Originally Posted By Donny WASHINGTON (AP) — As the Senate prepares to begin debating new gun control measures, some of President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats are poised to frustrate his efforts to enact the most sweeping limits on weapons in decades. These Democrats from largely rural states with strong gun cultures view Obama's proposals warily and have not committed to supporting them. The lawmakers' concerns could stand in the way of strong legislation before a single Republican gets a chance to vote "no." "There's a core group of Democratic senators, most but not all from the West, who represent states with a higher-than-average rate of gun ownership but an equally strong desire to feel their kids are safe," said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. "They're having hard but good conversations with people back home to identify the middle-ground solutions that respect the Second Amendment but make it harder for dangerous people to get their hands on guns." All eyes are on these dozen or so Democrats, some of whom face re-election in 2014. That includes Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. The Senate Judiciary Committee begins hearings Wednesday. Interest groups, lobbyists, lawmakers, crime victims and others with a stake in the outcome will be watching these senators closely for signals about what measures they might support. The answers will say a lot about what, if anything, Congress can pass in the wake of the shootings of 20 school and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., last month. At issue are Obama's proposals to ban assault weapons, limit ammunition magazines, crack down on trafficking and require universal background checks. Leading the charge against those ideas is the National Rifle Association. The group wields enormous power to rally public sentiment and is a particular threat to Democrats in pro-gun states who face re-election. The political concerns of Democrats create problems for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has his own history with the NRA. The powerful gun lobby endorsed him in previous elections, but stayed neutral in his most recent race, in 2010. Even before Obama announced the gun proposals this month, Reid told a Nevada PBS station that an assault weapons ban would have a hard time getting through Congress. That comment irked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., author of such a ban. "Clearly it wasn't helpful," she said this past week in reintroducing her measure. But Feinstein's original assault weapons ban was a stern political lesson for Reid and other Democrats. Its passage as part of President Bill Clinton's crime bill in 1994 was blamed for Democratic election losses that year after the NRA campaigned against lawmakers who supported the legislation. When the assault weapons ban came up for renewal in 2004, Congress, under pressure from the NRA, refused to extend it. Reid has pledged action on gun measures. "This is an issue we're not going to run from," he said. But he's under pressure from all sides. Some major pieces of legislation are shepherded by the Senate leadership to the Senate floor. But Reid is promising that the gun bills will go through the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose chairman is Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., a gun owner and Second Amendment supporter. Reid also is promising an open amendment process, potentially a lengthy endeavor. Those signals have some gun control activists concerned that the process will go so slowly that it will grind to a halt without action. Some question whether that's just the outcome desired by some moderate Democrats. "I'm concerned just because Harry Reid has a mixed record on these things and we want him to be a champion," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. On the other side, the NRA, known for rewarding friends and punishing enemies, promises it will be closely watching Reid, too. "He's going to be torn and a lot of people are going to be torn, particularly Democrats, but I think as the debate goes on he'll do more good than bad from our perspective," said David Keene, NRA president. "All this stuff has been debated before and once you get into a debate and a discussion and say will this do anything to protect children, to prevent another Newtown, I think the answer is going to come out 'no.'" Baucus, Begich, Pryor and others have been cautious in their comments on Obama's gun proposals. Baucus called for "a thoughtful debate." Begich told his home state Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that passage of any element of the package was "a long haul. ... There are some of us who just fundamentally believe in a Second Amendment right." Pryor has told Arkansas media that efforts on gun safety should start with enforcing existing laws. Another Democrat closely watching the issue is Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, known for a 2010 campaign ad where he fired a rifle shot though a copy of Democratic-written climate change legislation. Manchin recently told a West Virginia radio station that he's working on legislation to require background checks on most gun purchases. Details weren't clear but that's the area where advocates are most hopeful of finding a solution that could get through the Senate and possibly even the Republican-controlled House. The NRA generally opposes legislation mandating universal background checks and disputes gun control groups' claims that 40 percent of purchases happen without such checks. NRA officials question whether background checks could be done effectively in a way that makes a difference and doesn't disrupt legitimate sales. The NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, is to testify Wednesday before Leahy's committee. Democrats, especially those from gun-rights states, will be weighing whether to side with the NRA or follow the president, or how best to split the difference. "We're a Second-Amendment state. I support the rights of sportsmen and target shooters and collectors to own firearms. It's an important part of our culture and tradition," Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said in an interview. "But I just hear there's such grave concern given the experiences we've had with Aurora, Columbine ... people all over Colorado want to prevent these massacres." <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-may-stand-obamas-way-gun-measures-134432125--politics.html" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/democrat...ics.html</a>
Originally Posted By barboy Ya, well, there will always be political "stick-in-the muds" who can't get with the program. Times are a changin and these rural cats might get left behind come party reciprocity time.
Originally Posted By barboy Ya, well, there will always be political "stick-in-the muds" who can't get with the program. Times are a changin and these rural cats might get left behind come party reciprocity time.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Donny, you've done this several times before, so I might as well mention it now: Do you realize that posting copyrighted news stories in their entirety on LP violates not only the LP Community Standards, but is also illegal, whether or not you cite the original source? If you were to provide limited quotes so as to fall under fair use, then it would not be illegal and not a Community Standards violation. Even so, many on here would call such posting a "Post-O-Matic", when it is to a widely-available news story and with no commentary of your own added. Someone constantly checking Drudge Report and copying 1 or 2 links from there a day into WE without adding any commentary, discussion, or opinion adds nothing to the community and accomplishes nothing.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Ya, well, there will always be political "stick-in-the muds" who can't get with the program.>> I don't know if that is a totally fair statement. If someone is elected to the House from a district that strongly supports Second Amendment rights, don't they owe it to the people who elected them to represent their point of view, even if they are a Democrat?
Originally Posted By barboy as to #4 <---- 3 pints deep since 7:30 pm Pacific time, belches out a loud one with traces of Birra Moretti throw-up (loud enough for Wife to call me 'pig' from 2 rooms away)holds up an Amsterdam stein and delivers: HEAR HEAR!!!
Originally Posted By barboy RT I'll be back for you tomorrow after my body filters some of those suds
Originally Posted By Mr X I dunno if I like him or not, but I have GOT to meet this Barboy dude someday.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Someone constantly checking Drudge Report and copying 1 or 2 links from there a day into WE without adding any commentary, discussion, or opinion adds nothing to the community and accomplishes nothing." Darkbeer used to do that all the time, which is what started the whole Recipe Meme. Ah, memories. As for the OP, if the point is that the NRA has its hooks into plenty of Democrats too, and thus sensible reforms don't get done- indeed, when Democrats controlled both houses and had Obama early in his first term, they didn't even bring it up - that only qualifies as notable if one hasn't been paying attention.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder .... Did someone say recipe????????? STICK IN THE MUD PIE Ingredients 1/2 pound stick of butter, melted 3 cups chocolate sandwich cookie crumbs (recommended: Oreos) 1 gallon Coffee Ice Cream (amount varies depending on size of the bowl) 2 cups chocolate fudge sauce Whipped cream Chocolate sauce Directions Melt butter. Grind cookie crumbs in a food processor. Add butter to crumbs to make a formable consistency. Press into a very large pie pan leaving a slight mound in the center and the crust going all the way up on edge. Freeze the crust for several hours. Pack ice cream into a mixing bowl the same diameter as the pie pan. Freeze the ice cream in the bowl for several hours. Invert the ice cream onto the crust and work the ice cream out of the bowl. Pour fudge sauce on top of the mud pie. Cover with plastic and freeze again. Cut into slices to serve. Decorate with whipped cream and chocolate sauce. * Professional Recipe This recipe was provided by a Restaurant and makes a large quantity.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's not about banning anyone. It's about posts that have some personal value vs mere cut and pastes that add nothing.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck The funny thing is, Donny's topics are often the most popular around here. If I were to start a topic about the latest discoveries in astrophysics, it would not even get 5 responses.
Originally Posted By Donny The sad thing is I would love to discuss openly and honestly with people of different beliefs
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By skinnerbox And I guess Morning Joe is now persona non grata since you haven't posted anything from his site in months. Did Scarborough going to the Dark Side of Moderate Republicanism™ vanquish him from your A-list?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You don't wish to have a discussion of truthful, factual, verifiable information. You only wish to reinforce the lies and misinformation you get from Fox News and other conservative outlets.>> I'm not saying it is a good thing, but Fox News is where the majority of Americans get their news... which makes it a legitimate topic for discussion. The liberal slant of many major news outlets is probably almost as biased, they just do a batter job of hiding the bias. Fox is very in-your-face and has no problem letting everyone know of their conservative point of view.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ If you don't agree, try listening to MSNBC for a few hours. I'm a left-leaning moderate, and I find much of what they present to be just as laughable as what I hear on Fox.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The funny thing is, Donny's topics are often the most popular around here.<< Never has a troll gotten so much response with so little effort.
