Congress unlikely to embrace new gun laws following CT shooting
President Barack Obama’s call for “meaningful action” following one of the deadliest mass shootings in American history — and one of the most shocking, with 20 children killed — is likely to face a tough road in Congress and in the lobbying circles that influence it.
“What’s he going to do? He’s not going to get legislation,” said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. “That’s obvious to anybody.”
Sabato and other experts predicted that Washington’s powerful gun lobby — and the many lawmakers from both parties who are cognizant of its influence — virtually assures the failure of any legislation aimed at curbing gun rights. At best, Sabato said, Obama could try other policy approaches in an attempt to improve public safety, such as by backing legislation that would require more metal detectors in schools and other public places. …
Many Democrats also stopped short of calling for policy changes, instead saying that Friday was “a day for mourning the loss of the victims and for coming together as Americans,” as Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz, D-Pa., put it in a statement.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Yeah, it’s that powerful gun lobby. Nobody thinks it has anything to do with that silly 2nd Amendment.
ButterflyDragon on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Maybe because they won’t work?
Maybe because we need to look at something OTHER than inanimate objects to blame?
Galt2009 on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Keep the feds out of it. Leave it to state and local authorities, who might
consider requiring gun-free zones to have properly trained, armed marshal(s) present at all times to protect defenseless people who, by virtue of their being in a gun-free zone, are sitting ducks for criminals and the criminally insane.
petefrt on December 15, 2012 at 9:47 AM
I’m thinking a good place to start doing “something meaningful” would be to have a serious conversation about how we treat people with mental illness of various forms. This shooter did not suddenly just snap. He had a history of behavior that might have predicted tragedy if we were not so brainwashed as a society to try to make mentally ill people feel like they can function in normal society without hurting their feelings.
MikeA on December 15, 2012 at 9:48 AM
If only there was a law against stealing your mother’s guns. Not the law that there already is but a better one.
JohnBrown on December 15, 2012 at 9:49 AM
Regardless of lobbying efforts, the Congress or the Executive Branch can’t do a damn thing about the 2nd Amendment. At most, they can propose another amendment…and then send it to the states for ratification.
Gun control laws have been struck down in DC, and if you can’t keep them in place there, what expectation exists for amending the Constitution?
BobMbx on December 15, 2012 at 9:52 AM
Oh, don’t worry, King Hussein’O will simply issue an executive order banning the sale of guns – Problem solved!
Pork-Chop on December 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Please Stop Talking
December 14, 2012 10:16 PM | Posted by Bill Otis | No Comments
Why is it that every politician in America thinks he has to run his mouth about the child massacre in Connecticut? If they had something original to say, or even slightly helpful, that would be one thing. But they don’t, not a one of them. So I wish they would stop. Democrat, Republican, conservative or liberal. Just stop.
If they aim to act, get moving and go do it. I proposed one such act — immediate reinstatement of the death penalty in Connecticut. While we’re t it, this would be a good time to reinstate capital punishment in the other states that have legislatively repealed it in the last few years (Illinois, New Mexico and New Jersey).
But we’ve had the discussion, ladies and gentlemen. You can listen to your TV all you want (or can stand). You won’t hear a thing you haven’t heard before. Much of it is phony. It’s not there is nothing genuine here; quite to the contrary. It’s that anything genuine does not need to be staged in front of a camera. Virtually everything that goes on in that setting is a study in platitudes. None of it represents thinking a normal adult couldn’t do for himself.
So, politicians, stop. Just stop.
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/
Blake on December 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM
Minnesota is already forging ahead. A bill in the works will require a sign, boldly lettered, which must be applied to all exterior doors of the house saying “Junior! DON’T steal my guns!”
See? So simple even you Rethuglikkkans can understand it.
Bishop on December 15, 2012 at 10:03 AM
You know, that lady had a pretty impressive arsenal. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I wonder why.
S. Weasel on December 15, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Dollar to donut says the Obama will exploit tragedies like this one to make a full assault on the Second Amendment through executive order or regulatory controls. Not to mention the mischief that might be precipitated by the UN’s Small Arms Treaty.
petefrt on December 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders
Blake on December 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM
Because blue CT is falling apart and the murder rate is soaring?
Bishop on December 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM
It really is the gun lobby, though.
Since when have these Amandamints (what are those, anyway?) stopped our illustrious leaders from addressing the problems that they feel the plebeian class faces?
mintycrys on December 15, 2012 at 10:21 AM
I wished I hadn’t linked that particular story since most of it is blubbering about the poor murderers. But living in an upscale house in the boonies, she needed protection.
Blake on December 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM
What can Obama do? Enforce our current laws, of course. That’s what the Executive Branch is supposed to do, and all it is supposed to do.
But I have no doubt he’s thinking up executive orders and regulations he can get away with.
Fenris on December 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM
“Meaningful action” doesn’t necessarily mean new gun laws.
Truly meaningful action would be mental health reforms and doing something about the amoral, nihilistic culture the left has created.
Two pistols and a rifle isn’t “a pretty impressive arsenal” It isn’t even close to being an arsenal at all. At best it’s a modest start on a collection.
single stack on December 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM
It seems we cannot make up our mind. After 9/11, people were clamoring to arm pilots and put armed air marshals on flights. Now, it’s less arming that’s needed or something. I’m not a gun owner, but once again we’re missing the forest (why he killed) for the trees (what he used to do it).
changer1701 on December 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM
A good resource: Does Gun Control Equal Crime Control?
petefrt on December 15, 2012 at 11:04 AM
Well, I agree with Obama that there should be meaningful action taken. Congress ought to pass a resolution that states ought to require that school districts address, in a meaningful and effective way, preventing acts like this within the framework of their responsibility for ensuring the security of the children in their care.
The resolution ought to include a caveat that if Congress doesn’t see immediate movement in this direction, within a year Congress will consider a law tying federal school aid to having methods in place.
Dusty on December 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM
What do you want to bet that the nut was obsessed with some violent video game? If the Second Amendment is in play, why not the First?
AcidReflux on December 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Alternate headline: Congress unlikely to blame law-abiding citizens for the actions of insane psychopaths
Good Lt on December 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Obama can dry up supplies of foreign ammunition and have the “Justice” Department, the ATF, the IRS, and the EPA harass manufacturers here.
claudius on December 15, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Available to her very unstable son no less. We will never know why he did this but I have to wonder if he targeted a “gun free zone” on purpose. Details are fast and free but the last I read was that the mother didn’t even work at the school.
Frank Enstine on December 15, 2012 at 12:00 PM
The story makes it sound like the NRA is blocking the will of the people. Support for the right to own a handgun is at an all time high according to Gallup.
Ted Torgerson on December 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM
His mother’s connection to the school is fairly loose and tenuous, but apparently the killer may have attended the school at some point in the past.
Robert_Paulson on December 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM
The democrats won’t even bring a bill to the floor. They know what happens when they do that.
juliesa on December 15, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Wasn’t that place a “gun free” zone? Isn’t muderer illegal?
MoreLiberty on December 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM
If he were a decent man, alas, he’d have simply said “I express my deep regrets and condolences, for my family and the country. Our thoughts and prayers are with the greiving families”.
This is a charlatan of the first degree. The bodies were not even cold and many, him included, had politics on their minds. To Hades with you all, Bloomberg first. You are animals, hyenas.
Schadenfreude on December 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM
I would dearly love to see the Republican House pass a bill outlawing ‘gun-free zones’ at government facilities (including military bases, see Ft. Hood) and send it on to the Senate, where it would cause vast unhappiness at the thought “What if we don’t enact it and something happens?”
PersonFromPorlock on December 15, 2012 at 1:08 PM