Death Comes In Many Ways

To those who think I have no sympathy for the anti-gun-control argument, you'd best revisit the rhythms I worship.

 

Comments

[Craig Moore]

Do you still hold by your previous stance? http://www.leftinthewest.com/showComment.do;jsessionid=AD58DA09695FB9503ACABE5A20D87CEA?commentId=11962

The assault weapons ban was simply bad law. It fails every test for effectiveness. Every one. There's a helluva lot of us 'libruls' out there who know that, accept that and will live with that. It will not pass again (do I need to remind folks here that legislation takes 60 votes to pass the Senate call for cloture?) Regardless of whether or not the Democrats gain more seats in the Senate (they will), too few want to stake their reputations on bad law. That doesn't mean we need to fear the wrath of single issue voters; it simply means that our elected officials haven't the time or need to wrangle over such trivialities.

[Wulfgar]

Which part, Craig? That the assault weapons ban was bad law? Absolutely. That Congress won't pass another? That wasn't a 'stance', that was a prediction, one I'm no longer completely certain of because of the last point. Due to popular will, such a thing is no longer a triviality. However, I still find a passage of the Brady Bill 2.0 to be very unlikely unless there is significant filibuster reform. There are too many Democratic Senators from more rural states (including Tester and Baucus) who have an inordinate voice and would likely vote against party on the cloture question.

Still, your question to me misses the point I was trying to make. So I'll try again in another post.

[Craig Moore]

I guess I did. I look forward to your clarification. Perhaps in that post or here you could reflect on the Baucus Tester letter to Holder back in 2009.

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is in regards to your recent comments suggesting the reinstatement of the ban on
assault weapons. We oppose reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons, and we call on
the Department of Justice to enforce existing laws before it considers imposing any new
restrictions on gun ownership.

Your comments noted increased violence among international drug traffickers as a reason to
reexamine the ban on assault weapons within this country; however, this statement fails to
acknowledge laws already in place that work to address this issue. Under current law, both
transferring a firearm to someone knowing that it will be used to commit a violent or
drug-trafficking crime as well as possessing a firearm in furtherance of a Federal drug
trafficking crime are already federal felonies punishable by imprisonment.

We will strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun
owners. We value our outdoor heritage, and a large part of that is our Second Amendment right to
keep and bear arms. Passing this heritage down from one generation to the next is a sacred part
of being a Montanan, and something that we will always fight to protect. In the light of the
Supreme Court’s landmark ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, affirming the Second
Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right, we urge you
to avoid any legislative proposals that would jeopardize the Constitutional right of law-abiding
Americans to own firearms.

Sincerely,
U.S. Senator Max Baucus
U.S. Senator Jon Tester

[Wulfgar]

Not likely. They said their peace, and I'll say mine.