AG Eric Holder waffles on gun control
By John Amato Thursday Apr 09, 2009 9:00amHere's a memo to FOX News and all those afraid President Obama will take away their guns: It ain't happening. Watch AG Eric Holder be as evasive as he can as he responds to questions by Couric on the CBS Evening News over putting a tighter clamp on guns being sold through gun shows and assault weapons.
KATIE COURIC: What about reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole? Do you think that will stop the flow of weapons to the U.S?
ERIC HOLDER: Well, I think the thing we need to do is come up with those things we can do right away. And we're gonna be moving 100 ATF agents to the border. About 26 DEA agents to the border. And that will happen over the next 30 days or so. And I think that will have a pretty dramatic impact on reducing the flow of weapons into Mexico.
(TRACK) But the guns being purchased and used in the US has also become front and center, given that a recent series of mass shootings from southern Alabama sound up to upstate New York have killed 57 people. While The Attorney General said he supported reinstating the assault weapons ban during his confirmation hearing, he's been silent on the subject since.
KATIE COURIC: Did someone tell you to back off?
ERIC HOLDER: No one's told me to back off. I understand the Second Amendment. I respect the Second Amendment.
KATIE COURIC: It's been reported that Democrats on Capitol Hill are getting increasingly chummy with the NRA and receiving more campaign contributions from that organization than in previous years. And nobody wants to get the NRA riled up. Has this become political at all?
ERIC HOLDER: No, I don't think it has. In fact, I look forward to working with the NRA to come up with ways in which we can use common-sense approaches to reduce the level of violence that we see…in our streets and make the American people as safe as they can possibly be.
KATIE COURIC: What about gun shows? In over 30 states, people can simply walk into gun shows and buy a gun, sometimes, from unlicensed dealers without a background check. Would you support closing the gun show loophole?
ERIC HOLDER: Well, again, these are issues that we'll have to discuss. The president will be the one who will ultimately set policy. Things that are politically saleable and things that will ultimately be effective.
KATIE COURIC: Does the closing the gun show loophole fall into those categories?
ERIC HOLDER: Well, that'll be one of the things I'll talk about with the president.
Riiiight, the NRA will work with the president and the AG to figure out new ways to slow down gun sales in America and help this country battle a very pressing problem. Did they already legalize marijuana and I missed it? Yes, if he said he was going to shut down the gun shows, then the NRA would flip out and so would potentially thousands of militia members, so maybe this was the best we could hope for. But mainstream America doesn't even know that you can buy a gun at a show without a background check. How about educating Americans a little better on this subject?
Here's a famous Rolling Stone article from 1999 called:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which issues Federal Firearms Licenses, is forbidden from inspecting the 104,000 licensed gun dealers more than once a year. Notorious gun-law violators, known as dirty dealers, are well-protected by this rule. The ATF is also specifically prohibited from compiling a registry of gun owners or gun data. Congress, under pressure from the gun lobby, annually reminds the beleaguered agency in the appropriations bill that it cannot keep detailed records. Lack of manpower further hampers the bureau's investigations. "The ATF is smaller than a lot of municipal police departments — it desperately needs more personnel," says David Kennedy, a senior researcher at the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Meanwhile, licensed dealers conduct only sixty percent of all gun transfers in their stores (gun sales total $2 billion to $3 billioÈ a year). Most private transfers occur through inheritance or take place in the wild kingdom known as gun shows, where Branch Davidian leader David Koresh, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and serial killer Thomas Lee Dillon all felt at home, where swastika flags may not raise an eyebrow and where all of the guns used in the Littleton massacre were purchased...read on
Login or Register to post comments.
I'd recommend a fork.
Damn...she really went after him on gun control, but he is really eloquent.
... if you really want to lower gun violence then work to Legalize Marijuana instead.
Back in the 80's when Reagan started the drug war (to whitewash CIA cocaine shipments to illegally fund the Contras) it was common knowledge that marijuana would be the easiest to control and that coke and crack heads without weed would lead to more violence.
We should be paid for our predictions.
All of this just plays into Repugs hands: so don't be cheap goopy putty in filthy, dirty Repug hands – drop this fuckin' gun issue before we lose more elections.
At this point, I consider any 'Dem' that advocates Gun Control to be a Republican operative.
"All of this just plays into Repugs hands: so don't be cheap goopy putty in filthy, dirty Repug hands – drop this fuckin' gun issue before we lose more elections."
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT Stevie. I can't tell you how many of my dumbass con friends cite "liberal gun grabber" as their main talking point against Democrats. It's as politically suicidal for us as is the repugnicants fetus fetish.
In addition, anyone with marginal familiarity with labor history and Machiavelli, hell the history of the world, "all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed."(The Prince CHAPTER VI)
It is just strange to me that the party that we expect to represent the working class against corporate predators and the rest of the hired goons of the world has so many in leadership positions that would render us defenseless.
As Stevie says, it plays right in the the conservaliars hands. It's counterproductive, futile and stupid.
The war on some drugs is the biggest driver of guns violence on earth. That's the thing in America that is feeding the violence in Mexico.
End prohibition now
... that if you pass a law banning assault weapons, the criminals don't give a damn.
And even if you institute permits and background checks, you're only covering a person's state of mind AT THE MOMENT, and not future instances where they might be enraged or not thinking clearly. After all, drivers' licenses and insurance doesn't stop drunk drivers.
most Americans don't like to be told what to do anyway.
background checks are important, imo. and, as the name implies, it is not about the state of the mind at the moment.
this is not about being drunk, it is about having a violent record
... that there should be NO permits and NO background checks. I just said that these are technical attachments which really do nothing to prevent armed violence.
I'm not even sure that graded permits, such as with vehicle licenses, would achieve the desired effect. That is, owning a handgun requires permit A, x hours of instruction, annual testing; owning a rifle requires permit B, y hours of instruction, annual testing and psych eval., etc.
And then there's still the question of enforcement. America has a bad record when it comes to security - we institute extensive checks to prevent terrorism on planes, but then implement a 'frequent flier' list that gives a passenger expedited access/screening. So how do we stop some legislator/gun advocate from weakening the intent of the law?
The Dems better get off this gun control kick already and give it back to the Repugs where it belongs, especially with that insidious HR45 (a fucking horrible bill) sitting in the House. If the Dems drop gun control the Repugs will make it their own in 3 or 4 years, I'll put money on it. Do what Clinton did to lower the crime rate and hire more cops (by giving more money to the states, what the Pugs cut in half in the stimulus).
Nobody wants to be spread-eagled on the hood of their car for a minor traffic violation, simply because the cops see they have a gun registered. Registering guns doesn't 'save one child'.
Otherwise, it'll be just one more reason for the Dems to lose the House and the Senate in 2010.
I hope Holder and Obama realize this.
cut the Cops, burn and one other program that Bill put in from 1.4 billion dollars to 200 milion. More cops ? You must get the right kind of people in the police dept. To day they have lots of people who just want a job. that is not a reason to be a cop.
Weapon bans just keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Gang members here in Southern Ca have M-16s and AK-47s. In Ca, except under certain conditions (my brother who was honorably discharged from the air force can't have them), it's illegal to have those types of guns, so who the hell do gang members have them.
Under current Ca law, I'm allowed bolt-action rifles, certain semi-auto rifles, semi-auto pistols, revolvers, shotguns and mussel loaders (for those days when you and your buddies feel like re-enacting Lexington and Concord). I also live near some rather shady parts of Southern California. It something goes down it could be my legally owned Lee Enfield vs. some thug's illegal AK-47.
A total gun ban would only result in my katana vs. some thug's illegal AK-47. My (the law abiding citizen) odds just got a lot worse.
"mussel loaders"
I'm familiar with lots of types of weapons, but I never knew the colonials would load ammo into a shellfish!
Maybe that's what generated the famous "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" - the range of the shellfish gun was only as far as they could squirt!
I never claimed to not need spell check... and damnit now you got me in the mood for sea food!
Sorry I'm such a smartass....
I live in the mountains now, and I desperately miss having fresh seafood just around the corner.
(expecting cracks about "mountain oysters" in 3...2...1...)
You funny funny peoples!
If you own a gun, you're more likely to kill a family member than a burglar.
Why do you need automatic weapons to hunt? Is there some kind of arms race going on with the deer and wild turkeys?
So, I'm sure the guy who watched his child die while handling an automatic weapon at a "legal" gun show is fully in support of less gun control now.
"I'm sure the guy who watched his child die while handling an automatic weapon at a "legal" gun show is fully in support of less gun control now."
I'm sure he still is, but now he's a bigger supporter of gun-handling safety education.
You don't have to be 'pro-gun' to be anti-gun control.
but many consider "gun safety" laws to also be an onerous regulation of the "right to bear arms".
..was just stupid and negligent on the father's and the show's end.
What were they thinking letting child handle a fully automatic weapon?! I don't even let teenagers touch my bolt-action rifles.
There are 93 million gun owners in America. What do you mean "mainstream Americans don't know you can buy a gun at a gun show"? You seem to be the one that's out of touch. Guess what, you take away all the the guns and the hatred, bigotry and swastikas will still be there. You aren't going to cure hatred and mental illness by banning guns.
Exactly..
Where did you get this number?
That would be more than 1 in 4 of all citizens - men, women, and children. Are you sure it's not 93 million guns?
Lack of touch with reality and faulty statistics have never gotten in the way of the pro-gun crowd.
... and faulty statistics has never interfered with prohibitionist crowd either. How good is prohibition of drugs and alcohol working for you?
Get rid of your fear of guns by taking gun safety classes.
You don't have to be 'pro-gun' to be anti-gun control.
of valid counter argument to them... may be all the rage in 5th grade. Not very impressive for the rest of the word.
I have no fear of guns, in fact I grew up in a military family so I am fairly well versed in firearms. I have fear of dumbasses with guns... something completely different.
Most gun nuts try to frame gun control as the banning of guns. When that is not the issue. The victims are not the dumbasses who can't obtain guns, but rather the people shot by said dumbasses with guns.
I was never very impressed with the logical fallacies, and just plain intellectual dishonesty displayed by the gun nut crowd... mental contortions to justify penile extensions are funny though.
In other words, the issue is not "people's irrational fear of guns" but rather "people's very rational fear of dumbasses with guns." The "with guns" is secondary to the "dumbass" in the fear scale. If I have to "get over my fear of guns" then it is only fair that gun nuts need to get "over their lack of competence regarding guns."
Well then maybe you should spend your time trying to outlaw dumbasses.
I'm surrounded by dumbasses all the time, they are scary. Dumbasses have come down our street busting windshields with bricks. We tried to outlaw loose bricks but it didn't work, it seems people use them in their flower beds.
Mandate gun safety classes if you think that'll work, dumbasses need an education too.
Right-wing gun nuts are the most paranoid, stopping the threat of gun control would lessen their paranoia but eliminating the right-wing would be the ultimate noble cause and solution.
But the real cause of the rise in gun violence over the last 25 years and the accentuation of the gun culture has been the Drug War. Legalize Marijuana and that takes 75% of the money and half the violence out in just a few years. I'm taking bets.
300 million people in the US.
that
It doesn't surprise me though.
"It's been reported..." is one step away from "there are those who say..."
I think it was probably reported on Michelle Malkin's site - or maybe that radio station from Venus that plays through Couric's fillings.
I hadn't heard it before. Probably some Blue Dogs. Gotta love that ole' "there are those who say" line. Translation = I think this, but am pretending like someone else is saying it so that I don't jeopardize my fake objectivity. As you can tell, I'm not a very good reporter.
i am no enemy of guns, i like to go to target ranges here in south philly...
but, for this city slickers, the idea of loosening gun restrictions is friggin' scary as shit. criminals or not, a weapon as powerful as an assault rifle in the city is a recipe for disaster.
It does sound a bit scary in the city, but I know a few people who own them and keep them locked up, taking them out only for target practice.
Same as before though, gun laws don't keep guns out of unlicensed criminal hands. Some people are afraid of handgunsand think they're just as scary.
I recommend people take gun safety classes so they know what to do when they come across a gun in any situation.
Do the restrictions even work? I mean it's near impossible to get a fully automatic weapon here in California, yet I've seen countless documentaries with gang members showing off their AKs and M-16s.
I even know a guy with the machine tools and know-how to make me a FAMAS if I put down the cash.
As I've previously said, I live near some shady places where people likely already have AKs and what not. I'd like an AK-103 in the event cops chase someone into my back yard who thinks a hostage situation is a good idea.
full-auto AKs and the M16s aren't really AR15s? You have to be able to look and see, otherwise it could just be talk. Not that it's beyond such people to get one converted, but talk is cheap. If true though that is truly scary. I wonder if there are military guns disappearing as they did in Iraq, let's hope not.
a Pheasant Hunt to appease the fearful.
I'm sure Team Obama considered that approach, but they had to weigh the pro-gun message versus the "black-guy-with-gun" visceral reaction that some would have.
He was evasive, but you can take that either way.
probably be another 50 million years before weapons are seen as the idiotic utensils they really are.
I think it will happen much faster then that...
And I hope for you I don't plan on coming back to this rock the next time.
LOL
I used to say that back in the dark days of he who shall not be named...
But I think we can pull it out here on this earth...
Its possible..
As long as we dont go stupid really fast in my remaining years.. I will give it another spin.
Yeah, I'd say it might even be 10 million years.
Like the human race will be around even in 10,000 years.
You guys...have too much faith in humanity sometimes. ;)
Besides...everyone knows that the worlds gonna end in 4 years anyway!
Don't y'all watch those all pseudo-science shows on the discovery channel? Sheeesh!
No, no, no. The world will end in our lifetimes, when the Bearded Sky Father sends his son down to whisk the good people ("Christians") away to Wonderful Forever Land, banishing all the rest to the Fiery Lake of Pure Torment........
....because he loooooooooovvvves you.
forgot about about that guy...
everyone can put down their (legal/illegal) guns in the next 50 years. I still believe in the fist and the foot. That's why we have them, and they never run out of ammo.
... or disabled, or outnumbered, or out-gunned.
Fellow Leftist Extremist COMRADES-- AKA YOU-
Don't seem to fully grasp..
Let me try to make it as easy and simple as possible..
The PRO-GUN issue is mostly a Right wing security blanket...? Right??
Yes-
Now These Ultra Arch Reich Wing FREAKS are already losing it over "Gun Grabs" and so forth.. To the point they are getting into shootouts with Police... Cause "Obama gunna take maaaih Gunnz from my cold dead hands"
When he is not.. and SHOULD NOT...
Now the right has no TANGIBLE ground under their feet on ANY issue...
Why do you want to short them out and let them get some traction??
You think taking these things away is the way to FIX the problems>??
You have to change the brain... you have to change the consciousness that powers that brain...
You cant let their worst fears come to physical reality...
Stop being so fucking predictable Lefties..
Jesus...
Okay, but how about closing the gun show loop-hole. Is there a way to do that without freaking out the Repube mainstream?
difficult at best. the right are masters of deception and the village idiots believe what they want to believe. they will make it an all or nothing issue. very typical of black and white thinkers. between law enforcement/border and prisons i would like to know the cost to the TAX payers.
Not freakin out the repub mainstream?
Fuck 'em!
I personally am tired of walkin on eggshells for fear of hurtin the poor repug sensibility! FUCK those troglodyte philistines!
If they can't cope with the modern world! They can go back to living in fuckin caves for all I care.
First off,
I appreciate watching them thrash too and fro over invisible enemies..
I see arming them with tangible ground much more dangerous then simply enforcing the weapons laws currently on the books.
We have no need to do any weapon seizures.
It is not walking on eggshells... it is simply superior jujitsu.
I concede to your wisdom...
I was pretty much just blowing off some steam.
I like gun shows, leave them the way they are.
... and plenty more who hold respect for constitutional protections.
This is not, and has never been, a right/left issue. Aside from authoritarian, Establishment Democrats, most "lefties" easily see the danger of George W. Bush and
BlackwaterXe having all the guns.And for those frightened little rabbits so against "assault" weapons: what are your feelings on "non-assault" weapons? Confusing? Of course it is. The "assault" weapons issue was and is never anything more than a wedge issue. A laundry list of guns that look scary and are deliberately selected to confuse. Anyone think an "assault" weapon is a machine gun? No surprise. That's what we've been misled to believe. Machine guns have been illegal without the proper permits for over half a century and have nothing to do with whatever an "assault" weapon is supposed to be.
Gun control has nothing to do with getting rid of firearms; it is solely about limiting their possession to The Establishment.
-- It is the "partial birth abortion"...
1000% correct.
It is a wedge issue and the framing would kill any dem. I hate that it is so, but it IS so.
This is not the time to choose this battle. I don't know how many people will have to die because of it, but this is not the right time.
Healthcare first and foremost. American's deserve healthcare and not to be sidetracked by this extreme wedge issue.
with guns.
I don't trust you or any other gun-nut, who measures his sexual potency by the caliber of his bullets, with guns.
You wanna play marksman? get a bb or pellet gun.
Wanna kill helpless animals? Take a knife and be a man and go get 'em tiger.
But the average Murkin has no business possessing these lethal things.
Men with tiny dicks need big guns to compensate. Mebbe you could take up sky-diving?
Since your last "Penis" laden comment was deleted..
Wanna try a different analogy...
Seriously...
Ever since Viagra came to market, most guns in this country became rather unnecessary. IMHO.
Never the less, this is a wedge issue. And it is pathetic that the right wingers are using it right now. It is as if their playbook has only 5 pages: Abortion, Guns, Low Taxes for the Rich, Immigration, and the Gays. Rise, and repeat at infinitum in some sort of political cycle from hell.
It is not like there are issues that are orders of magnitude more pressing than any of the 5 items I just listed. If the American public wasn't so f*cking [Deleted. Please use "stupid", "idiotic" or some other adjective nxt time. Thanks. Site Monitor] the GOP et al would have been rendered marginal long time ago.
I mean, they are pulling out the same tactics than they did in the 90s. WTF?
It is horrific and some Dems are trying to push it, it's sitting in the House now and should be killed immediately and the Dems who brought it in should be taken out.
Watch the Repugs try to bring it up for a vote closer to the 2010 elections. Take it out now.
You missed it...
He had at least 2 others in this very topic that are now both gone.
"woody", with his obviously exceptional penis, is in a position which compromises his stance on this issue.
If most anyone is confronted with a home invader or a robbery on the street, absent a weapon, they are left to defend themselves with their physical ability - whether elderly, petite, or simply bad in a fight. Woody, on the other hand, can use his amazing penis to slap the attacker to and fro until that attacker willingly submits to proper legal authority.
Unfortunately, unless woody's penis is so impressive that he is able to to use it as a protective shield over the entire United States thus relieving the rest of us of any worries of attack, this is not much of a consolation.
Nonetheless, I keep an open mind. I live on the West Coast and commute to Chicago. If woody is able to use his amazing penis to protect us all, then I think we must all admit that gun control is a great idea.
It definitely explains your handle.
I suppose you're also in favor of disarming law enforcement? There's little harm in that. I watched a whole bunch of cops look tough while hiding behind their squad car doors while gunmen killed unarmed children at Columbine. I watched the entire LA Police department run away after the Rodney King verdicts. Funny thing was, the people who had guns weren't attacked and looted, while those who trusted in the mythical television cop to the rescue were easy prey.
Frightened little rabbit with a penis fixation. Trust in your Leader.
that LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT YOU
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-prot...
IOW, you do not have the right to police protection.
Take away the ability to bear arms and you don't have the legal right to defend yourself.
Thanks, government.
if they did not have to resort to lies and fear to make any sort of point...
What part of "to protect and serve" is so hard to understand?
... is not a legal obligation. If law enforcement is negligent in protecting the public, and they are sued for that negligence, their first response will be that they had no duty to protect.
Other than certain limited situations (e.g. reliance on a 911 operator) they will win, and the suit will be dismissed.
For a link from the law enforcement perspective try Police Chief Magazine.
Decision reached:
By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police. The court held that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.
...is that police departments don't exist to act as personal bodyguards, and that they have to prioritize because of budget limitations.
Now we could spend a lot more money and put a cop on every doorstep, but can we afford that? Do we want to live in the police state that would evolve under such circumstances?
It is my responsibilty to protect myself and my family.
to what the original "fear monger" message was implying, was it?
There is quite a difference between "not having a right" and a "department not being able to service such right due to capacity issues" don't you think?
to your statement "What part of "to protect and serve" is so hard to understand?" Which the court case refutes.
Also, if you read the case, it had nothing to do with "a department not being able to service such right due to capacity issues", it was complete incompetance by the department.
... it simply absolved the police department from not being able to protect the person.
The whole link is basing their premise on an intellectually dishonest approach. Where they are trying to equate police incompetence with the spirit of the law, two things which are not even remotely close...
Their premise is from the get go that you need guns to defend yourself. If they had been intellectually honest at the very least, they would have also made the case that the police force needed to either been expanded or funded in order to allow for the required level of protection.
That was if indeed protection and safety were the main drivers for the writers of the article. Which is highly debatable... as it seems that their main drive was gun ownership, thus using protection/safety as just a mere excuse to justify unrestricted gun ownership. Which is why I find a lot of the gun nut arguments so insufferably dishonest in the intellectual department.
...with the link is what I was referring to.
I understand the argument that police can't be there to protect everyone all of the time, thus we must arm ourselves to protect ourselves. I don't agree that advocating gun ownership for everyone is the answer, though. If everyone was armed- or just every upstanding citizen w/out a felony record, anyway- I think you'd see a steep rise in people being shot out of irrational fear.
Riss v. New York
293 N.Y.S2d 897
The court held:
When one considers the greatly increased amount of crime committed through out the cities, but especially in certain portions of them, with repetitive and predictable pattern, it is east to see where the consequences of fixing municipal liability upon a showing or probable need for and request for protection. To be sure these are grave problems at the present time, exciting high priority activity to the part of the national, State, and local governments, to which the answers are neither simple, known, or presently within reasonable controls. To foist a presumed cure for these problems by judicial innovation of a new kind of liability in tort would be foolhardy indeed and an assumption of judicial wisdom and power not possessed by the courts.
For all these reasons, there is no warrant in judicial tradition or in the proper allocation of the powers of government for the courts, in the absence of legislation, to carve out and area of tort liability for police protection to members of the public.
Basically police are under no legal duty to protect you as an individual. If you tell police some guy is stalking you and threatening to kick your ass, and they don't do anything about it, and he does come and beats the hell out of you, they are not liable. Your law suit will likely fail.
Only frightened people are afraid of guns. I used to hunt with my father and uncles so I grew up around guns, which means plenty of gun safety education went with it, so I'm not afraid. They weren't 'gun nuts' and they were all Dems.
I've also tried to be a pacifist for a long time so I don't advocate shooting anybody, but I believe in protecting oneself and innocent people. If you're so brave come live in my neighborhood in Cleveland and put one of those signs on your front door that says "no guns allowed in this house", then see how long it takes before you have a home invasion.
Or look forward to the next electric power grid blackout and hope it only lasts for a day or two.
...should we ban swords as well? Their purpose is nothing more than to hack another person to pieces. Same with those maces some people like to hang from the wall. Only thing their good for is bludgeoning someone to death.
And firing a BB gun is a lot different from a rifle. If you want to see how accurate you can get, for one thing a BB gun can't compare in range or accuracy to a rifle. For one thing a bb gun's barrel isn't even rifled, so there goes the accuracy.
As for helpless animals. Deer can mess you up pretty badly, I wouldn't call them helpless. Tasty yes, helpless no.
Finally who says all people with guns have issues with penis size? I collect WWII rifles because I'm a history buff. How much more of a piece of history can you get than a Mosin-Nagant that was used in the Battle of Stalingrad?
Is nothing more than a made up term.
I mean what is an "assault weapon"? An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle, with a pistol grip, detachable magazine and fires a medium powered cartridge. Actually in more modern times, it's mainly the cartridge now that determines if a rifle is an "assault" rifle or a "battle" rifle (IE M-4 vs. M-14EBR).
"Assault weapon" implies a category that includes more than just a rifle with a particular set of characteristics. I have relatives who've served in the Army and the Air Force, not once have I ever heard "assault pistol", "assault machine gun," "assault shotgun," "assault grenade launcher" or "assault rocket launcher."
"Assault weapons" are nothing more than a made up term for non-existent weapons to scare people and garner votes.
Following that logic, a Ferrari and my Honda have 4 wheels. So I guess "high performance sports super car" is nothing but a marketing gimmick by the Italians to charge 4x than the japanese for a car, right?
Certain characteristics posed by an automobile, will place it in the category of "high performance". "High performance" has a definition to it, albeit a loose one, but on that's generally accepted.
"Assault weapons" have no such defining characteristic. You stated previously you grew up around weapons. So you're familiar with the terminology. As I've stated prior, there are characteristics that define an assault rifle from a battle rifle and a sniper rifle, but what characteristics differentiate between a "standard" semi-auto handgun and an "assault" handgun?
that all weapons should be allowed.
We should put a 2000% tax on ammunition.
... my worst fear is that some heavily-armed wackaloon high on the gospel of ArmaGlennon and Chuckles the Ninja goes shooting his way through cops (family members) or a school (family members) or a church (family members) or my workplace (me), that I have to change my consciousness?
To what, exactly?
... fertilizer, diesel fuel, and a rental truck (Oklahoma City), or less than twenty wackaloons armed with Exacto knives (9/11)?
I don't worry about them, either.
Humans are lousy judges of risk. We're busy limiting people to 3 oz. of liquid - never mind that math is commutative.
And react in ways that can make a big mess, a really big mess.
Fear is the mind killer...
... that there's one side afraid of losing their guns, and another side that's afraid of losing a family member.
What gets lost in the debate is that BOTH sides are carrying fear around and using that as the basis for decisions. Unfortunately, there's also no such thing as a perfectly rational world - you could ban guns or not ban guns, and there will still be shootings out of anger, accidental shootings, and so on.
This country is fueled by fear, and fear makes for some pretty irrational decision making - as well as a more easily controlled populace.
but there is a big difference between the "fear" of losing a member of your family to a jackass with a gun, versus the "fear" of not having access to your favorite inanimate object.
How 'bout not having access to a necessary inanimate object to protect a family member from a jackass with a gun.
... we have very different definitions of what "necessary" means.
Too many guns out there already. And the wackos are starting to shoot us up because of unfounded fears about gun control. What will happen if there's real talk of bans? Thousands of gun owners ambushing police, firemen, mailmen, dog catchers... Shooting sprees at daycares because the kids look like they might grow up to be librul?
We're so fucked. The twenty-teens are going to end up being an action movie genre fifty years from now.
They think it's fun and funny. Manly and Macho to boot.
If or when there is an actual ban on assault weapons...there will be some people who actually rise up against it, but I think the number will be smaller than some, even myself, have thought...and some innocent blood will be shed, and the govt. will come down on the gun nuts like a ton o' bricks. Some will be shot and killed, and the rest will be arrested.
That's what I think will likely happen...tomorrow...I may have a different take on it...but right now...that's it.
I'll admit ignorance on this. I had no idea one could purchase guns at a gun show, as one does not purchase a home from a home show. I'm stunned and mortified. There are gun shows at our local fair grounds all of the time. Normally, people frequent the local pubs afterwards. We all know guns and alcohol don't mix well.
That depends, are you an Indian?
Ooooooo
That was out of line.
A little funny, but out of line.
ysbaddaden was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the guns and alcohol comment.
Perhaps we should outlaw alcohol instead.
What else will we make Molotov Cocktails from?
make great molotov cocktails.
Just don't get any on you whilst it's lit...
to back off. I know the orders...
Oh, and don't forget the:
http://www.yankeegrocery.com/brer_rabbit_mola...
the (R) are looking for identity/arousing the village idiots. personally, i like guns but i do believe there should be a compromise. i just think it should NOT be easy to get a fully automatic weapon. we already know 90% of the weapons in mexico/drug cartels are from the u.s. so NOW we are battling down their. another burden on TAX payers at the cost of allowing automatic weapons to virtually anyone. the cartels now have representation in all major cities. so local police forces and sometimes military have to be ready to take on a professional drug ring/cartel. if there is talk about bringing back the ban on assault weapons the right will cry foul to rally the troops saying that obama wants to take all your guns. i don't believe that to be true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBNqUdqm1E
They're already illegal.
Jail the people dealing guns to the cartels -
Then LEGaLIZE Marijuana - and that takes 75% of the Drug War's effort away from a harmless drug so they can concentrate on more serious matters (it also takes 75% of their budget so fat chance) and 65% of the cartels' drug money.
Then seal our borders.
not unless you have a class 3. no auto for you. and if you get a full auto from a person with a class3, they would go to prison with you.
Kinda ironic how many people die in the states every year from guns(11,000 or so),only 4000 and change from Iraq. Where does this ignorant fear that someone is gonna get you in the US? I just can't relate or understand it. It's fucked up!!!!!
You better open your eyes, man. You're surrounded, and they all want to get you. Your gun's your only friend, and those crazy, hippy, zombie libruls want to take it. Haven't you seen the signs of the menacing hordes lurking behind every corner. They're coming for you, and you better be armed when they jump out at you.
And when we getcha...and we will...
we're gonna make you smoke weed, listen to Ani DiFranco, stop showering, and grow your hair out...wait...that's my ex girlfriend...never mind.
Does that include Iraqis?
So why is there no investagation on Hospitals, only 300,000 die in there care a year?????????
That is something to seriously tackle...
I agree the gun show loophole needs to be closed, but Holder being non-committal in a teevee news interview doesn't seem like a reason to assume that gun control is off the table. He doesn't need to reveal everything to Katie Couric just because she want's to be seen as tough.
there may have been a mass killing/shooting following his interview if he did get tough on national media
especially on the idiot box.
where the Fuck was she when W wanted to start a war in Iraq befor he finished his shit in the first one??????????
I know plenty of gun owners who vote Repug and would turn against the Repugnant party if Dems got out of the gun control business. We need those guys on our side again.
Leave gun shows alone, they're not the problem.
Overcome your fear of guns by taking gun safety classes.
Right now Republican operatives are acting as Dems and promoting gun control on right and left blogs. That's a fire you should be more afraid of fueling.
actually.
I have to confess that this doesn't concern me anywhere near as much as the fact that Holder has done NOTHING about the case of the torture authorized illegally by the Bush administration White House Working Group. This is a large criminal conspiracy that is known and well documented and is probably the worst crime to ever have been committed in the United States and he has done NOTHING about it! Why the hell didn't Couric ask him about that?
Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh? Did he use guns?
Ruby Ridge Massacre
→ → →[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYvgow5IH9c ]
Freedom has boundaries limited by laws, [NOT] bylaws!
How is it easy to get an automatic weapon? There really needs to be some good education on this. First YOU JUST CAN'T GO TO THE GUN SHOP AND GET AN AUTOMATIC GUN! You need to get a special licence which is not easy to get, and only a select few dealers are allowed to sell automatic guns. Also once you get the licence and buy the automatic weapon you have to keep the gun in a locked safe and available to inspection by the ATF at all times. If they come at 2am and the gun is not where its supposed to be you go to jail. Also the assault weapons ban did nothing but just ban what the gun looks like not how it fires.
... the last time the ATF dropped by your house for a 3AM inspection?
Don't own a full automatic gun, so never.
I'm as liberal as it gets, but after the ATF enabled the death of over 80 people by using illegal and flamable tear gas, tanks and military helicopters on American civilians over an arrest warrant on a $200 unpaid tax to David Koresh and never was held to account, they can whine all they want about being defunded and understaffed. We've seen what those militant maniacs are capable of when allowed to run rampage over the 2nd Amendment.
We have PLENTY of agencies capable of mishandling a situation like Waco!
Seriously though...I think this country could get by just fine with fewer agencies like the ATF and Homeland Security to name a few.
Maybe we should have sent FEMA in to rescue the Davidian hostages! They could've done it in under 51 days unlike the ATF and FBI.
Hell, Barney Fife could've arrested David Koresh without getting 80 innocent people killed in the process.
CBS video does not work for me. It never loads and plays.
Link this one at YOU TUBE would you?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
think about that. it doesn't say "people should be allowed to have buckshot rifles so they can occasionally hunt pheasant for sport." - what it says, is, - "in order to ensure that the government can never over-take the people, the people have the right, if not the duty, to have access to the exact same weapons which their military does."
constituent, Rduke, and others are right. there *IS* no credible threat to our 2nd amendment from the Obama administration.
but everybody complaining about drunk rednecks who shouldn't be allowed to own guns are definitely lending credence to the false meme pushed forward by Beck, Limbaugh, and others.
the entire point of the 2nd amendment is that, I have every right to freely purchase and own the exact same kinds of weapons that my military, my local police department, FEMA, Blackwater, et al have access to.
the reason I have this right (along with all the rest of you), is to keep my military, my local police department, FEMA, Blackwater, et al frightened of me, nervous.
it was drafted a long time ago by very wise men (who killed British, stole their weapons and used them against the British to kill more British), with that exact principle in mind.
they created the 1st amendment in order to prevent propaganda and suppress censorship. they did not create the 1st amendment merely to allow fun blogs about how frustrating traffic was today.
they created the 2nd amendment in order to ensure equal formidability between the government and the citizens they govern. they did not create the 2nd amendment merely to allow hobbyists to hunt Bambi 6 weeks a year.
I would, in fact, go so far as to say that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would be disappointed that its "illegal" for me to own a fully automatic weapon.
the stereotypes of drunken, irresponsible redneck white trash gun owners in this thread sicken me almost as much as the stereotypes of black inner city gun toting gangsters on a GOP campaign commercial.
Did revolutionary period Dagwoods and Blondies have cannons in their yard?
Interesting thing, the amendment never says anything about guns, hidden or otherwise, just unspecified arms.
in the city courthouse lawn of almost every small town in America?
the majority of those cannons on the east coast were "illegally" owned - and used - by "illegal" townships attempting to declare their freedom from Britain.
once that freedom was attained... well, 200 years after... the cannons became a symbolic piece of political art for little kids to climb on.
but I think the short answer to your question is - yes - revolutionary period Dagwoods and Blondies had cannons in their yards.
also, off topic, but I kinda feel a smug sense of jolliness when one of my comments blows up like this one has. this is a really popular board full of a lot of smart people, so a lot of my comments kind of blow away in the wind. nice to see I can still type out something somewhat smart every once in a while. =)
your good!
A well-regulated militia.
It is debatable as to whether or not the founding fathers were predicting the logical development of firearms. It is also irrelevant.
A well-regulated militia. That means if you want to own a gun, you are responsible to that structure - not just free to grab a rifle and wave it around.
I would also suggest that the concept of the 'militia' is not to encourage or enable citizens to overthrow the government through armed rebellion, but to enable the legal ability to call up able-bodied men/women to serve as needed. The British Crown had this nasty habit of press gangs - soldiers would simply walk down the street, pick someone, and forcibly induct them into the King's Navy, with no recourse.
The just grievances of the citizenry with the government are addressed in the 1st Amendment (... the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances ...), and not the 2nd.
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights is structured in a way that each Amendment builds on the rights enumerated in those that precede it. The 1st Amendment guarantees certain liberties; the 2nd Amendment establishes the basis for a militia (also a key element of '... to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity); the 3rd bars the quartering of troops within a private home; the 4th provides/protects us against unreasonable search and seizure; and so on.
The issue is much broader than, "The 2nd Amendment says I can have my guns, nyah!"
The Second Amendment says two things: 1) A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; and 2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Had the right to keep and bear arms been intended to be solely limited to use in a militia, the framers could have very easily said so.
They did not.
As for each amendment being dependent on those that precede it: I am aware of no court (or even a dissenting opinion) which has ever held that interpretation. If you have an example, I'd love to learn.
States can extend more rights under their own constitution than the Fed, unless Federal Supremacy overrides it.
While it doesn't say arms, it also doesn't say owning them either, but keep and bear. In other words, it could be issued by the state militias, but they seemed to leave that option open for the state governments to decide.
Afterall a rural Virginian probably had guns just for hunting while an urbanite Phildelphian would go to the butcher or fishmonger. And the rural Virginian was more likely to have something like buckshot, which would be hardly of any use in a battlefield setting.
... it's a "right of the people."
That you speak of?
.
But you're doing what the fundies do with the Establishment Clause, who ignore the second clause, you're ignoring the first clause. The second amendment was to preserve the right of the people to serve in state militias, so we could avoid standing armies, and more in particular the professional soldiery of Great Britain at the time.
British officers were often sons who were shorted out by their own primogeniture system of inheritance, and carried their priviledge pampered attitude into the military.
It was because of their habits of demanding quarter, particularly without restitution that creating the quartering clause in the constitution; their arbitrary arrests led to specification in the 4 and 5 amendments as to how arrests would be carried out; their flouting of local laws created the complaint in the Declaration that they would be tried in England, not where the offence took place.
"While it doesn't say guns, it also doesn't say owning them either, but keep and bear."
comes from the Swiss Federal Constitution. Which was heavily influenced by the American constitution. The Swiss interpreted the 2nd amendment as the establishment of a citizen army, a big chunk of Swiss citizens do bear and keep federally issued weapons at home, and are trained in gun operation and military tactics. So they cover the 2 conditions of the 2nd amendment, they have weapons for their defense and are well regulated in the use of said weapons.
That being said, the Swiss did not have anything remotely close to the Wild West. But on the other hand... they have kept their democratic institutions rather stable, as well as overall "neutrality"... which arguably are both two facts more in line with the aspirations of the founding fathers, who never intended this country to devolve down the imperial road we took.
The main issue with the 2nd amendment is that English language can be a tad ambiguous. So the gun nut crowd tens to read it as 2 separate statements joined with an OR clause. Where some more strict constitutionalist may read it as more of an AND clause, mainly because nothing in the constitution is "optional." And none of the other amendments are read as "OR" statements.
You have far more understanding of the constitution and its context...
The funny thing is the Federal Constitution didn't affect citizens of states, except in federal matters, until the Incorporationist Doctrine of the 14th amendment, an interpretation conservatives hate since they see that as a zero-sum game with the 10th amendment State Rights. However, the 10th amendment reserves unspecified rights to the people and the state, not just the state. Additionally, the 9th amendment, the so called "penumbra" amendment reserves unspecified rights to just the people.
So therefore, one can say the ninth amendment and tradition protects gun rights, but conservatives hate the penumbra theory because it was the basis of Griswold v Connecticutt which became the precedent for Roe v Wade.
Additionally, no right is absolutely guaranteed in the Constitution. Except for the cases the Supreme Court are required to hear, listed in Article III, they have judicial discretion to pick and choose cases. The cases they generally accept are those in which there are competing constitutional rights involved, so rights are never clear-cut. For one thing, states have the constitutional Police Powers to maintain safety and order in their area, and that could presumably affect gun ownership. However, the Police Power has been chipped away by the Congressional Interstate Commerce clause of the first article. However, over the years the interstate commerce clause has been chipped away somewhat by precedent gun right cases.
And the recent Robert's Supreme Court case, Columbia v Heller hasn't been printed yet; the summary alone is about 100 pages. They establised a presumptive right to own guns, but said the government maintains the right to regulate them. But the court disagreed with the District of Columbia that they could lay an overall ban on all gun ownership. So far the decision hasn't really hasn't affected anything since private property owners and federal and local governments can make a rule that no guns are allowed on their premises.
I haven't researched individual gun cases, but here's what I'm referring to:
Article I, Sec 8, 9-15
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
>To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
>To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II Section II, Cl 1
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...
... while the President commands the militia. I also get that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
What I don't get is how a right of the people is transformed into a power of government. I don't think it is.
Then you're not reading what I'm highlighting.
ur right about this. if the people cant own guns per the 2nd amendment then i guess the gov't provides the guns?? then why would the people have the right to bear arms? back in the day of our founding, we, the people, of the state of massachusetts brought their own damn guns to Lexington and Concord.... the rest is history.
Because such arms were allowed in their colonies. But they weren't necessarily uniform.
And you're saying the Continental Army couldn't issue guns?
Amendment II has be considered in conjunction with Article I sec 8, cls 9-15 (particularly 14 and 15), and Article II, Section II cl 1.
... whereas the Second Amendment describes a "right of the people." Other than the latter being a limitation on governmental power, I'm not sure I see the connection unless you're position is that the Second Amendment describes a governmental power and not a personal right.
...in State Militias.
This is not a state right, federal right, or personal right issue, but a SHARED rights and responsibilities.
In fact, "milita" is federally defined as every legal resident male who is of age plus all females in the armed forces.
But under Federal government control in times of war, and state government control during peacetime.
And as for all females in the armed forces, well who controls the armed forces?
Who declares a state of insurrection and sedition?
Who defines the training and the officers, and the arming of the militias?
The Constitution still takes primacy over any earlier or later documents.
In other words, it's no guessing game what the Founding Fathers meant if the text is taken as a whole, and not cherry-picked.
Login or Register to post comments.