Boehner says no to new restrictions on firearms

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is rejecting gun-control legislation offered by the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in response to the weekend shootings of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 19 others in Arizona.

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) announced plans Tuesday to introduce legislation prohibiting people from carrying guns within 1,000 feet of members of Congress.

Snip
Even Capitol Hill’s most ardent gun reformers don’t anticipate any changes to the nation’s gun laws will be forthcoming in the 112th Congress. They say the combination of a GOP-led House and the powerful gun lobby is simply too formidable to take on over an issue that’s become a proverbial third rail of Washington politics.

“Anything you can get through the gun lobby is going to have little consequence,” Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a longtime supporter of tightening Second Amendment restrictions, said in a phone interview. “I don’t see the likelihood of much progress — I don’t see much hope

An thus ends the gun run of 2011

ETA GuessI should post the link too http://thehill.com/homenews/house/137393-speaker-boehner-says-no-to-new-gun-controls

and you'll see the position taken by the Weeper of the House lauded, while those same people will be damning the eyes of a Democratic representative. Just sayin'.

to see if King's bill to protect Senators and Representatives like himself (which I support) passes, but nothing, nada, zilch is done to protect the hoi polloi like you and me. DAMN the NRA and their toadies, and they are legion.

a criminal or will you arm yourself for self-defense?

If you choose self-defense, with what tool will you arm yourself?

is that I don't live in fear. Being an approaching-seniorhood, slightly overweight, mostly sedentary pack-a-day smoker, the odds are that health issues will be my undoing, not a hypothetical criminal. I do, however, recognize the threat of out-of-control gun "rights" and support just about anything that will make our population safer in that regard.

"zilch is done to protect the hoi polloi like you and me."

"Obviously, one difference between you and I is that I don't live in fear."

"I do, however, recognize the threat of out-of-control gun "rights" and support just about anything that will make our population safer in that regard."

I, personally, am not in fear for my safety. I thought that was pretty clear. Others, however, are in fear and justifiably so. Good enough for you?

"Does not compute"

gun rights. Good to see one of you admitting you want to regulate guns just for the sake of regulating guns. Or in other words because you want to hurt or attack gun owners and what they enjoy doing.

which is what exactly. Far as I know, the sole purpose of guns is killing - or getting better at killing.

away from you.

I can only think of killing, or improving one's ability to kill as gun uses

At child porn.

99.99 % of gun use is for legal entertainment, mostly target shooting

To improve one's ability to use the gun for it's intended purpose.

It is disingenuous to conclude that the intended purpose of a computer is child porn. We both know that.

It is an Olympic sport you know. As well as hundreds of national and local level events.

Is the only reason to practice throwing the javelin to improve your hunting skills?

Do we really need to know who is the fastest person, who can lift the most weight, who can get the highest score on a video game?

We don't need it, but competitive spirit is part of human nature.

Using a firearm quickly, safely, and effectively is much harder than TV or movies makes it look. When I take first time shooters to the range almost universally the first comment is "this is hard".

intends to shoot someone.

More vile accusations from our own party. Stay classy.

Retract your vile statement.

Own your statements.

I was responding directly to Jody in his challenge to me about my hypothetical confrontation with a criminal. Of course we have a problem with crime. If you are truly honest, you'll admit we ALSO have a problem with guns. I am far from "admitting you (I) want to regulate guns just for the sake of regulating guns." I never said that, or implied that, and don't believe you can honestly interpret it that way. Your claim that I "want to hurt or attack gun owners and what they enjoy doing" is simply hyperbole.

even hold a gun in my hand or allow one in my home. Now, if that is what you call "submitting" to a criminal -- I'll chance it. And I would recommend that you not make assumptions about people posting anonymously on a forum, as you seem wont to do in an extremely aggressive way. You have NO IDEA what painful histories you may be stirring up.

FYI, I support America's RKBA. What I will never support is the idea of few or no limits to RKBA. Perhaps you should actually listen instead of having kneejerk reactions to ANY discussion regarding guns. You certainly get no points for your rigidity and lack of sensitivity.

positions of pro-RKBA Democrats you would realize that simple fact.

See -- if you just take a step back away from your kneejerk, defensive positions, you might learn that. And maybe in the future, please, listen to someone when they politely hint that you not 'go there.' But you had to push, didn't you, to 'score a point'. I guess what really bothers me is the impression gun advocates portray of a total disregard of the human-tragedy aspect of guns in their rush to defend RKBA, even when it's not under attack. You just automatically assume it is. I apologize profusely for calling you Sarah. It seems, though, that your position on this subject is identical to hers, so you can understand my confusion.

evening and goodbye :hi:

Firearms are not for everybody. The fact that you do not want to own or hold a firearm doesn't diminish you in the least in my opinion.

However other people have different views and make different decisions. I hope you hold the same respect for their decisions as I hold for yours.

and thanks for not jumping to the conclusion, as some do, that I demonize responsible gun-owners. I simply think that, as a country, we should have sane discussions about the subject. Perhaps you don't agree, but I am of the firm belief that some small and sensible changes to gun laws should be at least considered. That's been my point all along before being sidetracked.

1) I would like to see firearm safety training in every high school. Even if the parents do not have firearms in their home, there are so many guns in our country that their children will eventually be exposed to them. High school age children should be aware of what gun safety is and how to tell if the person showing them the gun is an absolute fool and they should leave the area.

2) I would like to see the NICS background check improved. Many states are slow to input records that are used to stop a dealer from selling a firearm to a dangerous person with a violent criminal background or severe mental issues that have been diagnosed.

3) I would like to see the NICS background check become a requirement for all sales of firearms including private sales.

4) I personally believe that an individual should be required to attend a course on firearm safety and obtain a card that he would have to show before buying a firearm or ammunition.

Note: the NRA would disagree with some of these ideas.

The problem is, particularly with items 3 and 4, that all too often in the past, seemingly "reasonable, common-sense" regulations like those have been perverted to impose de facto gun bans, for example by the expedient of not holding the required course, nor recognizing any privately run course (e.g. one by an NRA-certified instructor) as adequate. This is the reason the NRA fights tooth and nail against even the most minor restrictions, and I can't say I blame them.

we have to be certain that we are making the laws better and more effective not placing unrealistic hurdles in the path the owning firearms.

any responsible person to legally carry a gun.

Afraid of an accident?

Have fire extinguishers?

Afraid of a fire?

Surely you can see how ridiculous it sounds to claim someone lives in fear, simply because they choose to have contingencies , even though you yourself don't share in the belief of a particular contingency.

"Will you submit to a criminal or will you arm yourself for self-defense?" The question presumed that these were the only possibilities. It is not inevitable that I be confronted by a criminal, and I don't live my life fearing something that hopefully, and probably, won't happen. But as I answered before -- "I'll take my chances." Other people don't. I do wear my seatbelt. It's the law. I'm not particularly concerned about fire but I take care that my smoke detectors have good batteries. I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen because I'm not a great cook! Both are also required for insurance coverage. These are false analogies, though. Neither my seat belt, smoke detectors, or fire extinguisher are lethal weapons. Their sole purpose is to save lives. The sole purpose of guns (other than competition and target practice) is to kill. Bad guys, good guys -- the gun can't tell. I'm happy that we all have the choice to assess our personal tolerance for risk and act according to those assessments. You want a gun? Fine. If you're responsible and legal, I say hooray for you.

"These are false analogies, though. Neither my seat belt, smoke detectors, or fire extinguisher are lethal weapons. Their sole purpose is to save lives. The sole purpose of guns (other than competition and target practice) is to kill. Bad guys, good guys -- the gun can't tell."

Non sequitur. We weren't discussing whether something was lethal or not. We were discussing if people take cartain actions - contingencies - out of fear. That one might be a lethal weapon, and another an indicator of fire, is not relevant.

The question was whether you wear your seatbelt and keep good batteries in your smoke detector because your afraid or not.

If not, why is it so hard to admit that others might carry a gun, without the assumed pre-requisite of being afraid, too.

I hadn't seen it that way. Thank you. However, the prior question to me involved 'submitting to a criminal or defending myself'. That's the question I answered and am being challenged on. Isn't *fear* inherent in that specific question? Doesn't that imply that the questioner's pro-gun argument is fear-based? Therefore my answer: no, I'm not afraid.
And, BTW, as I've said over and over in this thread -- I am absolutely not opposed to responsible people having legal guns. (Something that seems to be lost it seems, in any discussion between gun advocates and those like me, who aren't interested in guns.)

As far as the general atmosphere, not being interested in guns, you may not know that gun ownership has been under attack here on DU by a tiny but vocal sliver of posters, as well as in the real world by people that hate and fear guns.

This has been going on for over 20 years. Read some of these threads in the guns forum, and even in the archives, to see what we on the pro-gun side have had to put up with over the years, names like gun stroker, gun humper, gun worshiper, gun nut, preachers of death, etc, and you begin to understand some of the reactions you encounter.

I'm glad you aren't opposed to responsible people having legal guns. Don't take it personal if you end up having to explain it a little. Its the nature of the temperature of the gun debate.

FWIW, the guns forum is uber tame compared to what it was 6 years ago and before.

But I don't think I'll be back. I don't like to be jumped on for stuff I never said or implied. I'll take the heat for my words but not imaginary ones. When someone asks to understand a point of view not theirs, it's not cool to attack. I'm sorry that the conversations are so heated that folks don't take the time to listen, instead make assumptions (as I did regarding fear.) I think things might heat up again here, after this past weekend. Good luck.

"But I don't think I'll be back."

NONSENSE!!! Just kidding. Seriously though, don't be a stranger, theres alot one can learn reading this forum, even if you aren't one way or the other as far as a position on guns, reading these threads can give you insight into "what all the fuss is about" where guns, legislation etc are concerned.

We're really not such a bad bunch. Now just isn't a time when we or our opposites on the other side of the issue are really at our best as far as civility is concerned.


If not, See ya in GD.

Because as everyone should know, violent crime, shootings, etc have been going down over the years.

Passing a law based on emotion less than a week after a horrific event didn't work out so well last time.

We got the TSA and Patriot Act. Neither of which are good programs and neither of which is likely to ever go away.

So yeah it is a fake crisis. It was an isolated event. Homicides and violent crime in general are on a multi-decade decline.

The point is there is no correlation between homicide rate and number of guns.
In last 20 years the number of guns has roughly doubled yet the homicide rate has almost been cut in half.

I am not claiming guns CAUSED that. I am claiming that there is no statistical validity to claim more guns = more homicides.

The burden of proof is on the banners, not vice versa.

I do know there is no proof that legally carrying guns increases crime. Only a small number of people carry (1% to 5%) of the population thus obviously any impact on crime would be relative to the number of people carrying. It is implausable to think 1% of the population could result in a 10% change in violent crime rate for example. If there is any impact likely is too small to be detected under the much larger socio-economic factors.

I carry because it gives ME options. It isn't magic. It won't help in every situation. Wearing my seatbelt doesn't mean I won't die in a car crash, having a smoke detector doesn't mean I won't get killed in a fire. I have only had need for my firearm once, and it required no shots fired. Didn't even require me drawing.

I can't vouch for you, or the rest of the country but I won't stop carrying. If you don't want to, then don't. I just ask that you don't take this legitimate form of self defense from me (and others).

don't agree with that.

One person carrying can commit multiple crimes and could have a significant impact on the statistics of a local area.

Yes one person can commit more than one crime however 1% of the population vs 10% of the population carrying one would expect any impact to be larger with the larger sample carrying.

CCW tend to be very law abiding. Less than 0.13% of all CCW in FL have been revoked due to any crime. Less than 0.002% are revoked due to a firearm related incident. Police on average mistakenly shoot the wrong person 11x as often as CCW holders.

may see it differently

I have been told I have a rather confrontational style.

Not to worry, folks. Move along now.

You call us " the Paranoia Brigade" I assume W/ regard to gun bans.

Given that a large number of people on this very site as well as some of our elected Representatives have been screaming for a ban on evil Glocks, "Assualt Weapons" the dreaded highcapacity magazine and the evil 9mm (according to Jerry Rivers a "massive" slug)round almost before the blood was dry,

How are we "paranoid"?

There are more people on the NICS rolls for disqualification as a result of those improvements.

taxpayers time and money.

Yeah, that's enforceable. Nice to see that I can be busted because some congresscritter running for re-election stopped by the same Wendy's I did to press the flesh.