# Reid Admits No Support For "Assault Weapons" Ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402 "2013-03-19T22:41:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/41 "2013-03-20T13:52:31Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You know, if that message _had just started circulating during the run-up to the 2012 election_ as a justification for voting for Dems in that election, you might have a point. > > But given that that message had been circulating **for a dozen years** prior to Sandy Hook, the fact is that **that message was correct for almost all of that time.** > > And then a massacre even more horrific than the usual run of mass murders happened, and that message was superseded by events. > > (What? It didn’t remain accurate until the heat death of the universe? _Hypocrites!!_ :D) > > You know, **Bricker** , your obtuseness is really something impressive to behold. in my view, these events prove that the message was never accurate. In other words, even a mass murder this horrible is only one event, and not a proper basis for setting policy. Anecdotes are not data – one horrible murder using an AR-15 does not justify banning AR-15s in the absence of more generalized data indicating the harm they cause. So what this set of events suggest is that Democrats were always predisposed to enact various bans, and stymied only by the lack of more general public support. But again: irrelevant to my point. Let’s pretend you’re right. My question remains: having now seen the ease with which Democrats were persuaded to abandon their previous disavowal of interest in gun restrictions, can they, going forward, again claim a lack of interest in gun control? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/42 "2013-03-20T13:56:53Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Doesn’t this comment belong in the Iraq thread? 😃 It’s an appropriate comment for any discussion of public policy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/43 "2013-03-20T14:03:14Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > _Really??_ > > Damn, counselor, understanding you is beyond my abilities. > > First of all, try, “safe from the perspective of supporters **of an expansive interpretation** of the Second Amendment,” okay? Just because some people believe that gun control of various sorts is consistent with the Second Amendment doesn’t make them opponents of the Amendment. > > I, for one, strongly believe that it should continue meaning exactly what it did in the time it was ratified, and that nobody should be denied the possession or use of any firearm that was available in the United States of America on December 15, 1791. 🙂 Yes. Odd that you don’t similarly believe the First Amendment should mean exactly what it meant in 1791: the press is protected, but we can regulate the content of Twitter, blogs, and radio broadcasts as we please. It’s safe to say that someone who came along with a proposal to regulate The Daily Show because of its dangerous criticisms of the government would be branded an opponent of the First Amendment, and I don’t for an instant believe that his attempt to distinguish himself as someone who “supports” the First Amendment as it was written in 1791 would be received with anything but derision. So – save it. > [@](#): > > No, between now and the 2014 midterms, nobody with a clue is going to make the claim that Dems aren’t going to try to pass gun control laws, so even if you’re against such laws, it’s safe to vote for Dems. Sure – but what about ten years down the line? Will there come a point at which Democrats – or their proxies here – feel enough time has passed that they’re able to credibly distance themselves again from the “gun grabber” label? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/44 "2013-03-20T14:17:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Odd that you don’t similarly believe the First Amendment should mean exactly what it meant in 1791: the press is protected, but we can regulate the content of Twitter, blogs, and radio broadcasts as we please. This is because I’m a bit of a Constitutional pragmatist: I believe that, within the range of legitimate approaches to interpretation (and you _do_ consider originalism legitimate, right, counselor?), those that work best for the citizenry should be favored over those that work poorly. There’s an element of IMHO in there, of course, but that’s inevitable. Still, with some things like gun rights, there are tests of ‘what works well’ - can citizens still go hunting for deer, wild turkey, etc., can citizens possess guns that will repel intruders to their homes and businesses, are gun deaths otherwise minimized? > [@](#): > > Sure – but what about ten years down the line? > > Will there come a point at which Democrats – or their proxies here – feel enough time has passed that they’re able to credibly distance themselves again from the “gun grabber” label? In 1872, who would have predicted that, 140 years later, the Republican party would be fighting **for** voting restrictions that had the goal of reducing minority voting, and the Democrats would be **against** those restrictions? Given enough time, anything can happen. What’s your point, counselor? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/45 "2013-03-20T14:20:33Z")
**Bricker,** show us the names of the Democratic legislators who pledged never to consider new gun control legislation and then went back on that pledge. Or admit you have no point. Either one would be fine. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/46 "2013-03-20T14:23:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > in my view, these events prove that the message was never accurate. Then your view is really kinda worthless, isn’t it? I mean, I understand you’re a Catholic and all, and the eternal is of great importance to you. But this is _politics_ we’re talking about, not faith, hope, or love, and nothing is eternal in politics. Which leads us to the conclusion that nothing in politics is accurate by your standard. Which means that the only thing to do is get over any expectation that anything political _will_ be accurate by your standard, and when discussing politics, retreat to normal rather than eternal usage of ‘accurate.’ _Back to where we started, here we go 'round again…_ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/47 "2013-03-20T14:41:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > iMy question remains: having now seen the ease with which Democrats were persuaded to abandon their previous disavowal of interest in gun restrictions, can they, going forward, again claim a lack of interest in gun control? I think we’d need to look at specific politicians and not just “Democrats”. Which ones previously opposed a ban, then supported it after the Sandy Hook shooting? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/48 "2013-03-20T14:42:42Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > No, your statement isn’t the truth. > > There are two possibilities to consider: > > 1. That we only pretended to give up on gun control during the 2001-2012 period, in hopes of lulling the pro-gun side to sleep. It was all just a ruse, and when the gunnies had finally passed many hundreds of pro-gun laws at the state level, like laws allowing concealed weapons in bars, and banning employers from enforcing no-guns-on-site rules, not to mention stand-your-ground laws, they might finally doze off, and we’d rise up, elect a bunch of legislators who favored gun control, and…what? Have to repeal all those hundreds of pro-gun laws just to get back to where we were after the 2000 election? > > Or: > > 1. We really did give up on gun control for all those years. And then the series of recent massacres beginning with Aurora and culminating with Newtown re-radicalized us after all these years. > #1 makes about as much sense as a tunafish swimming through outer space. So, counselor, kindly get real, and try door number 2. It’s actually 3: Democrats have consistently wanted gun control but know that it’s a losing issue for them so they don’t do anything about it. But as soon as Sandy Hook happened they took the chance it offered to attempt to pass the anti-gun laws that they desire. They always wanted them, but don’t act on it because they usually can’t. That’s the point. If you value your second amendment rights you shouldn’t vote for Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/49 "2013-03-20T14:45:50Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > It’s actually 3: Democrats have consistently wanted gun control but know that it’s a losing issue for them so they don’t do anything about it. But as soon as Sandy Hook happened they took the chance it offered to attempt to pass the anti-gun laws that they desire. They always wanted them, but don’t act on it because they usually can’t. That’s a subset of #2. > [@](#): > > That’s the point. If you value your second amendment rights you shouldn’t vote for Democrats. If you value **an expansive interpretation of** your second amendment rights you shouldn’t vote for Democrats. There, fixed that for you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/50 "2013-03-20T14:46:45Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > **Bricker,** show us the names of the Democratic legislators who pledged never to consider new gun control legislation and then went back on that pledge. Or admit you have no point. Either one would be fine. Since that was never my point, I don’t see why the refutation of it would serve to show that I have no point. But there are plenty of examples of legislators who strongly sold the idea, without making it a notarized oath. > [@James Webb, Scots-Irish political culture, Democrats, and gun control](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-webb-scots-irish-political-culture-democrats-and-gun-control/379885/1): > > Our new junior senator from Virginia wrote an article about ethnicity and U.S. politics in 2004, he used these ideas to get elected, check it out-- [http://jameswebb.com/articles/wallstjrnl/scotsirishvote.htm](http://jameswebb.com/articles/wallstjrnl/scotsirishvote.htm) > > That was an interesting article, and I think Webb understands quite well what he’s talking about. The main thing I get from it is the Democratic Party can woo the Scots-Irish as long as you don’t fuck with their guns. Number one dealbreaker is gun control, the rest is negotiable. I’m afraid we liberals will have to concede that gun control is a dead issue in America. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/51 "2013-03-20T14:48:47Z")
To expand on my previous post: > [@Bricker](#): > > So what I am now asking is: going forward, will the Democrats, and/or their vocal proxies here, again attempt to claim that electing them is safe from a Second Amendment supporter’s perspective? Yes - and your OP offers evidence that this statement would be true. If somebody agrees with the majority of the Democrat Part platform but is opposed to gun control, then they should vote Democrat. Because no meaningful gun control is going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/52 "2013-03-20T14:50:23Z")
Put me down for a “Meh”. If there is one thing Harry Reid can do, it’s count votes. They weren’t there. I’m sure that many are rubbing their hands like Montgomery Burns and cackling “Excellent”, in hopes that this will somehow hurt Democrats. I don’t think so for these reasons. 1- If your vote is primarily swayed by making sure that guns are readily available, you’ve already been voting Republican your entire life. 2- Every politician who has expressed a desire for more gun control lives in a safely blue district or state. The NRA got what they wanted out of Sandy Hook, namely money. Their bosses, the gun manufacturers, made shitloads of money selling tons of weapons by capitalizing on the paranoia of gun lovers. Now it’s over until the next Sandy Hook. Perhaps next time, the mass murderer will be more competent and the death toll will be in the hundreds. Maybe that will spark enough outrage to change things. But I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/53 "2013-03-20T14:50:23Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > That’s the point. If you value your second amendment rights you shouldn’t vote for Democrats. \ But I also value rights to socialized healthcare and women’s rights to abortion and higher taxes on high income earners and improved social services for those less privileged and lower spending on military and higher spending on education and gay marriage rights… But gosh darn it, I do love my Glock. What to do… what to do…? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/54 "2013-03-20T14:56:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since that was never my point, I don’t see why the refutation of it would serve to show that I have no point. But there are plenty of examples of legislators who strongly sold the idea, without making it a notarized oath. Well what is your point then? (also link did not work, are you saying Webb reneged on a gun control promise?) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/55 "2013-03-20T14:58:02Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You know, **Bricker** , your obtuseness is really something impressive to behold. Keep the personal insults out of this forum. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/56 "2013-03-20T14:59:19Z")
I think there is also a point to be made that there are different levels of gun regulation. The concerns on the right was that Obama was going to make gun ownership illegal and send ATF agents into individuals homes and round up their guns by force. The left said that this will never happen. This statement was correct. Under even the most favorable of political circumstances the best that the left could come up with was proposing a mealy mouthed ban on the manufacture and importation of one specific type of gun, and even this didn’t pass. So yes the right didn’t have to worry about “Obama coming for their guns”. The comparison with abortion is apt. No matter who was elected to office, Roe v Wade will not be overturned in spite of the left’s fear mongering. On the other hand there are many laws put forward by the right that eat away at the edges, such as invasive ultrasounds. The right doesn’t need to worry about the overturning of the second amendment any more than the left needs to be concerned about the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In fact it appears it has nothing to worry about at all. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/57 "2013-03-20T14:59:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s safe to say that someone who came along with a proposal to regulate The Daily Show because of its dangerous criticisms of the government would be branded an opponent of the First Amendment, and I don’t for an instant believe that his attempt to distinguish himself as someone who “supports” the First Amendment as it was written in 1791 would be received with anything but derision. > > So – save it. Are you suggesting the First Amendment is absolute, and is never restricted under the law, for any reason? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/58 "2013-03-20T15:01:13Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Well what is your point then? (also link did not work, are you saying Webb reneged on a gun control promise?) My point may be found in the OP, and in a number of my posts above: Democrats generally disclaimed an interest in gun control. But when an opportunity arose that appeared to provide increased public support for gun control, they reversed that position. Now that the main thrust from that attempt appears to have failed, I’m asking if they will again try to claim no interest in gun control. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/59 "2013-03-20T15:02:23Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Are you suggesting the First Amendment is absolute, and is never restricted under the law, for any reason? Absolutely not. I’m suggesting that the proper method of analysis for determining the First Amendment’s limits is not found by examining the technologies in use when the amendment was adopted. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/60 "2013-03-20T15:03:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My point may be found in the OP, and in a number of my posts above: Democrats generally disclaimed an interest in gun control. But when an opportunity arose that appeared to provide increased public support for gun control, they reversed that position. Now that the main thrust from that attempt appears to have failed, I’m asking if they will again try to claim no interest in gun control. Who are these Democrats, who speak for us, generally? And since when is the AWB the main thrust of gun control? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402.md?page=4)