Posted on 04/07/2009 8:03:22 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Pelosi pledges compromise on assault weapons ban @ 10:29 am by Michael O'Brien
The ball is in Congress's court to craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged Tuesday.
During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners' rights last term.
"We have to find some level of compromise," Pelosi said, citing 53 victims of gun violence nationwide in less than a month. "And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means."
"Yes, it is," the Speaker said when asked if the ball is in Congress's court now that Democrats control the White House. "And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution."
Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines.
The Speaker also expressed displeasure at the attachment of a gun rights provision to legislation that would grant Washington, D.C. a voting member of Congress.
"Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That's a civil rights issue," she said, pledging to find "middle ground" on the issue. "And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don't — I don't think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House."
"And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution."
The ONLY compromise I will go for is the repeal of that travesty THE 1968 GUN CONTROL LAW!
America before that was a different place!
Remember these words?
“Today we make America safe by taking guns out of the hands of criminals.”-—Lyndon B Johnson, when he signed the 1968 gun control act into law.
Hey, give the pile of Pelosi a break.
She simply wants to add America’s 75 million or so gun owners to the pile of disarmed dead.
Hey, Pelosi, after the smoke clears, let us know how that all worked out for you and the rest of the RICO mob there in Malfunction Junction.
Please, no self respecting horse would associate with such a waste of oxygen as the current speaker of the house of reprehensibles. It can pass whatever laws it can manage to get the votes for but enforcing it will be another matter entirely. My line in the sand has been crossed and I will no longer be silent, passive nor obedient.
“Misconceptions?” She’s a misconception! As such, she should have been aborted instead of born and I’m not in favor of abortion... normally. In her case though...
Well, this will certainly stop the run on guns and ammunition /s
Of which, how many were victimized by so-called assault weapons? In how many incidents?
Ms. Pelosi, we're on to you. You do not want us to have the ability to fight back on equal terms with your overlord's thugs-in-training at ACORN.
That means that the resistance will have to relieve your minions of their arms through appropriate means, probably at the cost of the thugs lives.
But the tree of liberty must be fed and watered from time to time.
To me, they, and their unconstitutional laws do not exist, period. Legally bought, forcefully kept.
I guess I better hurry up and buy my Beretta 92FS and round up some pre-ban hicaps while I still can (I live in MA, where Clinton’s AWB never went away).
I think they know it, too. That’s why, unlike the rapid pace being used to implement the rest of their commie agenda, they are proceeding a little slower here. But they’ll make the attempt, no doubt about it. The response has to be fierce. The left is an absolute paper lion, there is nothing behind that curtain. We could end all this in a very short while, whenever we decide it’s time.
Nancy, “compromise” means each side gives in a little. It does not mean you steal fewer of my rights than you had hoped to.
Here’s a real compromise:
We set up a sensible qualification and training process with a full background check. That earns qualified folks an ID card. Those folks may then buy any gun of any type in any quantity they want, with no record kept of who bought what guns. (We might require a training endorsement for machine guns). Just like my ID lets me buy liquor without the government keeping a record of it.
That way, your paranoid delusions about people running amok and killing innocents would be addressed, as would my paranoid delusions that you’re simply out to create a database to enable confiscation, and subsequent genocide.
Now, lots of my gun nut friends are going to scream bloody murder at my notion that a fundamental right should be qualified by this kind of process (we don’t require you to have a college degree to write op-ed columns, after all). But if you can persuade your anti-gun friends to give up on the means for confiscation, I think I can get my friends to agree.
Of course, when you and your anti-gun friends refuse even to consider this compromise for sensible public safety rules that meet all your goals, it will leave us wondering what you really have in mind for us. Why do you want to disarm law-abiding Americans? What do you have in mind for us?
;'}
55 people killed? What about the 55,000 people killed in car accidents ... if she wants to save lives, why doesn’t she ban the stupid cars? Makes sense to me.
Bang!
Apparently everyone with a job that pays taxes. 52% of the country voted for him, I figure thats everyone who lives on a government check. The 48% that have a job and produce are screwed....red
53 victims of gun violence in a month? That’s only 636 per a whole year. How many people are killed in car wrecks? Furthermore, how many of the murderers had long criminal records or were known to be insane?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.