Gun Control 'Debate' a Fantasy
Kimberly Strassel points out that Washington already agrees on guns
By Kevin Spak, Newser User
Posted Jan 11, 2013 11:45 AM CST
Sorry, gun control advocates, it's not happening.   (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)

(Newser) – Ever since Sandy Hook, there's been "an almost cosmic disconnect" between gun control advocates, who "sniffed a rare political opening," and the real world, writes Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal. Gun control advocates are asking for everything up to and including crowning Michael Bloomberg emperor. ("A position for which Mr. Bloomberg no doubt believes himself suited," Strassel quips.) But in reality, that would all have to pass Congress—where more than half of lawmakers have an "A" rating with the NRA and the House is controlled by Republicans.

Asked recently what was more likely, new gun regulations or John Boehner becoming a pagan, one GOP aide replied, "Probably the latter." But it's not just Republicans. Red state Democrats have shown no appetite for gun control, and no matter how the press tries to spin it, Harry Reid has promised only a "thoughtful debate." In other words, if you're bemoaning a lack of partisanship in Washington, cheer up. "There is one issue on which Congress still resoundingly agrees: gun rights." Click for her full column.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Gun Control 'Debate' a Fantasy is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 163 comments
Jan 12, 2013 12:09 PM CST
"Thou shalt have no other els.~ 1st Commandment & "No one can serve two masters." ~ Matt.6:24 What is it that you all don't understand about El given unalienable/inalienable rights? The Supreme Court understood in 1966! "WHERE RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED THERE CAN BE NO RULE MAKING OR LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD ABROGATE THEM." Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Isn't all the present 'ILLEGAL' gun rules & legislation proof positive that the 'citizen politicians' in D.C. are only concerned about their own interests & safety? "Now I can go back to being a sovereign." James Buchanan (Last words before leaving office) Why isn't the great lawyer group Nat. Rifle Ass. suing the U.S. to get the present illegal gun rules/legislation overturned? Which one of the citizen politicians going to tell the Rothschilds that they can't have an M-4, or for that matter a fleet of F-22s for their defense? "Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who makes the laws." Mayer Amshel Rothschild "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson
Jan 12, 2013 2:36 AM CST
Here's another take on Gun Control no one mentions "GUNS don't kill people, BULLETS kill people" Do away with AMMO sales and the public can have as many GUNS as it wants but if there's NO AMMO available, the GUN becomes just a mechanical device, at best a club but certainly not that lethal Same goes for protecting schools- Guard Dogs could sniff out ammo being brought onto school grounds Not necessary to have Junk Yard Dogs, just the presence of Security Dogs would deter most threats
Jan 12, 2013 1:59 AM CST
VOLUNTARY I am probably the 70yr old who you confused with BrushMan. I believe I posted about that on one of the other threads about the proposed "gun banning". I also said I had a grandson who may well be involved in an act of violence one day. FYI: I am pro-gun; do not support the banning of the Modern Sporting Rifles that everyone confuses with "assault weapons". They are legitimate hunting rifles, even with 30rd magazines. I am an NRA member, although I disagree with some of their philosophies some times. The organization provides countless hours of instruction in firearm safety and operation to adults AND children. It's a pretty fair bet that whatever is decided, the cost of implementing and policing it will come out of both our pockets.