16 Dems with jurisdiction over firearms laws

[RPB]

Reporting from Washington —
Gun safety hearings rejected by chairman of House Judiciary Committee
Sixteen Democrats on the panel sent a letter to Republican Rep. Lamar Smith requesting hearings in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Friday rejected a request from Democrats to hold hearings related to gun safety in the aftermath of the shootings in Tucson earlier this month.
All 16 Democrats on the committee, which has jurisdiction over firearms laws,

Story at: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 1794.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By James Oliphant, Los Angeles Times
January 28, 2011, 1:39 p.m.

[Lodge2004]

"It is more important than ever that we examine our gun safety laws and regulations," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee. "It is simply common sense to limit the availability of high-capacity magazines, and ensure that individuals banned by law from owning firearms are, in fact, prevented from buying guns."

Instead of tying the rejection to the dirtbag's trial, it should have been rejected based on the transparent self-serving (we want to grandstand) request itself. Why do we need to examine "gun safety" laws and regulations if you have already come to your conclusions.

Let's just make it illegal for crazy people to shoot innocent people at a political rally and call it a day.

[mgood]

Let's just make it illegal for crazy people to shoot innocent people at a political rally and call it a day.

Ok, now I'm confused. I thought it was already illegal to shoot innocent people.
A new "common sense gun safety" law would . . . what? Make it more illegal?

[Fangs]

I think he was being sarcastic...

[Charles L. Cotton]

While emotionally I'd love to see Rep. Smith give the 16 Dems a not so pleasant NO, what he is doing is more productive in political terms. A flat rejection would be used by the anti-gun Dems to as a bully pulpit to try to gain support from that part of the American public that does not have strong feelings about guns one way or the other. Rep. Smith's response does not foreclose "consideration' so he has taken a big step toward disarming the anit-gun Dems' attempt to paint Republicans as uncaring in the face of the Arizona shootings. That doesn't mean the hearings will ever be held. In many ways, hearings that conclude there's no need nor benefit from additional federal gun laws would arguably be a beneficial tactical move. However, by the time this guy's trials, if there are multiple trials, are over and all of the appeals are competed, President Obama and more anti-gun Dems will be retired, so the Arizona catalyst will be gone.

Nevertheless, this is no time to be complacent! All freedom loving gun owners better be ready to turn on the telephones and fax machines in Washington when the call to action goes out. The anit-gunners see Arizona as a turning point in terms of public opinion on gun control and it's absolutely imperative that we show Washington that nothing has changed.

Chas.

[RPB]

"common sense" to limit the availability of high-capacity magazines
Yeah, makes sense if you DON'T think about it I guess.
So, Let's do:

I did, and I'm amazed that...

out of all the many mass shootings, most of which used short ungrabbable magazines and racked up over twice to 5 times the body counts, that one which was stopped by bystanders BECAUSE you can grab a "foot-long" magazine,
(unlike Cho, Hennard et al, who were unstoppable as you couldn't grab a magazine and use leverage to wrench it from a hand, so Colin Goddard at Virginia Tech had to play possum and rely on a madman to allow him to live or not)
seems to make...
"common sense" to limit the availability of high-capacity magazines .... not such a good idea.

Wouldn't it make more "common sense" to require all mass shooters, pass a law that they MUST use the slow-to-reload, clumsy, often malfunctioning, foot-long, easy-to-grab ones? Unless they prefer higher body counts?

I mean those assisted in stopping the guy, who historically would have been unstoppable like prior ones who racked up higher body counts.

Government reports indicate that over 50% of the time bystanders/Teachers/Staff/Students are the "first responders" so don't give them anything big enough to grab so they can stop the shooter?


What's "common sense" about that, unless the goal is higher body counts and more defenseless victims? (Maybe more possum playing Brady employees in the pool of applicants?)

What's the goal? To stop shooters, or to make shooters unstoppable?

Looks like people writing a "cure" prior to performing a "proper diagnosis"
Makes sense if you DON'T think about it I guess.

[mr surveyor]

remember... "high capacity" is whatever "They" say high capacity is. Like for instance, anything more than 10.

[Dragonfighter]

remember... "high capacity" is whatever "They" say high capacity is. Like for instance, anything more than 10.

Or five, four, three, two...one. Better have only one attacker or your dead.