Tonight we asked if Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to drop the assault weapons ban from the gun bill was political strategy or political cowardice. I would say it's both, but probably a little more of the latter. The gun lobby is extremely powerful, and we know it drives many of the decisions in Washington. At the same time, passing some sort of gun legislation, no matter how watered down it may seem, is still a step in the right direction. Also, if the assault weapons ban is brought to the Senate floor as an amendment, every lawmaker will vote, and Reid is off the hook, so to speak.

Two of the most outspoken gun control advocates in the nation are not being silenced by the recent decision to remove the assault weapons ban from the federal gun bill. Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Bloomberg joined forces today at City Hall, to reiterate the need for the ban, insisting it does not infringe on Second Amendment rights. Also joining them were family members of the Newtown, Connecticut massacre, who argued “assault weapons, weapons of war, high-capacity magazines… have no purpose, or no use on the streets or in our schools.”

Mayor Bloomberg took the opportunity to emphasize the need for expanding background checks. With the assault weapons ban out of the picture, gun control advocates say broadening background checks for firearms purchases is the strongest step lawmakers can take to produce meaningful legislation. Do you agree?

Do you support broader background checks for gun purchasers? If so, how should the system be expanded? Do you view the Senate’s decision to remove the assault weapons ban from legislation as political strategy, or political cowardice? Will today’s event impact the minds of lawmakers in Washington?

Send your thoughts using the e-mail link above.

The only people who should be subject to a background check are those who advocate background checks, gun regulations and prohibition. They threaten our rights and freedom more than gun owners.

Joe
Port Richmond, SI

Once again these poor people are being politicized.

We were told by Bloomberg that we as Americans whether we are Republicans or Democrats should all get together and get in touch with our politicians and have them vote in favor of changing the laws. So now we are considered Americans to this mayor.

Once again they are trying to tell us that the need for a ban does not infringe on the second amendment.

[BOTH BLOOMBERG AND BIDEN NEED TO TELL IT TO SOMEONE ELSE] They will not change my mind.

I HOPE EVERYONE REALIZES THAT WE ARE AND HAVE ALREADY PAID A HUGE PRICE FOR THESE ILLEGAL 3RD TERMS.] [BOTH BIDEN AND BLOOMBERG NEED TO STOP TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH] [WHEN DOES THIS MAYOR INTEND TO DO SOME WORK FOR US AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT KEEP PAYING TAXES]

Why don't they just give it up already.

maxxiee
mp

All this talk about gun control, legislation and bans is fascinating but I really want to know how they're going to get them out of the hands of the criminals.

Terry
Hamilton Beach

The questions is why are more people carrying guns -Newtown was a horror, flags flown 1/2 mast= officials shed a tear- but who cries for mothers who lose children ea. day? No one is addressing Peace; Gone is Mother Teresa, John/Bobby Kennedy, even John Lennon. Forget Broccoli & start a conversation about respect for human life, morality. Who cares that Mrs. Obama is growing vegs- How about new bits re: kindness, morality, doing unto others? Any sports figure can say " while we fight on the field; we settle our disputes talking, we don't carry guns" Artists, LL Cool Jay, must start talking about non-violence.
We're numb watching killings on TV. If our elected officials worked at a company, they would have a project & a deadline.There's no across the aisle at an office. Jerry Springer, Maury Povich influence children watching women bare their breasts & audience shout "Fight, Fight" There's lots of celebs. artists who can talk about peace & when the morality standards increase the needs for violence decreases. Stop the conversation about weapons & set a tone for morality, non-violence, respect for elders, what happened to the golden rule?

L

I believe that no further gun control is needed. If something needs to be banned it should be the mood altering drugs that are pushed on young people with not fully developed brains. Clearly, over 90% of violent acts are done by these people. Pharmaceutical companies are the ones truly responsible for these problems. Not any particular type or class of weapon.

Greg

As a survivor of gun shot violence, I CANNOT believe that Senate Democrats chose not to insist on an assault weapon ban! I feel deeply betrayed! Where is the conscience? This hurts!

Dee, Midtown West

The analogy of guns with drugs is off. There is a biological addiction with one, a driving force completely lacking with guns, save for a need for lethal force around the house for self protection, a concern but not a craving. The Australian experience with implementing gun laws jthen seeing a precipitous drop in multiple shootings should be taken seriously by the Professor.

This cherished notion that even a bunch of assault rifles could stand up to the governments attempt to disarm them, with the most powerful and sophisticated military and weaponry that the world has ever seen at its disposal- is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous aas the notion that thousands of young people in the military would have no qualms about attacking their families and friends and neighbors on the say so of some politician.

Steven , upper east side.

ALL RESIDENTS LIVING WITH A WEAPON WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IF THERE IS ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY GOING ON WITH THE USE OF THAT WEAPON. THIS WILL BACK UP BACKGROUND CHECKS.

Carmelita
Harlem

The Senate spoke clearly that gun control should be limited to criminals and the mentally ill.

Jimmy. The Bronx.

The facts are overwhelming: guns don't protect people. It seems counter-intuitive until you remember that guns weren't and aren't designed to protect people. They're made to make killing things easier, which is exactly what they do.

Any argument about legislation should come from reality, not romance. It's also a fact that rifles, assault and otherwise, are a tiny portion of where gun deaths come from. There's a middle ground here.

Jordan
Flushing

The 2nd Amendment was written for what this government is a hair away from becoming: Tyrannical. And YES, that includes what many of you at home THINK are assault weapons. The single shot per trigger pull rifles that a clean civilian can own legally that our mayor and governor wants to deprive from persons in good standing of the law are NOT "assault weapons".

Since then, the 2nd Amendment has been applied to different areas, such as defense in and out the home, competition, hunting or just collecting. But make no mistake, it's original purpose was to give good people a fighting chance against an out of control government that no longer serves their trust or interest.

Ask what does our good government need with 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition and armored vehicles?

Lamont

Guns don't kill people. people kill people. Need any examples look at chicago, california and ny i guess the tough gun control they passed haven't been working. obama administration and bloomberg just bunch of hypocrits because they are being protected by armed guards all the time why woulden't i have the right to defend myself and my family. only people who would like this idea is criminals because they would know for fact LAW ABIDING CITIZENS are not protected.

Randy