Schumer wants his party to stay clear of Gun Control…

Smart Man….

The issue is a non-starter for Democrats who need to get wins next year so they can THEN go the issue…

Better to focus on bread and butter issues…

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) is urging his colleagues to stay away from gun control in the budget debate despite pressure from activist groups that argue the party needs to take a stand given the string of mass shootings across the country.

Schumer, focused on next year’s midterm elections, thinks it is smarter to focus on economics — specifically President Trump’s tax plan, which Democrats say is a giveaway to corporations and the rich, and GOP proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid.

The approach isn’t sitting well with everyone, given that the country experienced the deadliest mass shooting in modern history less than three weeks ago, when 58 people were killed by a single gunman who may have used bump stock devices that allowed him to fire more rounds per minute….


63 thoughts on “Schumer wants his party to stay clear of Gun Control…”

  1. Yes, your last paragraph says it all.

    Everyone knows that even a relatively conservative Democratic candidate is going to be tagged as a Nancy Pelosi “Librul”by the Right and, contrary to what has been written here, the NRA and it’s membership is overwhelmingly Republican and supports Republicans.

    I also would reiterate that any voter,for whom guns are the overriding issue, is much more likely to vote for a Republican candidate than the Democratic candidate as those type people tend be conservative on the whole range of issues.

    This whole idea that Democrats are ever going to receive a great deal of support from those for whom guns are their big issue is ridiculous, despite the “stuff” one reads here.I might add this is the only site I know of where such an idea is accorded some degree of validity.

  2. As I read the quotation, Sen. Schumer was referring to a specific tactical and strategic question on a particular piece of legislation (the budget bill), rather than to a general Democratic policy, overall approach or campaign strategy.

    Without having either conducted or studied the specific research involved, my uninformed guess would be that while there are districts and states where stressing gun-control would not help (and might hurt) a Democratic candidate’s campaign, while there are others when it might pay (or at least not hurt) to take a clear position in favor.

    One could argue, as apparently James believes, that if the Democratic caucus took steps to advance gun control, that those steps would be used in a campaign against a gunowners’-rights candidate in a red state, such as Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Heidi Heitkamp (Dem./Nonpartisan League – N. Dak.) or Joe Manchin (D-W. Va).

    But I don’t put too much stock in that argument, because whatever the Democratic party or caucus might say won’t in the least stop the NRA and GOP from trying to plaster every single Democratic candidate, in red states and blue, as another Nancy Pelosi or Elizabeth Warren plotting to disarm law-abiding, patriotic gun-owners and steal away their Constitutional rights.

    1. Understood DSD…

      But the worry is the mere mention of topic by the GOPer AGAINST a Democrat ANYWHERE could mobilize single issue voters in on the NRA side…


      Most elections are decided by just a few thousand votes…
      Some even less…
      Democrats NEED any edge they can muster…
      Schumer is reminding his porty people of that BASIC

  3. James has that very Trump like proclivity for reading something somewhere that backs up his opinion, then regurgitating it as a “source”,even when the so called “source”is nothing more than someone else stating their opinion.

  4. Please show us the Schumer quote on Democrats being “more quiet on guns” James. Not some speculative unsourced article from the Hill rag, but the actual quote please.

  5. The USA PATRIOT Act passed the House on Oct. 24, 2001 [United Nations Day] by a vote of 357-66 (9 not voting).

    GOP — 211 – 3 (Robert Ney, Calif.; Butch Otter, Idaho; & Ron Paul, Texas) 5 N/V
    Dem. — 145 – 62 (4 N/V)
    Ind. — 0 – 1 (Bernie Sanders, Vt)

    In the Senate on the next day (Oct. 25), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was the only Nay vote, while Mary Landrieu (D-La) did not vote.

    Since Sen. James Jeffords (Vt) had left the Republican caucus to become an independent, I think that the partisan breakdown of Senators in October 2001 was 50 D, 49 R & 1 Independent (from Vermont, like Rep. Sanders), which would give a vote breakdown of

    GOP 49 – 0
    Dem 48 – 1 (Feingold, Wis.) 1 N/V
    Ind. 1 – 0 (Jeffords, Vt)

    Total 98 – 1 (1 N/V)

  6. The Patriot Act passed the Senate by a vote of 98-1. So saying “the left was very concerned” was a foolish comment. The news source that you got that info was obviously biased. I do recall that some people (including some Republicans) were concerned about giving the government too much freedom to monitor people, but the Patriot Act passed overwhelmingly among Democrats, albeit by a smaller margin than among Republicans.

  7. James, i was responding toRepubliCAN’s 5:20 comments, and of course he was talking about you. You never did use the word “ashamed”, but you have made it clear that Democrats should be even more quiet on the issue than they have been.

  8. No, it was about libraries and how the left was very concerned about the government “snooping around libraries” under the Patriot Act and how it would have been wrong to somehow know if known terrorist suspects who were under FISA surveillance were checking out books about bombs, etc.

  9. I don’t understand CG’s 4:31. Are you suggesting that the left supports books being published on building bombs, and that the left believes that people should have access to that information?

    I sure as hell don’t. And I am not aware of any Democrat who does – although I can’t say that I have ever discussed such nonsense with anyone.

    1. The word ‘ashamed’ is YOUR CHOICE Z….

      NOT MINE….

      I have explained and defended my feelings on how to deal with the issue….

  10. CG, The second amendment applies to people In The U.S.

    Now my turn. What does “well-regulated” mean? Do you think it was a typo and the founders really meant to say “unregulated”? Do you not agree with the Constitution as written?

  11. It is NOT easy to make weapons as powerful as grenades. Doing so usually requires substantial training.

  12. The Democrat party is the anti-gun party, PERIOD. It is amusing watching the Democrats here try to deny this FACT, ASHAMED of how left-wing their party has become. A fact that every American knows.

    Well, don’t worry. The Republican party and NRA will amply remind everyone!

  13. No, they literally want to take away the guns, like what happened in Australia.

    During the campaign, some guy begged Hillary to do that here at a Town Hall event and she tried to placate him and said it was something to consider.

    1. AGAON
      From Obama on down?

      You can repeat this
      But isn’t true

  14. That’s quite a theory you espouse of the United States government doing something illegally.

    But I am sure a lot of others share that suspicion, both on the left, and the right.

  15. Yes, plenty of Democrat members of Congress have called for severe gun curtailment. Tons of left-wing columnists are calling for confiscation of legal guns, such as what Australia is said to have done after they had a mass shooting.

    But it’s the grassroots that is calling for those steps, which is why the Democrat platform in 2020 will probably go further in being anti-gun than anything previously has.

  16. And if someone was under an investigation and was taking out or buying all sorts of books about making bombs, the left things we have no right to that information or for law enforcement or intelligence agencies to try to use it to thwart an attack.

    But if it were a book about grenades or guns.. maybe.

    1. Ok AGAIN…..
      I would NOT BE surprised if the NSA or FBI
      gets a monthly data list dump
      Of those who go to those bomb nod sites

  17. Of course Democrats would take away guns, if they could get away with it politically.

    I know I remember you posting on here, when you were trying to prove your anti-gun bona fides to the others here, after Las Vegas that if it were up to you only cops and people who drive trucks for banks would be allowed to legally have guns. But since you are the Admin, you can make posts disappear. (or maybe I just hallucinated the whole thing)

    1. NO CG
      from Obama on down NOT ONE. National Democrat has called for taking anyone’s rightfully obtained gun,…

  18. But no reasonable person would suggest banning fertilizer or aluminum cans or things of that nature from being sold legally because of the damage they might do.

    1. Having unusual amounts of strong nitrogen based fertilizers could get ur butt in trouble if you say the wrong thing out loud and the cops hear you,,….

  19. Well, if we have intelligence information that a terrorist, be they international or domestic, is planning an attack using a bomb, by all means go after them and stop them.

    I think you are very confused on this.

  20. “The left concedes there is really nothing that can be done about that kind of risk”

    So says the REPUBLICAN who favored every Dick Cheney approved military expenditure to “keep us safe” from the much smaller risk of Islamic extremist terrorism.

    I always say if you are going to be the victim of a madman make sure it’s a Muslim if you want a Republican to propose doing anything about it.

    1. The 2nd Amendment REALLY is about old time militia ‘s before a strong police an army,…
      The gun people have Kojaked the the thing to justify something that was NEVET meant to be….

  21. I am not aware of anyone who has whined about how awful the Constitution is. You have been believing Fox News too much. I don’t even disagree with the 2nd amendment; I just disagree with how it is currently interpreted.

  22. Good point. It’s very easy to make weapons that are just as powerful as grenades. There’s no left wing solution for that….

  23. By all means, let’s make sure that the future McVeighs and Nicholls cannot obtain grenades willy-nilly, and that can make us sleep easier, but what happens, when people like them, especially with their specialized training simply purchase all the various and easily obtained legal components that can be combined to create very deadly bombs?

    I think the left already concedes there is really nothing that can be done about that sort of risk. But I guess we can still keep the grenades away!

    1. CG?

      While I do NOT Democrats running and losing on the gun issue ?

      I DO NOT think it it’s something to forget
      Democrats do NOT want to take away ur guns
      But they do want to make sure they are in the hands of those we know and an trust….

      If they can get in office?
      Dem’s should work thru the system for background checks, limited carrying , and outlawing things link bump stocks and let the DEA do it jobs with out knee capping them

  24. Meanwhile, I’m doing my part to stop the next massacre by taking gun training and defense courses. Liberals continue to whine about how awful our constitution is and posts about grenades and other minutia on blogs…. helping no one.

  25. Zreebs,

    Sorry – I’ve been away. I believe that elite, highly trained and registered individuals should be able to own weapons like grenades for militia training purposes and recreation. Just my opinion as an amateur gun enthusiast.Just my opinion as an amateur gun enthusiast.

    FYI, I need my hand guns for defense.

    This bit of minutia is not important to me though. As a software engineer, I am no weapons expert or constitutional law expert. I have no desire or need for more powerful weapons than the ones I own. I’ll defer to the experts on it. Minutia about grenades, where the line should be drawn, etc… isn’t something I feel strongly about. I am strongly opposed to any further gun restrictions, however.

  26. So, let me ask you specifically Zreebs, whom would you allow to legally own a firearm if such a thing was up to you?

  27. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, as military veterans, were no doubt highly trained.

    I don’t feel that that made them qualified to possess hand-grenades (or other strictly-military ordnance) in civilian life beyond any chain of command.

  28. RepubliCAN, Why should “highly trained individuals” be able to own hand grenades? What is the value of hand guns in a non-military setting?

    How do we really know who is responsible? Why would anyone NOT think that the Vegas shooter was responsible?

  29. Zreebs, The line does have to be drawn somewhere. After all, Reagan banned fully automatic weapons. Some weapons, such as grenades, simply require highly specialized training to use. I am not opposed to highly trained and responsible individuals owning grenades, tanks, etc… There are some people who are licensed to privately own old military tanks (with disabled cannons) and there have been no problems.

  30. Keith, you are very correct that gun control works best when it is a national program, but the truth is that gun violence occurs the most in the states with the most per capita guns. So while less effective, gun control works to some extent on a state basis too.

    Those red states who value their hobby more than life itself have the most gun deaths.

  31. RepubliCAN, Should people have the right to own hand grenades. Or is that a “liberty” that people shouldn’t have?

  32. Scalia was a smarmy racist homophobe, and a bitter turd. My mother always told me to Speak good of the dead, so all I can say is Scalia is dead. Good!

    The only time gun control will work is when it’s universal, or, as is the case with Illinois, guns will come in from neighboring states with lax gun regulations.

    I hope California begins to require gun owners, of which I am one, to buy gun insurance like we are required to have auto insurance.

  33. I’m fine with giving it to the states. Let some liberal state take away people’s liberties and see what happens practically and politically!

    And Keith, have some respect for the late great Scalia – one of the greatest minds ever to serve our nation’s highest court.

    1. The states aren’t in a hurry to take anyone’s guns away…

      Some Have added background checks though…

  34. “Living & Breathing are words I wouldn’t use in connection to Scalia”

    Of course, not after Obama broke into his hunting cabin and smothered him.

    Was it Trump or Alex Jones who hinted that was the case?

  35. Originalists never envisioned assault weapons that could fire hundreds of rounds in seconds. This is such a pathetic “know nothing” argument. And, “Living & Breathing” are words I wouldn’t use in connection to Scalia.

  36. Scalia also said that the Second Amendment wasn’t absolute and the states had the right to regulate firearms .

  37. Originalist Scalia was more of an expert on the original intent of the 2nd amendment than anyone. As you know, he was a rigorous originalist opposed to the idea of a “living breathing constitution”. He wrote that it was an individual right. Maybe Bork would’ve agreed had he seen Scalia’s argument.

  38. This is from the Hill, the Fox News conduit to Congress. Where are the quotes from Schumer? What sources do they use for this story?

    It makes sense that people like McCaskill will not highlight this issue, but this issue is not going away, and Schumer knows it.

  39. Well RepubliCAN let’s take a look at the 2nd Amendment
    “A well regulated militia–”
    Shit I can stop right there. Regulated is the third damn word!

    If it said “I can have any gun I want and you can’t stop me” you’d have a point.

    As Jack has said here numerous times a jurist the conservative movement considers an icon, Robert Bork, agreed that the 2nd Am refers to militias. But right wingers today want to conveniently ignore that.

  40. The time to discuss gun control is NEVER. There should not be a double standard for guns. Besides, it’s in the constitution.

  41. As long as there is existing legislation to cut taxes for the wealthy, then of course that should be a focus on what to talk about.

    We already know that you intensely agree with the Republicans that Democrats should be silent on gun control. Time for another editorial article that you found that argues that Democrats needs to bring in more lobbyists into the inner circle.

    1. That IS correct Z….

      I’m with Schumer…

      Democrats do NOT need to screw themselves on a single issue that can cost them valuable votes in critical races…To do so is plain stupid and counter productive ….

Comments are closed.