Shumlin sides with Obama on guns

Earlier today, I contacted Shumlin spokesflack Sue Allen to see if the Governor had issued a statement on President Obama’s gun control proposals.

You know, since the Governor had earlier refused to take any stands whatsoever on the issue until the President came out with a plan.

Well, I just got an answer. Here’s the Gov’s statement in its entirety:

“No one should have to go through the tragedy experienced by the families in Newtown last month.  I appreciate the thorough discussion about gun violence prevention by President Obama, Vice President Biden and others. Common sense dictates that we will only make progress in curbing senseless violence in our country with a 50-state solution.  I support the President’s recommendations, and urge Congress to work collaboratively to adopt comprehensive federal legislation.”

It takes him a while to get to the point, but as I read the final sentence, the Governor has issued a complete endorsement of the President’s plan — the executive orders and the proposed legislation.

That ought to put a dent into his NRA rating.  

44 thoughts on “Shumlin sides with Obama on guns

  1. While we appropriately address the issue of mass killings, we should also be mindful that thousands of Vermont families enjoy hunting, target shooting and other gun-related activities. Well over 99 percent of these people are law-abiding citizens who are extremely careful with their weapons. In the midst of this debate, we should be mindful that their rights must be protected

    – Senator Bernie Sanders, from his statement on President Obama’s proposal on guns (1/16/2013)… I don’t believe this statement is an indication that Senator Sanders intends to avoid “offending the NRA”, but rather it indicates that Senator is yet another Vermont political representatives who recognizes that these proposals and the politics of this issue go well beyond the typical “left v. right” paradigm. There’s no reason for any Vermont politician to stray too far from the “Democratic Party boilerplate” on this issue, for policy or politics.

    Senator Sanders and Governor Shumlin are taking the right approach to this issue. jvwalt and Sue tacitly provide examples as to why I believe that to be true with these two statements.

    That ought to put a dent into his NRA rating



    If both sides are unhappy…

  2. …or, what is it?–his 23 Executive orders on Gun Control are NOT REALLY GUN CONTOL proposals.  I read them, and could not find one proposal aimed at ‘regulating’  the Big Business of the GUN INDUSTRY.  It’s all more government BS about policing and harassing THE PEOPLE, and making them pay for all this information gathering.  But where are proposals on regulations on the manufacturers, importers & exporters, the dealerships, the interstate shipping?  It seems CORPORATE GUN BIG BUSINESS is, once again, protected in its Constitutional Rights to keep and bear and SELL ANY KIND of arms.  It’s the regulation of our unrestrained and unregulated Capitalist Wall Street Corporate Reich that is at issue here–THE SALE OF PRODUCTS, whether safe or unsafe, necessary or unecessary.  You wait–WalMart will jump on this and have a 4am ASSAULT WEAPONS SALE!!!

    So, us PEOPLE are gonna get screwed again, and the Gun Industry gets a pass.  Remind you of anything familiar?  And Bernie–YOU talk a lot about the Rich and The Corporations screwing us.  Well, we’re about to get screwed again.  SAVE US BERNIE!  Yeah, right………….

  3. I posted this on FB and Twitter:

    1047 bills were introduced in the VT House & Senate last session. 171 were passed.

    The percentage is even lower in the 112th Congress.  So there’s no need to act like somebody’s Satan because they proposed a solution to a societal issue, yaknow?  Particularly when VT and US Supreme Court precedent suggests there can be some regulation of the particular right in question…

  4. Certainly there’s a lot of discussion still to be had, hearings, and whatnot through the political process.  And there are slightly different constitutional issues, not to mention cultural, at the state and Federal level.

    Senator Baruth’s proposed legislation, which is modeled after the original AWB, might well be moot if anything happens in Congress (haha).  And while we have a certain history of limited gun safety regulation here (and case history), Heller does provide guidance and even controlling precedent.

    There’s tension in a federal republic such as ours…

  5. and, in this case, that goes for Bernie, too.

    However, I don’t find anything to support your contention that Senator Sanders is “underwhelmed” by the President’s (or Governor Shumlin’s) response to this in the Senator’s press release on the subject. In fact, his statement reads as though he’s in lock step with the proposals. Did you read it? Are there other statements the Senator has made on the President’s gun proposals that I am unaware of?

  6. It’s clear that there is a great deal of difficulty discussion gun safety in this country.  Just mentioning the words sets certain people off, some even threatening armed revolt.  I’m not convinced people trying to steer policy toward reasonable regulation need to be incendiary or too far out front–better some measured statements in public with quiet coalition building at the sausage factory, and following the President’s lead on the exhortations to engage.  It provides quite a contrast to the NRA and GOA…

  7. Look; it’s great that they support the President in his position.  They were extremely unlikely to do otherwise.

    But when Philip Baruth opens the practical conversation more locally, he goes into the deep freeze.

  8. Phil Baruth didn’t simply “open the practical conversation more locally”, he introduced legislation that he sponsored and has endorsed. I’m all for conversation, but to introduce a legislative solution prior to the discussion happening is stupid and unnecessary, both from a policy and political standpoint. He remains frozen, for me, for now.

  9. is a pretty good way to start a conversation.

    It isn’t as if his proposal will go into effect simply because he articulated it.

  10. …part of a legislator’s job is to introduce legislation.  He doesn’t have to wait until it’s all been decided.  And the fact is, the model bill already existed at the national level, so he put it out there for discussion and sausage making.  What a ridiculous complaint about the legislative process.

  11. I think we do.  We need somebody to not just wait around for us all to talk.  Legislators legislate.  And they should put proposals out there to discuss, instead of sitting around like college kids at a midnight bull session.

    Not sure what I said warrants a 2–seems kinda dickish because you don’t like Feinstein or Baruth–but I guess it doesn’t matter.

  12. We are a net exporter of guns used in crimes:

    So I wouldn’t be too cavalier about what we do or don’t need.  Are we not a part of the United States?  And could crimes that happened in nearby CT not ever happen here?

    It’s not a bad thing for people to put out possible solutions for discussion…

  13. I really meant their legislation, even though I know you don’t like DiFi.  Quite frankly, I’m not a fan, either.  But I adore Phil.

    And I know you don’t like his bill.  Doesn’t mean he’s ignorant or anything.  He modeled his leg after stuff that was in force nationally for a decade and did appear to have some positive effect that grew over time.

    Too bad we don’t have more and better data.  Thankfully one of Obama’s actions (he signed no executive orders) was to direct CDC to study the health and safety issues.  They’ve been reluctant since the NRA made it hard to do so through legislation…

  14. …my full-throated support for the process.

    So at this point, do you acknowledge that per Heller and Duranleau that the right to keep and bear arms has some limits?  And that now we’re just negotiating where those limits are?

    And do you at least see the point some people are trying to make that even Vermont might need to be a part of the national solution, given how guns and people aren’t confined to borders (in either direction)?

    Don’t try flipping that question around on me.  You’ve seen me argue in support of the individual right…

  15. may I suggest a different perspective?

    Instead of thinking of the effort to ban “assault” weapons as being directly due to the actions of a demented maniac, you might instead think of the demented maniac as the canary in the coal mine, which has made folks recognize a greater problem that should be addressed.

    We aren’t restricted from owning nuclear weapons because of the actions of a “demented maniac,” but because it was pretty obvious from the get-go that the potential for wholesale slaughter exceeded the bounds of reason.

    The “get-go” of the personal arms race was all muskets and flintlocks; with little indication of where the whole thing might lead.

    What is happening now is that some of the people think it’s time to take a look at the accelerating kill ratio of weapons to determine at what point even that potential exceeds the bounds of reason.

  16. “That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..”

    This is not negotiable.

    While I’m sure you will be on the winning side in the legislative process, it really doesn’t matter if you’re willing to negotiate or not.  Absolutism isn’t all that helpful, though.

  17. I know you toss this line around, and it is enshrined in our constitution, but for the record:

    “That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves

    How many times have you needed your gun(s) for your personal defence?

    and the State..”

    And how many times for the defence of the state?

    Just want some data points, to help me understand.

  18. Don’t forget to bring a “sexy” gun.  Or three.  

    (Make sure they have the looooooong mags.)

    And wear your camo.  

    Headwear?  Maybe Nugent-style with the Oz cowboy hat.  Tri-corner is fading in popularity, but still makes a statement.  Or a simple Johnny Rambo headband, perhaps.

    Or straight-up tinfoil.  

    (Provides the best protection from Obama/Feinstein/Pelosi/Tri-lateral Commission/UN/your favorite nutter fantasy here mind-control rays.)

  19. would think that with all those guns around that nobody would get shot.

    Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?  

  20. Can build an app that uses GPS to alert one as they near a gun show. With stuff like that happening, why is it a surprise that is law abiding , non packing citizens, who have the right not to be shot (intentionally or not) continue to be abridged so folks can accidentally and not so accidentally shoot people?

  21. the NRA’s worldview.

    Imagine if we just scheduled every day as ‘Guns Across America’ and simply sited all future shooting ranges and gun shows next to grade schools.

    Problem solved.  

  22. but if I ever do, even once, it’s paid for itself a thousand times over.

    A gun is like a tourniquet.

    You will probably never NEED one.

    But if you do, you need it very badly and you need it right the hell now.  


    So you carry it around loaded? Keep it in the house loaded, ready to go?  

    Or are there other protocols? Maybe a palm print reader like in the latest James Bond? Or a ring that activates the weapon? Something?

    Education please. How does one have it ready to go right the hell now, on a moments notice, and yet safe and secure at the same time?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *