have medical care through the taxpayers. Their opposition to health care legislation is another attack on the innocent victims.
Our founding fathers amended the Constitution to include the right to bear arms to appease the individual rights advocates. And the tragedies mount. How many shows will it take 'til we know...? If not us, then who? If not now, then when? columbine, Virginia tech, aurora...drive-by...detroit...st.louis...las vegas...LA. Not saying it's simple, just saying it's time.
If the value you place on the freedom to murder is so great, let us simply form two different countries. All who want to have the freedom to shoot each other can go to one country, and all who choose to live their lives without being shot at the whim of some freedom-loving gunslinger can go to the other country to live in peace, ...OKAY??
Respect for life and liberty, for logic and reason, for purpose and motivation does not seem to translate as 'hate for freedom' - but it may also be true that if we are not free to shoot each oither, then we may not be truly free.
It just seems to me that Vegas engineer is onto something here - that whether we take a life with a bullet or allow a life to pass with a disease which could be eliminated, then we are less whole than we could be, free or not.
If one's right to shoot me is of equal value to my right to live, then we have a problem, Houston. If we are to err on the value of right to life or right to murder, it only seems reasonable to err on the side of human dignity.
If murder and mayhem constitute your picture of freedom, then anarchy and dissolution are your goals, and then neither life nor liberty, love nor logic have any value whatsoever.
Shakespeare called it a tide in the affairs of men, taken at flood, leads on to fortune. omitted, all the days of our lives are bound in shallows and miseries.
Psychologists call it a gestalt.
teachers call it a 'teachable moment'
It's the chance to see what we're doing wrong when the stuff hits the fan, when the idiots fly airplanes into buildings or blast away with hundreds of rounds at a theater, a school or a post office, a mall for one reason - they're nuts, loaded for bear and taking it out on innocents like you and me.
It's time to talk, listen, think and value what we have - control of our destiny.
As a liberal Democrat, I will not vote for any politician that wants to take my guns away or who proposes new anti-gun laws that only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own guns for self-defense. The only thing that gun laws do is make it easier for criminals to ply their trade against us and make us sitting ducks in "gun-free zones."
Comment removed by moderator. - -
So Mark, what is it you do not believe? That liberal Democrats might own guns and be against anti-gun laws? That a liberal Democrat will not vote for an anti-gun Democratic politician? That anti-gun laws make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own guns for self-defense? That gun laws make it easier for criminals to ply their trade against us? That "gun-free zones" make us sitting ducks? That my verified name is not Ion Field? Or what?
They're not eager to do a budget either.
While not advocating Japan's system, something is wrong with us as a country:
"As for handgun murders, the U.S. rate is 200 times higher than Japan's.
Robbery in Japan is about as rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4."
I think the solution to ending the fear that Stevenrblv is for a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGEEE number of liberal, progressives and democrats to demonstrably become firearms owners.
There are too many guns out there to ever corral them so we need to level the playing field so the next George Zimmerman stays in his car and when the cops arrive they pat the next Trayvon on the head after seeing that he, oops, he was 17, no concealed carry permit for him...
...My point being that we need a significant number of ordinary NON RIGHT WING CRAZIES carrying to keep the gun nuts in their cars and in their homes. To make them think the odds are 50/50 instead of their testosterone induced "I'm the Sheriff" ego's.
Not a decision I take lightly, just another one being forced upon us by right wing loons.
I don't believe that something calling itself "Ion Field" is credible or to be taken seriously.
Gun ownership is up and crime is down. Connect the dots?
When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery -- from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing -- produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success.
Mark, you obviously do not have a pair of theoretical physicists for parents.
rusty57 please provide a reference to the claims you made please.
Here's an actual academic study based on ATF data which says legitimate gun owners should be supporting even tougher gun control measures instead of buying more guns.
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-08-30/justi...
Whatever you claim...
Mschaffer, you sound jealous of Ion Field.....how sad