Democrats outraged by this RNC ad that criticizes Obama for not getting gun control passed

Let me get this straight, Obama uses children from the Newtown tragedy in photo-ops and claims that since Republicans opposed the gun control regulations Obama supports they don't care about people killing kids like those at Newtown (note: even though the background checks would have had nothing to do in stopping the attacks), but this Republican ad is "disgusting"?  As I have written previously, Obama could have easily passed the gun control legislation if he really wanted to pass it, but it appears that he may have wanted to save it for a political issue.  From The Hill newspaper:

The ad, called "The First 100 Days," criticizes Obama on the failure of his legislative agenda, including gun control, so far in Congress. It features a voiceover saying that Obama’s agenda has “already suffered a string of defeats,” and a black and white photo of the president reaching to embrace Nicole Hockley, the distraught mother of a victim in the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. 
Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse called the ad “disgraceful” in a tweet and “disgusting” in another. . . .

Just curious, but how many times has Obama attacked the "do nothing" Congress and made it seem as if it the lack of legislation was all the fault of the Republicans?

Read More

Newtown Killer himself died within 5 minutes of the attack starting

Note that it took 20 minutes for the police to even arrive outside the school after the first 911 call.  The problem is that someone with a gun needs to be able to arrive on the scene much more quickly than is currently possible.  From Fox News:

An arsenal of weapons including guns, a gun safe with shotgun shells, a bayonet and several swords were found in the home of the gunman who carried out the Newtown school shooting, according to search warrants released Thursday. 

Adam Lanza killed 26 people inside Sandy Hook Elementary School and took his own life within five minutes of shooting his way into the building, State's Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III said in a statement accompanying the release of the warrants in the Dec. 14 massacre. 

The extensive inventory of the evidence seized from Lanza's home and the car he drove to carry out the massacre provided glimpses into the world of the reclusive gunman. 

Prosecutors until now had made few details available, despite pressure to do so from the governor, who criticized leaks to the press and lawmakers who clamored for more details as they craft legislation on mental health and gun control. . . . 

Sedensky says Lanza killed all 26 victims inside Sandy Hook Elementary School with a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle before taking his own life with a Glock 10 mm handgun. He says Lanza had another loaded handgun with him inside the school as well as three, 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster. . . .

Read More

Nancy Pelosi will bring student from Newtown to Obama's State of the Union, but what would the proposed rules have done to stop that attack?

Newtown continues to be used as a prop for more gun control, but what proposal being put forward by Democrats would have prevent the attack if it had been in effect?  Can anyone explain to me which proposed regulation would have stopped the attack?  Yet, Nancy Pelosi will bring student from Newtown as a prop for Obama's State of the Union.

"Universal background checks" -- The killer didn't buy the gun.  BTW, would this rule have stopped any of the attacks this last year?  No.  Of course, even if one of these killers would have been prohibited from buying a gun, that is not the same thing as saying that they would have not gotten a gun.  When people have 4 months of planning and have the time to put together dozens of bombs they don't even acknowledge how difficult it can be to stop such a person from getting weapons.  As Jamie Fox at Northeastern University correctly writes: "Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends."

Assault weapon ban -- The gun used in the Newtown attack wasn't even banned under the Connecticut Assault Weapon Ban.  It wouldn't have been banned under the feature set that would ban guns under the Feinstein bill.  New sales of the Bushmaster would have been banned by name under the Feinstein bill.  Of course, banning guns by name and not objective features shows how arbitrary the law is.

Magazine size -- Even if you somehow believe that magazine size would have altered the rate of fire in the Newtown attack, the key point there is that it took 10 minutes between when the first 911 call was made and first responders showed up outside the school.  

UPDATE: Here are a couple other relevant facts on these points.  From the Hartford Courant:

"It's just weird [that he popped in earplugs] given what he was about to go do," a source said. "It's not like he had to worry about long-term protection of his hearing because he had to know he wasn't coming back out of the building." 

As police wrap up at least the crime-scene portion of their investigation into Lanza's murderous spree that left 26 people dead in the school, including 20 first-graders, the earplugs are not the only evidence that shows Lanza might have carried habits either from the shooting range or the virtual world of video games into his real-world massacre. 

Lanza changed magazines frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots from a 30-round magazine, sources said. . . .

Read More

Vice President Joe Biden makes impassioned plea for more gun control

Surely a lot of states are going to pass very stringent gun control laws.  I don't know about federal regulations, but we will have to see if Biden is right there.  From The Hill newspaper:

. . . “I’m not asking you to vote for something you don’t believe, but I don’t want to hear about, ‘well we can’t take it on because it’s too politically dangerous.’ The world has changed,” Biden said in a 25-minute address to Democrats at their annual retreat in Leesburg, Va. 

Biden argued that the political and media climate had shifted dramatically from 1994, when many Democrats blamed their support for an assault weapons ban and other gun-control measures on the party’s loss of its congressional majorities. 

“There’s an overwhelming consensus about the need to act that didn’t exist in ’94 and a general consensus about the kinds of thing we have to do,” Biden said. . . . 

“It’s not acceptable for us to do anything other than try to do all of them,” the vice president said of his task force’s recommendations. . . .

Read More

A Couple Republicans in House Make Move on Gun Control

From The Hill newspaper:

In the lower chamber’s first pivot toward crossing party lines in the debate over gun laws, Republican Reps. Scott Rigell (Va.) and Patrick Meehan (Pa.) joined Democratic Reps. Elijah Cummings (Md.) and Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) on Tuesday to introduce a bill that would make it a felony to buy a gun with the intent to sell it to someone who is not able to legally purchase a firearm. . . .

Read More