semperfi71
US Veteran
Done today. Quite interesting to watch.
Senate Committee Investigates Solutions for Gun Violence | C-SPAN
Senate Committee Investigates Solutions for Gun Violence | C-SPAN
C-Span Complete Video On Senate Hearings
- Thread starter semperfi71
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
riderrick65
Member
Reply to Thread
Watched the whole thing, and in my opinion I really didn't feel anything got accomplished.
Watched the whole thing, and in my opinion I really didn't feel anything got accomplished.
OP
semperfi71
US Veteran
riderrick65,
It is my impression this was an "attempt" to "gather more information" about the issues. However I am skeptical because these types of "hearings" have been held thousands of times in my lifetime and the ultimate decisions that are finally made sometimes, or often-times, do not resemble the original "hearings".
But this one I found interesting. I did not find David Kopel as knowledgable as I thought he should be. I found Wayne LaPierre to be the worst public speaker of them all, and sometimes too evasive. I did not agree with the Police Chief Johnson?Johnston? on most of his points but he was effective in getting his points across. I found the lady lawyer to be very good in all of her assesments. And I found Captain Mark Kelly to be quite intellectual and concise in his comments.
However, the hearing was not intended to evoke "action" or "decisions made" although it was obvious that some of the Senators already have decided their viewpoints and this hearing changed none of them for those select ones.
It is my impression this was an "attempt" to "gather more information" about the issues. However I am skeptical because these types of "hearings" have been held thousands of times in my lifetime and the ultimate decisions that are finally made sometimes, or often-times, do not resemble the original "hearings".
But this one I found interesting. I did not find David Kopel as knowledgable as I thought he should be. I found Wayne LaPierre to be the worst public speaker of them all, and sometimes too evasive. I did not agree with the Police Chief Johnson?Johnston? on most of his points but he was effective in getting his points across. I found the lady lawyer to be very good in all of her assesments. And I found Captain Mark Kelly to be quite intellectual and concise in his comments.
However, the hearing was not intended to evoke "action" or "decisions made" although it was obvious that some of the Senators already have decided their viewpoints and this hearing changed none of them for those select ones.
Unleashed
Member
It is amazing watching the twits tweeting on this subject.
JenniferG
US Veteran
Wayne has been doing this a long time. I've watched him debate many Senators and Congressmen over the years and he does quite well getting the points across. Wayne also knows to parse his words very carefully, he knows one slip of the tongue unlike the rest seated at that table will be broadcast on every nightly newscast and morning show for the rest of the year. They will bash us everyday starting with any words not properly vetted or planned and every single member of the NRA will be painted with those ill chosen words. He was sitting in front of and next to people that don't just disagree with him and Dr Kopel they hate him with their whole being and it's quite apparent if you watch the facial expressions and body language of the others while Wayne is speaking.
This hearing is a dog and pony show and they are sizing up their opposition every one there is posturing. It is imperative that we send our representatives there to show we will not be run over by emotional babble and their set of facts.
You and I and a few other individuals from either side of the debate will be the only ones to see this hearing unless Wayne La Pierre does slip up and say something insensitive or use ill chosen words. Wayne is right to use as little words as necessary because the other side already knows where we stand. This hearing only served to show us who the new representatives are for the gun banners. The faces have changed but their tactics and intent are still the same. They want to take our guns. They are appealing to the Congress to strike the iron while it is hot with headlines in the leftist press like "Former representative makes emotional appearance before Senate Judiciary Committee"
For Senator Blumenthal to say "we all believe in robust 2nd amendment rights" to the Congressman's husband who formed the anti 2nd amendment "Americans for Sensible Solutions" is nothing but another throw away line that means nothing . Those Senators for gun control and the others at the table no more believe in the 2nd amendment than any us here believe in the communist manifesto.
Last edited:
OP
semperfi71
US Veteran
I know that Mr. LaPierre has been at this a long time.
But the NRA, with Mr. LaPierre included should understand by now that its the "middle-of-the-road" people they need to impress. And I don't feel like they reach out to that group very well. And Mr. LaPierre does not seem to impress that group as well either.
Do not misunderstand me. If it wasn't for the NRA our gun rights would have been gone well back to 1968 or maybe even before.
But this time the fight is very serious and more so than ever met before. It is the people in the middle, opinion-wise who will probably move the issue of guns into one "camp" or another by contacting their representatives. And this time I think that will be as important as the NRA using vast sums of money and pressure on politicians to vote pro-gun.
The President is doing an end-run around Congress by appealing to the people. The NRA must do so as well and they are not doing it very well or even at all.
I agree with you on every single Senator there (except I think Feinstein) prefaced or alluded to at some point, "....I believe in the Second Amendment". Which means most of them really don't.
I was actually surprised at several Republican Senators who boldly said either, "I own an AR." or "I want the high capacity weapons for EVERYBODY to have a reasonable amount of self-defense."
I was also amazed that only ONE Senator truthfully said that automatic weapons can be owned by civilians although heavily restricted and monitored.
I am still surprised that when anybody states that "...all the other amendments have been judicially deemed to have 'reasonable limitations' and so is/should the Second Amendment..." I am surprised that no one states, "The Second Amendment is the only amendment which specifically states, "...shall not be infringed".
But I guess I have too simplistic of an outlook on life, if the sun is shining I say it's shining. A politician, lawyer, or judge might say, "Maybe, maybe not."
But the NRA, with Mr. LaPierre included should understand by now that its the "middle-of-the-road" people they need to impress. And I don't feel like they reach out to that group very well. And Mr. LaPierre does not seem to impress that group as well either.
Do not misunderstand me. If it wasn't for the NRA our gun rights would have been gone well back to 1968 or maybe even before.
But this time the fight is very serious and more so than ever met before. It is the people in the middle, opinion-wise who will probably move the issue of guns into one "camp" or another by contacting their representatives. And this time I think that will be as important as the NRA using vast sums of money and pressure on politicians to vote pro-gun.
The President is doing an end-run around Congress by appealing to the people. The NRA must do so as well and they are not doing it very well or even at all.
I agree with you on every single Senator there (except I think Feinstein) prefaced or alluded to at some point, "....I believe in the Second Amendment". Which means most of them really don't.
I was actually surprised at several Republican Senators who boldly said either, "I own an AR." or "I want the high capacity weapons for EVERYBODY to have a reasonable amount of self-defense."
I was also amazed that only ONE Senator truthfully said that automatic weapons can be owned by civilians although heavily restricted and monitored.
I am still surprised that when anybody states that "...all the other amendments have been judicially deemed to have 'reasonable limitations' and so is/should the Second Amendment..." I am surprised that no one states, "The Second Amendment is the only amendment which specifically states, "...shall not be infringed".
But I guess I have too simplistic of an outlook on life, if the sun is shining I say it's shining. A politician, lawyer, or judge might say, "Maybe, maybe not."
Last edited:
JenniferG
US Veteran
In my opinion Wayne looks like he hasn't got much sleep. I think he works very hard and I think it's starting to show. We need some younger fellows that speak like the new Senator Cruz from Texas.
There are over 100 milion gunowners out there and the NRA claims 4.5 million members?
I was not impressed by any of the other speakers because their points are not honest. The Chief from Balitimore would just as soon bust your door down, put you in cuffs and take every gun and piece of ammo he could find. The others all have armed guards so there is no need for a 2nd amendment for them.
There are over 100 milion gunowners out there and the NRA claims 4.5 million members?
I was not impressed by any of the other speakers because their points are not honest. The Chief from Balitimore would just as soon bust your door down, put you in cuffs and take every gun and piece of ammo he could find. The others all have armed guards so there is no need for a 2nd amendment for them.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
I think this vid clip pretty much describes the entire gun control debate. Starts around 1:20 in.
There are those who believe that the 2A exists to ensure that the people have the ability to defend against and overthrow a tyrannical government. In contrast, there are those who find the mere mention of such a notion as "scary" "creepy" and just not able to relate to it. The question is, who is willing to stand more firm on their beliefs?
The answer as to why Average Joe would need a firearm on par with what the military and police have is self evident. The problem gun rights advocates have, IMO, is that many are reluctant to stand proud on why the 2A exists. The other side understands our reluctance to make a detailed case for it today, and we quickly drift off into arguments that guns are needed because the government might not be there to protect us. Which, by the way, is the exact argument gun-grabbers argue for-- to grow government and take away our guns so that government can do more to protect us.
Here Dick Durbin is trying to get Wayne to make the case for the 2A today. Wayne speaks about history and original intent, then quickly veers in another direction when making the case for gun ownership today. Wayne understands that Dick is trying to make him out to be a hysterical anti-govt pro cop killer and will try to use any words he might use to mischaracterize him as such, so he won't go down that path. But it speaks volumes to me that we are so reluctant to make the case for the 2A today.
Dishonest Dick Durbin smears NRA at hearing, uses dishonest tactics with panelists » The Right Scoop -
There are those who believe that the 2A exists to ensure that the people have the ability to defend against and overthrow a tyrannical government. In contrast, there are those who find the mere mention of such a notion as "scary" "creepy" and just not able to relate to it. The question is, who is willing to stand more firm on their beliefs?
The answer as to why Average Joe would need a firearm on par with what the military and police have is self evident. The problem gun rights advocates have, IMO, is that many are reluctant to stand proud on why the 2A exists. The other side understands our reluctance to make a detailed case for it today, and we quickly drift off into arguments that guns are needed because the government might not be there to protect us. Which, by the way, is the exact argument gun-grabbers argue for-- to grow government and take away our guns so that government can do more to protect us.
Here Dick Durbin is trying to get Wayne to make the case for the 2A today. Wayne speaks about history and original intent, then quickly veers in another direction when making the case for gun ownership today. Wayne understands that Dick is trying to make him out to be a hysterical anti-govt pro cop killer and will try to use any words he might use to mischaracterize him as such, so he won't go down that path. But it speaks volumes to me that we are so reluctant to make the case for the 2A today.
Dishonest Dick Durbin smears NRA at hearing, uses dishonest tactics with panelists » The Right Scoop -
Last edited:
JenniferG
US Veteran
What I find creepy is government officials lying about their knowledge of the second amendment. They know full well what it is and what it means why it was included in the Constitution and completely lie about it's purpose. That police chief is probably one of the most dangerous type of government official that can be demonstrated. The chief is purposefully ignorant and ready to take your rights at a moments notice.
OP
semperfi71
US Veteran
JenniferG,
I too agree the Chief was "scary". I worked for the federal government for 31 years (not counting USMC time). Anytime a government agency can create law that makes "their" job easier they will. In the process they are infringing on the rights of the citizenry.
I do not dispute that the Chief has seen good, solid reasons for gun control. Most cops have. But I am afraid of a police officer who wants to take away citizen's rights to make his/her job easier.
But gun control must come in the form of elminating guns in the hands of the criminals and not law abiding citizens. In my opinion only a background check has been successful in doing that. All other laws have failed.
I assume that Diane Feinstein, in her mind, is simply desiring to make our country "safer". I did a check of her background and it seems she was the first person to come upon the two men killed in the San Francisco mayor/murder case known as the "Twinkie Defense". To most people un-accustomed to seeing anything dead, let alone people, I'm sure it was horrifying. But murder happens, it always will. I am always reticent to lend full support to a person who is deciding policy out of empathy, emotion, or fear instead of truth and reality.
Again, these "hearings" in all of my "aware" political life have always been simple window-dressing and deviate a lot from the facts. They are a stage for politicians and their cherry-picked "panels" to posture and preen.
The Senator from Connecticut evokes a lot of sympathy from me. He has not only seen the horror of Newtown he has to listen to the cries and concerns of the thousands of consitutents who were directly affected or horrified of the events. Then he must return to work and try to do "something" to answer to their very valid, and painful concerns. But his comments at the hearing, to me, appear that he was mainly working on empathy and not intelligent thought. He was asking Wayne LaPierre if he would take a "pledge" to an oath created by someone after the Newtown murders to essentially make the world a "better, safer" place. He was essentially trying to entrap Mr. LaPierre into appearing to be a "monster" who's only issue is "save-our-guns" and not make America safe. The reality is that the NRA has made the United States safer in firearms accidents than any other national entity. But sadly the firearms crime is beyond their purvue. It is government's responsibility to do so and they have failed in almost every state.
I too agree the Chief was "scary". I worked for the federal government for 31 years (not counting USMC time). Anytime a government agency can create law that makes "their" job easier they will. In the process they are infringing on the rights of the citizenry.
I do not dispute that the Chief has seen good, solid reasons for gun control. Most cops have. But I am afraid of a police officer who wants to take away citizen's rights to make his/her job easier.
But gun control must come in the form of elminating guns in the hands of the criminals and not law abiding citizens. In my opinion only a background check has been successful in doing that. All other laws have failed.
I assume that Diane Feinstein, in her mind, is simply desiring to make our country "safer". I did a check of her background and it seems she was the first person to come upon the two men killed in the San Francisco mayor/murder case known as the "Twinkie Defense". To most people un-accustomed to seeing anything dead, let alone people, I'm sure it was horrifying. But murder happens, it always will. I am always reticent to lend full support to a person who is deciding policy out of empathy, emotion, or fear instead of truth and reality.
Again, these "hearings" in all of my "aware" political life have always been simple window-dressing and deviate a lot from the facts. They are a stage for politicians and their cherry-picked "panels" to posture and preen.
The Senator from Connecticut evokes a lot of sympathy from me. He has not only seen the horror of Newtown he has to listen to the cries and concerns of the thousands of consitutents who were directly affected or horrified of the events. Then he must return to work and try to do "something" to answer to their very valid, and painful concerns. But his comments at the hearing, to me, appear that he was mainly working on empathy and not intelligent thought. He was asking Wayne LaPierre if he would take a "pledge" to an oath created by someone after the Newtown murders to essentially make the world a "better, safer" place. He was essentially trying to entrap Mr. LaPierre into appearing to be a "monster" who's only issue is "save-our-guns" and not make America safe. The reality is that the NRA has made the United States safer in firearms accidents than any other national entity. But sadly the firearms crime is beyond their purvue. It is government's responsibility to do so and they have failed in almost every state.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
I agree.
I sure would like to see us flat out tell em the way it is.
For example (in the vid clip), when Durbin says to Wayne that NRA members in IL tell him: "Senator, you just don't get the Second Amendment"
The reply should be:
Senator, the good people of your state are correct. That you and many of your colleagues "just don't get" that which you have sworn an oath to support and defend is the reason we find ourselves in this hearing room today. (Geological stations would be reporting tremors on a scale of 2-3 from millions of gun owners around the nation jumping up and down) .
And when the Senator tries to interrupt, the correct response is:
Senator, there will be plenty of time for you to demonstrate that you "just don't get" the US Constitution after I am finshed speaking. (Tremors 3-4)
Last edited:
JenniferG
US Veteran
I too would like to be able to stand in front of those elected representatives and tell them the reason for the second amendment isn't for shootin at ducks (I luv duck hunting), it's not about me protecting my pick up truck, it isn't even about me protectiong my home. The 2nd amendment is about protecting the republic that was fought for and created by our founders from people like them. All the other benefits from fiream ownership are secondary issues.
OP
semperfi71
US Veteran
So very true and on point correct. I would bet that a really astute attorney could argue that the Second Amendment does not allow the "right" to own multiples of firearms, since one can only fire one at a time and therefore one is enough to comply with Second Amendment principles.
But let's not have anyone do that!!!
Jack Wagon
Member
So very true and on point correct. I would bet that a really astute attorney could argue that the Second Amendment does not allow the "right" to own multiples of firearms, since one can only fire one at a time and therefore one is enough to comply with Second Amendment principles.
But let's not have anyone do that!!!
Incorrect.
