Slog Comments
Two Important Political Developments in Our National Gun Control Conversation
1
This is it - Obama's coming for your guns! Head for your bunkers and start cleaning and oiling your arsenals.
Stay there till we give you the all-clear.
Stay there till we give you the all-clear.
3
I predict a huge increase in sales in the very near future (probably happening right now via mail order).
Along with a price increase.
Followed by a new line of "ban-friendly" guns with almost the exact same functionality as the "banned" guns.
Just like last time.
Along with a price increase.
Followed by a new line of "ban-friendly" guns with almost the exact same functionality as the "banned" guns.
Just like last time.
5
Given Gov. Snyder's track record, I don't believe a thing he says. Let's see what he does. Hopefully he won't sign it.
6
If Snyder doesn't sign that bill, I will be shocked, and very pleased. Maybe change is possible. On the federal level, no, unless you believe that Feinstein somehow has leverage in the rock-solid-kook House.
7
@6 Snyder has already vetoed the bill.
It is sort of surprising since the chances of him getting reelected after signing the Right to Work law is very tenuous and he is going to need every single right wing vote he can get.
It is sort of surprising since the chances of him getting reelected after signing the Right to Work law is very tenuous and he is going to need every single right wing vote he can get.
8
How does a senior General Electric executive, making six figures and with enough cash to drop a $700,000 on his ex, not have the wherewithal to find a good mental health professional or psychologist for his son, or, as he should have done, find an upscale sanitarium to keep the kid out of the public?
Doesn't GE even have outreach programs to help families with distressed kids? How can he, as a financial corporate leader, have allowed Adam to go without supervision, and medical help for 10 long years?
Doesn't GE even have outreach programs to help families with distressed kids? How can he, as a financial corporate leader, have allowed Adam to go without supervision, and medical help for 10 long years?
9
@8: look at that, i agree with you.
where was dad? probably getting the fuck away from mom. and he let his kid cut off contact when he remarried.
by the way, dad was a shooting enthusiast, too. probably thought it was a good, therapeutic activity for the kid.
where was dad? probably getting the fuck away from mom. and he let his kid cut off contact when he remarried.
by the way, dad was a shooting enthusiast, too. probably thought it was a good, therapeutic activity for the kid.
11
@8, so you're a doctor now, too? You don't know the kid, or any kids. You don't know anything about "upscale sanitariums" either. Mental health treatment is not a matter of deciding once and for all "this one's got to go" and then giving him a pill, or a locked cell, and the problem is solved. It's a million times more complicated than that.
Adam Lanza was receiving treatment of some kind already; it wasn't good enough, apparently, but that's because THERE ISN'T ANY.
The thoughtless remedy you propose would have to be applied to more than 50 million people in the country to be sure of getting the potential "bad guys". Maybe more than that; maybe 100 million. You think every "odd" kid belongs in the slammer. That's about par for your level of ignorance on every conceivable subject.
Adam Lanza was receiving treatment of some kind already; it wasn't good enough, apparently, but that's because THERE ISN'T ANY.
The thoughtless remedy you propose would have to be applied to more than 50 million people in the country to be sure of getting the potential "bad guys". Maybe more than that; maybe 100 million. You think every "odd" kid belongs in the slammer. That's about par for your level of ignorance on every conceivable subject.
12
More to the point in Washington: if Rodney Tom is your State Senator, blister him for treason. He's pretty good on gun issues -- NRA rating of "D" -- which makes his party swap even more senseless. His district is solidly D now, and I think receptive to gun control legislation; I think enough residents could make him see that without serious gun control action he could get turfed out in 2014. No more "bipartisan" state senate majority leadership for you, bub.
Other Republican state senators in potentially moderate or changing districts who might be susceptible to constituency pressure include Andy Hill in the 45th (Kirkland, et al); Steve Litzow in the 41st (Mercer Island and points east), Bruce Dammeier in the 25th (Puyallup et al, not yet seated in a swing district in which he replaces a Dem), Mike Carrell in the 28th (Fort Lewis et al), Don Benton in the 17th (eastern part of Vancouver area), Barbara Bailey in the 10th (Whidbey, Mt. Vernon, etc., not yet seated in a swing-ish district in which she replaces a Dem), and Joe Fain in the 47th (Auburn, et al.).
Some of these people have NRA ratings of A or A+, which is the kind of thing their constituents might be more interested in now after Newtown than before. Litzgow and Benton have VERY narrow margins to defend, in suburban-mom districts that are perhaps receptive to the idea that an assault-weapon ban or a 100-shell magazine ban isn't "comin' to take our guns". If you can't make them see reason, make them see a better Democrat running against them next time. Dammeier won because his opponent was a college kid; Benton won 50.04% of the vote this time. Benton doesn't have an NRA rating; if you live in his district may you can persuade him that a good one is going to hurt him.
Other Republican state senators in potentially moderate or changing districts who might be susceptible to constituency pressure include Andy Hill in the 45th (Kirkland, et al); Steve Litzow in the 41st (Mercer Island and points east), Bruce Dammeier in the 25th (Puyallup et al, not yet seated in a swing district in which he replaces a Dem), Mike Carrell in the 28th (Fort Lewis et al), Don Benton in the 17th (eastern part of Vancouver area), Barbara Bailey in the 10th (Whidbey, Mt. Vernon, etc., not yet seated in a swing-ish district in which she replaces a Dem), and Joe Fain in the 47th (Auburn, et al.).
Some of these people have NRA ratings of A or A+, which is the kind of thing their constituents might be more interested in now after Newtown than before. Litzgow and Benton have VERY narrow margins to defend, in suburban-mom districts that are perhaps receptive to the idea that an assault-weapon ban or a 100-shell magazine ban isn't "comin' to take our guns". If you can't make them see reason, make them see a better Democrat running against them next time. Dammeier won because his opponent was a college kid; Benton won 50.04% of the vote this time. Benton doesn't have an NRA rating; if you live in his district may you can persuade him that a good one is going to hurt him.
13
Hurray! Let's do something! It doesn't matter if it won't save lives, what's important is that we feel better and can signal to our friends what good people we are.
14
Every civilized country in the world has gun control laws and they have a fraction of the gun violence the US has. I would even go so far as to support a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Not only should we go after assault weapons, HAND GUNS should be illegal and there should be a WAR on GUNS! We should have a complete war on guns n the US and Remove the stash of 300 million guns floating around. We have spent million on the failed so-called "War on Drugs" Time to switch up our priorities!
15
Well, I guess we will have to see if this current assault weapons ban idea actually bans assault weapons this time.
You know, instead of just ones with certain cosmetic features.
But even if it does happen, @3 is correct.
You know, instead of just ones with certain cosmetic features.
But even if it does happen, @3 is correct.
Comments (15) RSS