Democratic senators want ban on assault weapons

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats say meaningful action in the wake of the school shootings in Connecticut must include a ban on military-style assault weapons and a look at how the nation deals with individuals suffering from serious mental illness.
Several Democratic lawmakers and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said it was time to take a deeper look into the recent spate of mass shootings and what can be done to prevent them. Gun control was a hot topic in the early 1990s, when Congress enacted a 10-year ban on assault weapons. But since that ban expired in 2004, few Americans have wanted stricter laws and politicians say they don't want to become targets of a powerful gun-rights lobby.
Gun-rights advocates said that might all change after the latest shooting that killed 20 children aged 6 or 7. Police say the gunman, Adam Lanza, was carrying an arsenal of ammunition and used a high-powered rifle similar to the military's M-16.
On Monday, Sen. Joe Manchin, a lifelong member of the National Rifle Association, said it was time to discuss gun policy and move toward action on gun regulation. The conservative West Virginia Democrat said Monday he agrees with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has advocated banning the sale of assault weapons.
Manchin is the most prominent gun rights advocate to speak after the shooting, telling MSNBC that he is a "proud outdoorsman and hunter, but this doesn't make sense."
At a Sunday night service in Newtown, Conn., the site of Friday's massacre, President Barack Obama did not specifically address gun control. But he vowed, "In the coming weeks I'll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this."
He added: "Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the nation "could be at a tipping point ... a tipping point where we might actually get something done" on gun control. He and other Democrats, as well as Lieberman, said they want to ban the sale of new assault weapons and make it harder for mentally ill individuals to obtain weapons. Lieberman said a new commission should be created to look at gun laws and the mental health system, as well as violence in movies and video games.
"Assault weapons were developed for the U.S. military, not commercial gun manufacturers," Lieberman said before the Newtown vigil Sunday night.
"This is a moment to start a very serious national conversation about violence in our society, particularly about these acts of mass violence," said the Connecticut senator, who is retiring at the end of the year.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she will introduce legislation next year to ban new assault weapons, as well as big clips, drums and strips of more than 10 bullets.
"It can be done," Feinstein told NBC's "Meet the Press" of reinstating the ban despite deep opposition by the powerful National Rifle Association and similar groups.
Bloomberg said Obama could use executive powers to enforce existing gun laws, as well as throw his weight behind legislation like Feinstein's.
"It's time for the president, I think, to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do - not go to Congress and say, 'What do you guys want to do?'" Bloomberg said."
Gun-rights activists had remained largely quiet on the issue since Friday's shooting, all but one declining to appear on the Sunday talk shows.
David Gregory, the host of "Meet the Press," said NBC invited all 31 "pro-gun" senators to appear on Sunday's show, and all 31 declined. All eight Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were unavailable or unwilling to appear on CBS' "Face the Nation," host Bob Schieffer said.
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, was the sole representative of gun rights' activists on the various Sunday talk shows. In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," Gohmert defended the sale of assault weapons and said that the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, who authorities say died trying to overtake the shooter, should herself have been armed.
"I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids," Gohmert said.
Gohmert also argued that violence is lower in cities with lax gun laws, and higher in cities with stricter laws.
"The facts are that every time guns have been allowed - conceal-carry (gun laws) have been allowed - the crime rate has gone down," Gohmert said.
Gun-control advocates say that isn't true. A study by the California-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence determined that 7 of the 10 states with the strongest gun laws - including Connecticut, Massachusetts and California - are also among the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates.
"If you look at the states with the strongest gun laws in the country, they have some of the lowest gun death rates, and some of the states with the weakest gun laws have some of the highest gun death rates," said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Several Democratic lawmakers and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said it was time to take a deeper look into the recent spate of mass shootings and what can be done to prevent them. Gun control was a hot topic in the early 1990s, when Congress enacted a 10-year ban on assault weapons. But since that ban expired in 2004, few Americans have wanted stricter laws and politicians say they don't want to become targets of a powerful gun-rights lobby.
Gun-rights advocates said that might all change after the latest shooting that killed 20 children aged 6 or 7. Police say the gunman, Adam Lanza, was carrying an arsenal of ammunition and used a high-powered rifle similar to the military's M-16.
On Monday, Sen. Joe Manchin, a lifelong member of the National Rifle Association, said it was time to discuss gun policy and move toward action on gun regulation. The conservative West Virginia Democrat said Monday he agrees with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has advocated banning the sale of assault weapons.
Manchin is the most prominent gun rights advocate to speak after the shooting, telling MSNBC that he is a "proud outdoorsman and hunter, but this doesn't make sense."
At a Sunday night service in Newtown, Conn., the site of Friday's massacre, President Barack Obama did not specifically address gun control. But he vowed, "In the coming weeks I'll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this."
He added: "Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the nation "could be at a tipping point ... a tipping point where we might actually get something done" on gun control. He and other Democrats, as well as Lieberman, said they want to ban the sale of new assault weapons and make it harder for mentally ill individuals to obtain weapons. Lieberman said a new commission should be created to look at gun laws and the mental health system, as well as violence in movies and video games.
"Assault weapons were developed for the U.S. military, not commercial gun manufacturers," Lieberman said before the Newtown vigil Sunday night.
"This is a moment to start a very serious national conversation about violence in our society, particularly about these acts of mass violence," said the Connecticut senator, who is retiring at the end of the year.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she will introduce legislation next year to ban new assault weapons, as well as big clips, drums and strips of more than 10 bullets.
"It can be done," Feinstein told NBC's "Meet the Press" of reinstating the ban despite deep opposition by the powerful National Rifle Association and similar groups.
Bloomberg said Obama could use executive powers to enforce existing gun laws, as well as throw his weight behind legislation like Feinstein's.
"It's time for the president, I think, to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do - not go to Congress and say, 'What do you guys want to do?'" Bloomberg said."
Gun-rights activists had remained largely quiet on the issue since Friday's shooting, all but one declining to appear on the Sunday talk shows.
David Gregory, the host of "Meet the Press," said NBC invited all 31 "pro-gun" senators to appear on Sunday's show, and all 31 declined. All eight Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were unavailable or unwilling to appear on CBS' "Face the Nation," host Bob Schieffer said.
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, was the sole representative of gun rights' activists on the various Sunday talk shows. In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," Gohmert defended the sale of assault weapons and said that the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, who authorities say died trying to overtake the shooter, should herself have been armed.
"I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids," Gohmert said.
Gohmert also argued that violence is lower in cities with lax gun laws, and higher in cities with stricter laws.
"The facts are that every time guns have been allowed - conceal-carry (gun laws) have been allowed - the crime rate has gone down," Gohmert said.
Gun-control advocates say that isn't true. A study by the California-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence determined that 7 of the 10 states with the strongest gun laws - including Connecticut, Massachusetts and California - are also among the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates.
"If you look at the states with the strongest gun laws in the country, they have some of the lowest gun death rates, and some of the states with the weakest gun laws have some of the highest gun death rates," said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
who's to blame for the school shooting the one who went off and did the killing no his mom for stockpiling weapon's and ammo because she was worried about an economic collapse no the ones to blame are the ones who are in charge like the president and the government there the ones who created chaos and wanted to raises the defecate for more tax and not doing there job they get payed to do if any one is to blame it is their fault . they got most of the People worried in 1212 alone there has been more people buying guns . gun sales have increased this year alone why is that gee wounder why Stay safe stay Second Amendment.
First of all, to use these sources for your 'study' is ridiculous. Both are branches of Handgun Control Inc. and are using statistics from ALL gun related deaths, from suicide to self defence to deaths caused by police in the line of duty. Second, to listen to Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstien is to be purely hypocritical. Both own guns and both use armed security, (body guards). http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104
I didn't allow the content to be cut and pasted from the site so you may need to copy it into your search engine.
Instead of banning guns, how about we start taking care of our own, first? For example, there are complaints across the board that there is not enough money to deal with the mentally ill in this country. Stop sending $770 Million of US taxpayer money overseas to rebuild mosques! USE THAT MONEY HERE AT HOME TO HELP OUR OWN! Stop sending our resources offshore! We are in a crisis, fix it here at the source! Then and only the will we have a chance at getting a grip on the insanity that has swept our nation.
" high-powered rifle similar to the military's M-16." just because it looks like a military m-16 doesn't mean it is anything close to it. a semi-automatic .223 cal is way different than a 5.56 cal automatic rifle. I hate it when the media tries to make weapons sound way worse. I know it is still capable of this horrific tragedy, but I wish the media would actually inform people about the real weapons, and not use the strongest terms to get the most reaction.
 @Pikkon To be more accurate, the weapon in question is the Bushmaster .223 which is basically one version of the AR-15 (think civilian model of the M-16). There are some subtle differences between the .223 Remington round and the 5.56mm NATO round that is used in the M-16/M-4 Carbine but they are (somewhat) interchangeable.
Â
The key thing to think about is what type of settings the Bushmaster .223 has. Unlike the M-16, the Bushmaster (or any civilian AR-15 variant produced after 1986) does not have a full-automatic or three-round burst selector; only safe and semi-auto are permitted. Yes, modifications can be made to make them full-auto but these are illegal.
 @PikkonÂ
Much of the difference is more in the size/style of munitions used and the damage to the human body those munitions are capable of. And why is it the medias job to inform people about the real weapons? Shouldn't that be the job of say the NRA and more, the citizens themselves?
 @WSims007  @Pikkon The job of the media is to inform. Fox news like to paint the news media as bad and liberal, yet FOX news reports the news as well. So, let's put that issue to rest.
Â
I don't see a ban on assault weapons or any other weapons because the citizens won't allow it. As for the NRA-no, it is not their job. Their job is to be a gun club and collect fees, yet over the years they have turned into a gun lobby for the gun industry and a political arm of the right wing-you know like FOX, Soros, Koch Brothers, Hollywood, you get my point.
Â
I think if we just apply the laws on the books and stop defending guns like it is a bible maybe we can have a conversation and come up ideas that don't limit guns and save lives.
Â
Think about, most pro gun people say it is the person not the gun and still don't have a problem with gun shows and internet sells. That is where most criminals buy their guns if they don't break into a house and steal them.
Â
A person at a Xmas party said "we should ban all guns" and I replied  " we should ban free speech", then I asked "what else would you like to remove from the constitution?"
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
 @snoopy84 Â
Sorry, but the accuracy record of Fox News has not held up all that well. But I still read them if for nothing else to get the various sides. But relying on them for "all the facts" will not be given.Â
Â
I don't advocate for gun bans, they would not work as we have seen from past such measures in concern to drugs and prohibition.
And just how are they going to do that ?? Go house to house, "do you have an assault rifle" ?? One of Hitlers first acts was to register all guns in Germany, his second act was to go around and confiscate them all. I don't have all the answers, I just know something has to be done. This can't continue. I do wish the media would tone it down by a bunch, just look at all the "copycats" that have popped up in the last couple of days. Wonder where they got the idea ?? Punishing all the millions legal and sane gun owners is not the answer either. For a long time I have thought that we really don't need these assault type rifles, but where do you stop ??  If you give these "antis" an inch they will be back in a heart beat for the mile, and we can't let that happen either. Only thing I know for sure is that I have a lot more questions than answers.
 @lmdk2 "One of Hitlers first acts was to register all guns in Germany,"
Do you agree with requiring registration of all motor vehicles that drive on our roads and highways?
 @lmdk2 folks whose kids are shot in school aren't really interested in your hollow rhetorical questions.. and frankly, anybody with a child in school anywhere in this country isn't interested either.
 @lmdk2Â
Use of Hitler's Germany is a false allegory. We are not there, and not likely to get there either. And for another, that notion of an inch and later the mile, that can be said about any and every thing ever raised in the Senate and Congress. You say that something has got to be done, but then make excuses not to.
 @WSims007 We are closer than you think. Look up Katrina and the Gov't taking firearms from law abiding citizens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4Â
 @d_2Â
You will notice that I did not "validate" that confiscation, I am speaking to their full context. I will also state that there were various circumstances during and after Katrina, that law enforcement most assuredly overstepped their constitutional authority. So no, I am not going to validate their actions. I am just irritated by the "nazi" implications as made by Imdk2.
Â
I have often been categorized in one fashion or another, but "cerebral" has not been one of those, and some of the others I can't repeat. Thanks for the "win", I have never won a discussion before. You did make a point and overall, it was a valid one in that law enforcement needs to be continually watched and questioned, and we, the citizen do have to ensure that we speak out against unconstitutional measures. And the 2nd Amendment is one of those.
 @WSims007 Hilarious! Circumventing? Summarily dismissed. Classic. Okay.... you win. You are obviously the most cerebral individual on here. By the way... disaster circumstances gives the Government zero (or should) rights to confiscate firearms.Â
 @d_2Â
maybe you didn't, but the originator of this thread certainly did. Or did you miss that? Your note skipped that, and simply went on about confiscations in Louisiana after Katrina. However, you now seem to want to delve into personal invectives. My statement before about "disaster circumstances" was alluding to the full context of what was going on at the time. Not necessarily giving the enforcement official carte blanche, but you don't do yourself justice by circumventing the full context of events.
Â
Continue to be insulting in a discussion will only result in you being summarily dismissed as too young to discuss adult matters.
 @WSims007 You still cannot comprehend. Incredible. I never mentioned anything about Nazi Germany. I only said that the US has had an instance where they confiscated firearms from law abiding citizens.
Â
Really WSims? You are only making yourself look like a fool here. Just what did you mean by your first sentence? "Wasn't that under disaster circumstances?" Almost as if you were advocating and supporting the action. BTW- getting similar to Nazi Germany? Your words, not mine. Oh... lunch bell rang. You need to return to your English 101 class pal.
 @d_2Â
What do circumstances have to do with it? You're kidding right? I won't defend "illegal confiscation", but at the same time, I also do not trust the NRA's version of things either. That has nothing to do with Fox News, USA Today, or any other media outlet. And again, if we were that close to nazi Germany tactics, would the courts have allowed the return of those confiscated guns? All I'm saying to you is if you're going to insist on characterizing the US as getting similar to nazi Germany, your argument will go no where. All you need do, is to state, and show how the 2nd Amendment rights of people were being violated. You insult law enforcement, our government, and the nation as a whole by your inclusion to nazi Germany.
 @WSims007 You are missing the point. What does the circumstances have anything to do with it? The fact is: It happened. That's all. My evidence? I cannot be anymore clear. My response was this: it is closer than you think. Meaning: Gov't (local or National) has confiscated firearms from law abiding citizens. Will you believe USAToday? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm I know you won't give Fox the time of day... but hey, if you decide to pull your head out of the sand: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192347,00.html
FACT: Gun confiscation has occurred in the United States.
Â
As a result, this Bill was enacted:Â http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr5013/text
Â
I'll await your 'spin'.
 @d_2Â
Wasn't that under disaster circumstances? And what you're showing are actions taken by mostly local authorities, which by the way, was not nationwide. Given the current attitude of the NRA, I hardly call the video concrete evidence. Why didn't they interview those authorities involved? Your evidence is either/or both tainted or slanted. It's not clear evidence that supports your 'nazi comparison'.
If people want to shoot assault weapons they can join the military. Â
 @IslandAtheist My son and I shoot an assault weapon, a Colt M4 .22 LR, you will NOT find that pea shooter in any military.  It's a great target shooter or varmit gun and it's cheap to buy and shoot.
 @IslandAtheist Aaaannnnnd que the quote from circa 1938 from Germany, when enacting more gun control laws, where the German citizens were told that if they wanted to own or shoot guns, they could join the Army... Yeah, THAT worked out well, don't'cha think?
 @RN1 Some of these anti-gun loons make me afraid for America as a whole.... willing to allow the government in every facet of their miserable lives..... busy bodies!
 @Funky-Munky  @RN1 "Some of these anti-gun loons make me afraid for America"
Interesting statement seeing as how the shooter's mother - who owned the guns he used - is being described as a member of a "survivalist" group, and was armed to prevent something she feared the government was planning...and was planning to send him to a survivalist's camp in WA.
Ironically, it could be said that her actions and fears, through his use of her guns, may have ignited a new move to control the very guns she owned. If he had not had her guns (and presumably her teachings) to enable him, and perhaps trigger his actions,
 @Funky-Munky  @RN1Â
Funny thing about what you said. I get the same feeling when I read both extreme points of view. "We can't do anything because we're protected by the 2nd Amendment"..."We need to ban all guns and confiscate all guns". And then we have those who raise nazi Germany as if that pertained to anything we might do. In the meantime, I watch as moderate views either go ignored and/or insulted.
 @IslandAtheist Just because a rifle is black, does not mean it is one of your so called assault weapons.
 @DarkParty Good grief most of these posters pertaining to gun control are hopeless.... I think they honestly believe limiting or banning weapons based on appearance will stop the carnage. I don't know about you but limiting the amount a magazine or clip can handle changes nothing in my opinion.... It takes very little time to insert another magazine or clip......
 @Funky-Munky "..It takes very little time to insert another magazine or clip.."
I would add it takes very little time to reload. This is a video of a six shot revolver fired six times and reloaded and fired again in under 3 seconds (no magazine in a revolver)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw
 @DarkParty I usually rework my higher capacity magazines with a new spring etc. and in some cases rebuild them completely.....
 @Funky-Munky I agree 100% and actually, there is less chance of the gun jamming like what happened in Oregon, with the lower capacity magazines.
Treating the object and not the issue. Wrong approach. This answer is not banning scissors from those who run with them. Identify those who run with them and treat their ailments.
 @d_2 Easier said than done.  Perhaps it's time to do both.Â
 @jb_22  @d_2 So you don't want to be able to use scissors any more?
 @dB  @jb_22  @d_2 so you don't want to be able to use common sense any more?
This last mass killing was not committed with an assault rifle, he had hand guns. In fact, the last few mass killings have been with hand guns, not assault rifles.
Â
I'm not a gun proponent, nor am I advocating for gun control laws, I'm simply saying that the Democrats supporting this, and Lieberman in particular, are a bunch of reactionary ninnies, because there were no assault rifles in this incident.
Â
Perhaps the more pressing issue is healthcare. We still don't have a real healthcare system, even with Obama's disastrous health care law, we're far from universal health care that's affordable.Â
Â
I'm not sure what the answer is, but a knee jerk reaction of "ban assault weapons" seems to be misplaced.
 @Bellevue Scottno assault rifles in this incident."
He used primarily a Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic rifle. The Bushmaster .223 rifle is one model AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57559416/semi-assault-rifle-used-during-sandy-hook-massacre/
 @al_wa an assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine, used in most armies. Courtesy of: oledawg.........
 @Funky-Munky This is the legislation that passed in 1994. It is mind boggling. A new version would probably outweigh the Affordable Health care bill.
Â
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.3355.ENR:
 @Funky-Munky I agree  the federal assault-weapons ban that lasted 10 years was rife with loopholes and generally ineffective at curbing gun violence. BTW the Glock model 17 and model 19 both can take a magazine that holds 33 rounds.
 @al_wa Interesting article.... I disagree with their assessment... but in reality I am no gun expert... Oh, well I don't own any of the weapons described in the ban... so I have nothing to worry about. I like my handguns and hunting rifles just fine....
 @Funky-Munky Every thing you need to know.....
Â
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/
 @al_wa It's a cosmetic weapon made to look like an assault rifle....
 @Funky-Munky  @al_wa That statement reminds me of the one about two nuclear weapons scientists violently arguing if an a-bomb was strong enough - because a frog survived in the shadow of a rock.
You are arguing about the "blue" in Blue...
Â
 @Funky-Munky  @al_wa how can you sit there and rationalize away the deaths of six adults and twenty six and seven year olds? This is exactly the reason why the things that are coming down the pike in regards to gun control are going to whiz by you and your ilk on the track, leaving you standing there looking stupid wondering what happened...
 @Bellevue Scott Feel good legislation.... yep, knee jerk reactions abound....
 @Funky-Munky  @Bellevue Scott "knee jerk reactions abound...."
Yeah, those so predictable 2nd Amendment "gun rights for everyone!" folks do get a bit knee jerky when something like this happen...don't they?
When you anti-gun controllers learn how to go back in time to prevent a murderer from committing murder(s).......... I might listen to your feeble dribble......
good there is no reason for anyone to own an assault riffle- those are not for hunting or self defense. We are not wanting an all out ban we want more restrictions, heavier control AND an overhaul on mental healthcare
 @Nicole P Define "assault rifle". When I ask this, all I get is people who describe what would be a hunting rifle with a modified stock.
@marvin @Nicole P I'll give everyone an example of the first quagmire Nichole P and others who want to 'restrict' assault rifles or exert 'heavier control' over them will face: I own an M1 Garand, made by the Springfield Armory in 1941. It's .30-06 cal, it's semi-automatic, it has an 8 round magazine and has a hand finished wooden stock that looks like your stereotypical kitchen table. Is this an assault rifle? Yes or no. It's not scary and black with a 30 round mag sticking out the bottom. If you were a Japanese soldier in 1943 holding an Arisaka bolt action rifle, it would most certainly be an assault rifle to you. Would you ban the sale of M1s today? Would you like the authorities to come and try to take mine away from me? Would any of your answers change if I affix the 14 inch bayonet to the business end of it?Â
 @marvin A gun with makeup.... Cosmetics....
 @oledawg Ouch.... my brain hurts pertaining to what's and what isn't... What do you think about any of this pertaining to gun control and bans? I am getting ready to purchase my final weapon.... mini 14.... After that I am finished with my collection....
 @Funky-Munky Assault rifle vs assault weapon, distinctly different.  My son and I shoot a .22LR replica Colt M4 carbine, it has a detachable 30 round magazine and is a semi-auto.  This would be classified as an assault weapon but not an assault rifle.Â
 @oledawg Last I checked..... Cosmetics are what's available in most states pertaining to look alike weaponry....
 @oledawg Good grief..... We're talking about what is available to the public aren't we?
 @Funky-Munky  @marvin Not even close, an assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine, used in most armies.