Momentum is building in Washington for an effort next year to pass some kind of gun control legislation while Senator Joe Lieberman called for a national commission to examine the issue of mass killings in America.
The idea was endorsed by Senator Dick Durbin who said,”We need people, just ordinary Americans, to come together, and speak out, and to sit down and calmly reflect on how far we go.”
“How far we go” is, indeed, the issue. To Democrats the issue now isn’t whether there should be new gun control but what shape it will take.
The time for “saying that we can’t talk about the policy implications of tragedies like this is over,” said Rep. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who won a Senate seat in the November elections.
President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats haven’t pushed for new gun controls since rising to power in the 2008 national elections. Outspoken advocates for stricter laws, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, say that’s because of the powerful sway of the National Rifle Association.
But advocates also say the latest shooting is a tipping point that could change the dynamic of the debate dramatically. Feinstein, D-Calif., said she plans to create a national committee devoted to rallying support for a ban on the sale of new assault weapons and will propose legislation next year that would ban big clips, drum and strips of more than 10 bullets.
“It can be done,” she said Sunday of reviving the 10-year ban that expired in 2004.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who is retiring, said there should be a national commission to scrutinize gun laws and loopholes, as well as the nation’s mental health system and the role that violent video games and movies might play in shootings. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said he would support such a panel, adding that it was time for a “national discussion” that included school safety.
“This conversation has been dominated in Washington by — you know and I know — gun lobbies that have an agenda” Durbin said. “We need people, just ordinary Americans, to come together, and speak out, and to sit down and calmly reflect on how far we go.”
Congress has frequently turned to independent bipartisan commissions to try to solve the nation’s worst problems, including the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Iraq war and the failing economy. But ultimately, lawmakers are often reluctant to act on the recommendations of outsiders, especially if they think it will cost them support in their home states.
Still, Lieberman defended the idea of a national commission as the only way to ensure that the “heartbreak and anger” of the Connecticut shooting doesn’t dissipate over time and that other factors beyond gun control are considered.
It’s not a good idea to let emotion rule public policy. Lieberman’s reason for the national commission — to ensure that the anger people feel doesn’t go away — borders on advocating mob rule. Angry people don’t think straight and can be manipulated into supporting extreme measures — exactly the kind of thing that gun control advocates want. They wish for the American public to lose sight of the Second Amendment in this debate and demand legislation that would be injurious to constitutional protections.
This is the ultimate exploitation of the tragedy and if Democrats really believe that the purpose of the commission should be stoke the “heartbreak and anger” of American citizens, supporters of gun rights should resist its formation with everything they’ve got.
Both Andrea Yates and Susan Smith drowned their kids. We need a National Commission to examine mass drownings.
The first phase of any “gun control” legislation is to prohibit any bodyguard from carrying firearms. Since politicians and entertainers should be treated as normal people their bodyguards should also be treated as normal people. Thus Bloomberg, no armed body guards for you. Thus past presidents and current president, no armed body guards for you. No talent entertainers, no body guards for you either. Once that is passed, then we can work on removing guns from the rest of the population. Want to place any bets on how much support that will garner from the Hollywood stars so upset at the shooting in Connecticut?
National commission to examine mass shootings? You mean, like the ones that happened in Mexico with “Fast and Furious” guns?
Perhaps the President would release documents for that. Though he hasn’t so far.
I heard there was one in Benghazi, Libya too.
Did you ever expect to know how to spell Benghazi?
I’ll support gun control if it means the government disarms at the federal, state and local levels.
If we’re going to have a discussion, how about we discuss why, on average, 37 children are killed daily in Connecticut. And yet there are no flags at half staff. That’s every day, Monday through Sunday. Killed by doctors. Legally. In fact, enthusiastically endorsed by our government. In abortions. And we wonder why there’s a lack of respect for human life in this country, when we treat our children like they’re a dose of the clap.
This commission will be established not only by Dems but also Repubs who will cave in due to this stirring up of emotions by this horrible event. This man, not child, commited this horror due to severe mental illness. I wonder if this will ever be brought up during these hearings. I personally doubt it.
See how our fearless leaders seek to federalize this problem while admonishing everyone not to politicize it?
When they come up with a federal program to end the alienation and rage of awkward horny young social outcasts they’ll finally get those nuts fixed.
if we are going to have a federal program about gun control i believe holder should be appointed to administer it. i mean, he ran the fast & furious gun sales to drug cartel mass murderers, and appears to have a full resume’ on illegal gun distribution to mass murderers. perhaps holder could enhance his resume’ further by telling the American public exactly how many citizens of what countries have now (up to date) been killed by the guns you sold (untagged) to these mass murderers. i noticed the numbers quit climbing when you got wind of Americans being killed with them. maybe you and the prez. can lead another prayer vigil for the families of those brave dead. silence by the old rotten media.
yes, why doesn’t obama come clean on his gun expansion programs before attempting to foist new regulations on us all? he sat on his hands and left brave Americans to die in benghazi – why exactly? gun distribution problems to mass murderers again? then immediately his mouthpieces and minions lied repeatedly about the causes of the attacks, and continued telling the lies even after the simplest progressive could have found out the truth – again, why? and again, as usual, silence by the old rotten media.
i say we are fortunate indeed to have 2 such experienced gun runners as the prez and holder already on the payroll, to help us all understand the mentality that drives mass murder. go ahead mr. prez., show us how you would fix the problem. and please, be as transparent as possible, so even the most weak minded, fully entitled progressive can understand.
The only good thing about this kind of news is the fact that commissions rarely accomplish anything.
Still, I’d prefer they do nothing as occasionally commissions do achieve results (Look up Base Re-Alignment Commission – BRAC).
Murder is a local and state level responsibility – not a FEDERAL responsibility.
There ain’t a damn thing in the US Constitution giving the federal government a role in this tragedy, and all of this posturing by politicians is nothing but preening for their audiences while slathering on a new coat of paint on long held social engineering aims various groups have.
If they really want to have a “conversation” about these tragedies, they need to stop retreading the same old ground over gun control (tried, 10 year ban on certain weapons, failed) and start asking the medical profession some pointed questions about medicating and/or institutionalizing the mentally ill.
And, again, outlaw any gun free zone that does not have armed, on site security.