# 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:** 5
**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, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/81 "2013-03-20T16:48:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t laud someone for not committing murder when he shoves an enemy onto the tracks in front of an approaching train and the train manages to stop in time. Got any more bad analogies you’d like to bring up, or are you done for now? For-instances would be better than analogies. Especially given that most people in this thread seem to be confused about what’s bothering you and why. As best as I can tell, the ‘what’ is that when the Dems signaled that people who liked expansive gun rights could safely vote for Dems, they meant it only for a period of several years into the future, rather than for all time. As for the ‘why,’ I’ll confess I have no clue here. ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/82 "2013-03-20T17:03:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You don’t speak Brickerese? Here, let me help. When the title of the thread reads “Reid Admits No Support…” that doesn’t mean “no support” as in a total absence of support, it means insufficient support. A bill requires 51 votes to pass the Senate. That’s because there are 100 members in the Senate: 100 /2 = 50. So half the Senate is 50. 1 more than half is 51. “No support” means what the OP says it does, and what the linked article says it does: no support TO PASS THE BILL. Sorry that confused 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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/83 "2013-03-20T17:04:50Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > As best as I can tell, the ‘what’ is that when the Dems signaled that people who liked expansive gun rights could safely vote for Dems, they meant it only for a period of several years into the future, rather than for all time. Ok. So now answer the question I posed in the OP: will the Democrats AGAIN signal that people who like expansive gun rights can safely vote for them? ---
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/84 "2013-03-20T17:08:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A bill requires 51 votes to pass the Senate. That’s because there are 100 members in the Senate: 100 /2 = 50. So half the Senate is 50. 1 more than half is 51. > > “No support” means what the OP says it does, and what the linked article says it does: no support TO PASS THE BILL. > > Sorry that confused you. Well, it was confusing, because you’re equating ‘insufficient support’ with ‘no support.’ Oh, and at least as the game is currently played, the number 51 is irrelevant. A bill requires 60 votes to break a filibuster, and until it gets 60, it won’t pass. So by your definition, 59 votes for a gun control bill would constitute ‘no support.’ :rolleyes: But you did get one thing right in that post: 100/2 = 50. That is correct. ---
**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, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/85 "2013-03-20T17:13:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So now answer the question I posed in the OP: will the Democrats AGAIN signal that people who like expansive gun rights can safely vote for them? Yes. Why shouldn’t they? Democrats haven’t done anything to take away people’s guns or limit their right to legally own one. After all, it’s not like a situation where a political party promised they would stop irresponsible spending and then turned a budget surplus into a massive debt. Or like a political party claiming to have superior ability to defend the country and then wasted our resources by miring us in unwinnable wars. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/86 "2013-03-20T17:18:36Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. Don’t forget all the new NRA members, 250,000 in the first month after the shooting represents almost $9 million in membership fees. Can’t seem to find a count of the total for the 3 months since the shooting. [http://now.msn.com/nra-membership-up-250000-in-month-since-sandy-hook](http://now.msn.com/nra-membership-up-250000-in-month-since-sandy-hook) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/87 "2013-03-20T17:20:30Z")
> [@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. I’m curious as to whether the percentage of Democrats who appeared to change their statements regarding gun control differed markedly from the percentage of Republicans who changed their statements in the wake of Sandy Hook. I recall seeing a number of Republicans initially saying that Sandy Hook “changed” things. It would seem, therefore, that the reaction to Sandy Hook was a two week phenomenon on both sides of the legislative aisle and that, as it has passed into background, the old attitudes–meaning no serious gun control legislation from either side–have reasserted themselves. Thus, the answer to the OP is that “an interest” in gun control is nothing more than standard boilerplate rhetoric that is irrelevant to any serious voter for the foreseeable future and it it true that, as a party, (individuals differing of course), the Democrats can claim no interest in gun control. ---
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/88 "2013-03-20T17:20:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok. > > So now answer the question I posed in the OP: will the Democrats AGAIN signal that people who like expansive gun rights can safely vote for them? I already did. You didn’t like my answer (post 37) - which you replied to, incidentally (post 43) - but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an answer. I replied further in post 44. At any rate, now that we’ve agreed that what’s bothering you is that the Dems didn’t hold to that position until the heat death of the Universe, I suppose I could ask again why that bothers you. But the ‘why’ hardly seems to matter, given the ‘what.’ So maybe I won’t bother to inquire further. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/89 "2013-03-20T17:23:10Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > So maybe I won’t bother to inquire further. Given the way in which you have made this entire exchanfe a personal one, that would be a very good choice on your part. [/Moderating] ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/90 "2013-03-20T17:25:58Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > Don’t forget all the new NRA members, 250,000 in the first month after the shooting represents almost $9 million in membership fees. > > Can’t seem to find a count of the total for the 3 months since the shooting. > > [http://now.msn.com/nra-membership-up-250000-in-month-since-sandy-hook](http://now.msn.com/nra-membership-up-250000-in-month-since-sandy-hook) P.T. Barnum would be proud. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/91 "2013-03-20T17:28:00Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > That’s a subset of #2. Giving up on gun control is quite different than just biding your time until you get a chance to act on it. ---
**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/92 "2013-03-20T17:40:07Z")
From the [2012 Democratic Party Platform](http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform#protecting-rights), which was published before the Sandy Hook shooting: > [@](#): > > Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few. Emphasis added. Not seeing any shift in signals here, **Bricker**. If anything, we’re seeing that many Democrats are not toeing the party line on this item. ---
**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, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/93 "2013-03-20T17:42:32Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Giving up on gun control is quite different than just biding your time until you get a chance to act on it. Seems that you’re saying the same thing Bricker is: that giving up isn’t giving up, unless it’s a commitment to give up for all time. I’m rather tired of this semantic debate. If you think that’s how to define things, then we need more terms to fill some middle ground, such as when you give up for the foreseeable future rather than for all time, and we can use one of those instead of ‘give up.’ We can call it ‘[babaloo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZlLQLFq_H4)’ when one gives up for just the foreseeable future. The Dems babalooed. Now we can all be happy. ---
**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, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/94 "2013-03-20T17:45:38Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Yes. Why shouldn’t they? Democrats haven’t done anything to take away people’s guns or limit their right to legally own one. But not from lack of trying. **Bricker** ’s premise is a true one. The Democrats have clearly displayed their intention to pass new gun restrictions, despite having denied this intention in the past. My guess as to when they will go back into denial mode: Probably before this thread gets inactive. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/95 "2013-03-20T17:47:10Z")
Oh, and whatever’s happening in DC, I see that Colorado, a rather purple state, [has just seen fit to pass some nontrivial gun control legislation](http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/20/17387990-colorado-governor-signs-gun-reform?lite). Take from that what you will. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/96 "2013-03-20T17:48:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A bill requires 51 votes to pass the Senate. That’s because there are 100 members in the Senate: 100 /2 = 50. So half the Senate is 50. 1 more than half is 51… OK! Good! That part is totally clear and soundly reasoned! > [@](#): > > …“No support” means what the OP says it does, and what the linked article says it does: no support TO PASS THE BILL… Wait, what? If Reid has a majority of the Senate, 59 votes say but cannot pass the filibuster threshold, then his support by the majority is the same as no support at all? Fifty nine equals zero? Now, had you said “Reid admits he cannot pass AWB”, you would have been on entirely correct grounds, having not wildly exaggerated the facts. But 59 does not equal zero, or even 20, still does not equal zero. Zero equals zero. Period. Full stop. > [@](#): > > …Sorry that confused you. Don’t worry, you didn’t. Probably didn’t even mean “no support” in the first place, since that is so obviously stupid. But having said it, you sure as hell weren’t going to back down, now were you, buckaroo? ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/97 "2013-03-20T17:49:35Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > The Democrats have clearly displayed their intention to pass new gun restrictions, despite having denied this intention in the past. Where? When? Who? You’re just repeating the OP’s claims which haven’t been validated yet. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/98 "2013-03-20T17:49:42Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > But not from lack of trying. > > **Bricker** ’s premise is a true one. The Democrats have clearly displayed their intention to pass new gun restrictions, despite having denied this intention in the past. > > My guess as to when they will go back into denial mode: Probably before this thread gets inactive. Denying it by putting it in their platform (as linked by **John Mace** )? I’ve heard of hiding in plain sight before but this takes the cake. ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/99 "2013-03-20T17:49:50Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Seems that you’re saying the same thing Bricker is: that giving up isn’t giving up, unless it’s a commitment to give up for all time. This is your interpretation, and it’s just silly. If I promise not to hit you and then I hit you sixty seconds later am I not breaking my promise because I didn’t say I wouldn’t hit you forever? Gradually evolving on an issue is one thing. We’ve seen many politicians do that on issues such as gay rights. That’s not what’s happening here. Lying low and waiting for a moment to strike would be a better description. ---
**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, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/100 "2013-03-20T17:51:17Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Where? When? Who? You’re just repeating the OP’s claims which haven’t been validated yet. Keep batting those eyelashes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402.md?page=6)