Biden Not Giving Up on Assault Weapons Ban

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Biden Not Giving Up on Assault Weapons Ban
By AP / JOSH LEDERMAN March 20, 2013

(WASHINGTON) — The White House is still pushing for an assault weapons ban, Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday, even though Senate Democrats all but sealed its fate by dropping it from the gun-control package they plan to consider next month.

Although the ban’s sponsor still plans to offer it as an amendment, it is almost certain to fall victim to opposition from Republicans and likely some Democrats, too. In jettisoning the ban Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it fell far short of the amount of support it would need to survive a vote and said including the assault weapons ban could sink the whole bill.

“Attitudes are changing,” Biden said in an interview with NPR News. “The president and I are going to continue to push, and we haven’t given up on it.”

Biden and President Barack Obama have walked a fine line on the assault weapons ban, widely considered the most politically challenging element of the gun-control proposals the administration is pushing. While fully embracing the ban as a matter of policy, the administration has avoided describing it as a must-have, wary of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Instead, they’ve argued that at the very least the ban deserves a vote, even if political considerations ultimately place its passage out of reach.



Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/20/biden-not-giving-up-on-assault-weapons-ban/#ixzz2O9Y3qmiV

[freshwest]

1. Keep on chipping away until we get there!

[mwrguy]

2. Go Joe!

Keep grinding them down.

[defacto7]

3. My Dad, a great farmer philosopher would say,

It doesn't matter if you have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. What matters is which way you are facing.

Just keep at it.

side note: Hooray for Colorado!

[crim son]

4. Listened to him interviewed on NPR this evening.

He makes good sense.

We've been here before, with women's rights and gay rights, and sometimes it felt hopeless. It's a shame that even here on DU we are very divided on the issue; all we can do is keep fighting for what we believe, and believe good will prevail.

[DonCoquixote]

5. I voted for Obama

But there are times, like now, and in the whole LGBT marriage scandal, where frankly, I would not have minded seeing Joe in the Oval office. Sadly, Obama listens more to Hillary C. and Harry R.

[Phillip McCleod]

6. good news! i *knew* i liked joe for a reason..

..now i know what it is.

[Kolesar]

8. Thoroughly simplistic

Does one bad driver make us feel that automobiles should be banned?

We already have laws on the books that are designed to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, but they are not getting enforced.

etc. ...

[RoccoR5955]

17. If that is the case.

Then I suppose that anyone who wants, should be able to get a shoulder mounted missile. After all, not allowing someone to have one would breach their right to bear arms, huh?

I don't think that that logic plays out, if it is even logic.

[Blandocyte]

9. or a nation of guns?

How many guns do you want to have? Each one of them is a gun that a criminal, crazy person or someone soon to become one of those (or both) can get. If we can ban all guns, great. If we can ban some, that would at least be fewer for our irresponsible, criminal and/or crazy folks to obtain.

You believe the push to ban was to create an "us and them philosophy?" I believe the push to ban is to create a "there should be fewer guns out there with far less firepower" philosophy.

The weapons industry seems to be roaring with good health by convincing civilians and police to militarize. It seems that their greed has to feed fear to maintain itself, often by encouraging us to believe we are under siege from a vaguely described entity and that weapons are the only answer to stem the imaginary siege. They'll keep the citizenry afraid in order to sell more products designed to help them deal with the fears the industry created. "Criminals have ARs, so you'll need one, too." So you buy an AR or three, now there are 3 ARs criminals can get their hands on. More criminals armed with ARs means more civilians need them to defend themselves, right? And so it goes.

If we can't stop the cycle we can at least never stop trying to slow its self-stoking cycle of creating fake fears and the real weapons that eventually can make those fears a reality.

[Progressive dog]

11. This is really simple, your right to own a gun

is not absolute.
We don't have to discuss how that right ended up in the Constitution. Back then they didn't have assault weapons. We don't have to point out that when a gun is used wrongly, someone often no longer has any freedoms. We can pretend that it is possible to detect who is going to commit a crime and keep the guns away from them.
You could make a better argument if you didn't make things up."Nations around the world maintain their national security by training and arming their citizens." Which nations would those be after leaving out the ones with 2 governments claiming sovereignity and Switzerland? Maybe you are including ones like the USA with a national guard, now that would be really deceptive.
Bottom line is this, there are rights or freedoms that have to be restricted in order to allow people to form a society and a government to protect that society. We don't have 30,000 dying each year from freedom of speech, but we sure as hell do from guns. I won't even go into the "Old Yeller" reference, I can't stop laughing.

[onehandle]

13. We're a nation of slack jawed yokels.

Who fetishize an inanimate object and vote against their best interests.

[slackmaster]

23. Speak for yourself.

It's amazing what some people will volunteer for.

[HangOnKids]

18. Paragraph breaks are your friend n/t

[hack89]

10. What else can he say? nt

[slackmaster]

12. Because it worked so well the last time it was implemented?

1. Massive proliferation of weapons that weren't covered by the ban but are functionally identical - This happened DURING the 10-year ban, which coincided with rapid expansion of the World Wide Web.

2. Radicalization of gun owners.

3. No beneficial effect on public safety.

4. And now, mere discussion of a new ban results in another round of proliferation of every kind of firearm, not limited to the kinds for which a ban was proposed.

The current run on firearms and the resulting shortages of weapons and ammunition won't let up for at least two years, and what happens then will depend on the results of the 2014 election.

[Malik Agar]

14. THIS!!!!!

We need to focus on mental health and poverty. These assault weapons bans feed off of emotion and not logic and statistics.

[RoccoR5955]

19. Yeah, like the mental health

of someone who needs assault weapons. WTF do you need them for?
And before you tell me that it's your second amendment right, if it is your second amendment right to have an assault weapon, what about a shoulder mounted missile, or a tank, or a bomber, or a nuclear bomb? They're all "arms." If you can have an assault weapon, than it would be against the second amendment to limit you from having any NUCLEAR arms!
There have to be limits. When the second amendment was written there wasn't the technology that we have today as far as weapons are concerned.

[slackmaster]

20. I question the mental health of any person who feels qualified to proclaim what another person...

...needs or does not need; or who feels entitled to do so.

There have to be limits. When the second amendment was written there wasn't the technology that we have today as far as weapons are concerned.

Most people agree there must be limits. Many of us feel that the limits were set correctly in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. There haven't been any game changing technological advancements in firearms since then.

[Malik Agar]

21. We're talking guns not nukes.

You do understand that these type of weapons used in a very small percentage of crimes. Additionally "assault weapons" is really just a talking point. They do not make the weapons more dangerous nor do they offer any serious tactical advantage. I'm all for being tough on crime, but making crime out of nothing is just plain dumb.

[madville]

15. I have yet to run across an AWB supporter

That can accurately describe exactly what the AWB (past and proposed) actually does. It has been demonstrated several times that the politicians that support the AWB don't understand it either.

If they were truly serious about slashing gun violence, like by 50% or more, they would end the war on drugs and eliminate the black market that funds and causes much of the gang and gun violence in this country.

[madville]

16. They are putting many Democratic Senators and House members in jeopardy

They are putting many Senators and House members from traditionally pro-gun states at risk next year from both sides of the issue. If they are for gun control the NRA and pro-gun voters will get wound up, if they oppose gun control Bloomberg may come after them in the primaries and in a way help the Republicans if an anti-gun Democrat takes out the incumbent. It's a tight rope right now.

[bobclark86]

22. Tough...

I'm sick of our elected officials copping out when the heat's all about. It's called a backbone. I'll take someone with a backbone any day.