Pelosi Wants A Compromise On Another Assault Weapon Ban

[ManBearPig]

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/07/pelosi-pledges-compromise-on-assault-weapons-ban/

I'd like to know what that compromise is going to be. Since the meaning of compromise is both sides give something up and also get something in return. If we give her the "assualt weapon" ban, are we getting the 1986 Machine Gun Ban repealed? Or maybe we are getting national conceal carry?

The answer to the above is OF COURSE NOT. We all know what she really means by "compromise". She means that she has a goal of an "assault weapon" ban and the goal is that if we go along with most of it, she won't make it as tough as she'd like. In other words, our side gives up some more of our gun rights with nothing given in return.

Sorry Nanci, NO DEAL. And in case you forgot, 65 of your House Democrats have pledged to vote it down; and Senator Harry Reid will make sure the bill is voted out of existence in the Senate. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

And just to really rub it in, every month that goes by without a ban, millions of more guns get bought by law-abiding civilians......and you can bet that a large percentage of those guns are the very ones you want to ban. HOW DO YOU LIKE DEM APPLES??????????????????????

 

[209]

If I'm interpreting the comments made by Pelosi the right way, I'm thinking she's saying, "Let us make a new House of Representatives position for DC and we'll talk turkey about gun rights.

I may be wrong but doesn't the Constitution set forth a legal method to be followed when inventing more Representatives? Add to that there is also a pesky part of the Constitution that addresses guns.

It seems to me, no compromise is needed.

 

[unionguy]

Here's my new political program for us:

1) Advocate for full funding of all mental health treatment programs so we intervene earlier and stop most of the crazy shooters from doing their horror.

2) Advocate for very strict penalties for anyone that doesn't keep their weapons away from their kids, their depressed teenagers, etc. This way we most of the accidental discharges, teen depressed killers and suicides. (I'm sorry, but I believe if I have children or teenagers in my home, my responsibilities to keep them secure is much greater than someone without).

3) Make creating jobs and economic opportunity the #1 priority of US businesses and government. If we can invest trilliions in the bankers, we should figure out how to create "trickle up" economics and put people to work. This will decrease the number of shooters who are doing so because they've lost their jobs etc. As one example, let's stop giving tax breaks to companies who move jobs overseas! Let's make American mean something...duty for us as citizens but also for our companies.

So, there you have it...a 3 point program...we will be seen as offering solutions to all these shooters popping up everywhere instead of simply saying "don't take our guns" (which we need to KEEP saying, by the way.) We will form political coalitions with some traditional liberal groups and change the entire terms of the debate...by focusing it back on the CAUSES rather than the TOOL that these people choose to use. It will allow us to more credibly make the argument--if these shooters were instead all driving Ford F150 pickup trucks onto sidewalks to do their killing; would we be calling to outlaw Ford F150's? Of course not.

 

[209]

1) Advocate for full funding of all mental health treatment programs so we intervene earlier and stop most of the crazy shooters from doing their horror.

The only problem with that is that most mental health workers I know are afraid of guns and they'd say anyone that has one is mentally ill.

 

[Davek1977]

2) Advocate for very strict penalties for anyone that doesn't keep their weapons away from their kids, their depressed teenagers, etc. This way we most of the accidental discharges, teen depressed killers and suicides. (I'm sorry, but I believe if I have children or teenagers in my home, my responsibilities to keep them secure is much greater than someone without).

I was raised in a rural home, where guns were kept in an unlocked cabinet I had full access to, along with the permission to access it any time I wanted to, for whatever reason....after I'd learned gun safety and proven myself for a period of two years of strictly supervised shooting. I was 12. WE don't need to legislate common sense. With people unfamiliar with firearm safety in the house, its common sense to lock them up. However, simply having someone 18 residing in a home shouldn't mandate all guns be locked up. Every scenario is unique, and blanket regulations "for everyone's good" aren't good for everyone by any means

 

[MovedWest]

Exactly what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is up for compromise?

-MW

 

[JKimball]

2) Advocate for very strict penalties for anyone that doesn't keep their weapons away from their kids, their depressed teenagers, etc.

I think education would be a better route here than legislation. People should be more concerned about the safety of their kids than they are about some penalty. The government shouldn't be making the rules about how parents "keep their weapons away from their kids."

 

[bikerdoc]

How about we just get rid of Pelosi. Got to be some thing in her past to dig up, unpaid taxes, something. Or the people in her district vote her out!

 

[azmtnbikerxdm]

1) Advocate for full funding of all mental health treatment programs so we intervene earlier and stop most of the crazy shooters from doing their horror.

Great idea. Most state sponsered mental health facilities are under funded and staffed. A good majority of patients could use many more days or weeks of treatment but are sent home early because of money, wether it is private insurance or the state. They will stop taking their medications at some point regardless. It is not a matter of if but when.

Bikerdoc- sounds like a good idea to me. Pelosi has done nothing to better America in my opinion.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think the Democrats will expand the type of firearms under NFA to include so-called assault weapons.

You will still be able to get them, but they will be registered, and you will get to pay a much needed tax to the federal government.

We'll see, but thats what I think they are heading towards.

 

[rbernie]

Dupe:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=441553