NOTHING THERE BUT POLITICAL DOWNSIDE
Obama, Get Real on “Assault Weapons,” Put a Cork in Holder
We can't define an "assault weapon, " so put energy into something that doesn't punish law-abiding sportsmen and gun owners and might actually lower violent crime rates.By Bill Schneider, 3-05-09
 |
|
 | |
| Those evil "assault weapons." | |
|
I went to my first gun show a couple of weeks ago, but when I wrote about it, I left out the buzz concerning the proposed reauthorization of the so-called “Assault Weapon Ban (AWB).” I have a lot to say about it, so I saved it for this column.
For starters, with all the massive messes the Obama administration has to unravel, why is our new president allowing his attorney general to embark on a meaningless mission to nowhere? And in conflict with his campaign commitments and his party’s plans to stay in power?
Of all the press releases I’ve received from the gun lobby on this issue, I thought the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade group for firearms manufacturers, had the most reasonable summation. The NSSF reminded Congress that “such a ban would cause jobs to be lost in a difficult economy, have no effect on reducing crime and would deprive millions of law-abiding sportsmen and gun owners of their Constitutional right to own the firearm of their choice.”
That sums it up, but I can add one more. It’s a political folly with no chance of passing.
When announcing his plan, Holder justified it by saying we needed to stop American criminals from supplying illegal guns to drug dealers in Mexico.
Wouldn’t that a laugher to brighten your day during these dismal times, if the Attorney General of the United States didn’t actually, apparently, believe it. Be real. The AWB has nothing to do with Mexico.
“The problem of criminals breaking the law to acquire firearms and illegally smuggling them across the border is not remedied by legislation that would violate the rights of Americans to own semi-automatic firearms,” agrees Steve Sanetti, NSSF president. “We can only conclude that certain officials (translate: Eric Holder) are waiting for any politically advantageous excuse to announce the intention to seek a new ban on sporting rifles, a ban that would break the president’s campaign promise to gun owners that ‘I’m not going to take away your guns.’”
Here’s my summation. Any attempts to reauthorize the AWB is an impossible mission with no chance of achieving the intended results (i.e. stopping crime) and counterproductive to efforts by politicians, mostly Democrats, to get re-elected.
So why do it? The only answer can be political pay back. All those gunshy urbanites voted for Obama, and they think the AWB might keep crazies from shooting up schools and malls. Now, through his attorney general, Obama has to give them something in return. No matter that we saw no decrease in school or mall shootings or any other gun-related crime during the ten years (1994-2004) the AWB was in effect. And there has been no increase in the five years since it expired.
Is there anything else we need to know about the AWB?
As I’ve proved several times in this column, I’m not a gun expert, but I’ve learned one thing. It’s impossible to define an “assault weapon,” ballistically or physically, and when you try, you sweep up commonly used sporting firearms like semi-automatic hunting rifles and pump-action shotguns used for bird hunting and trap shooting, firearms perfectly acceptable to most people, even many serious anti-gunners.
And even if you could define an “assault weapon” in legalese, the manufacturers could and would instantly make subtle design adjustments to land outside of the ban.
(Don’t, incidentally, confuse Holder’s push for the AWB with legislation already in Congress, H.R. 45, ironically sponsored by Bobby Rush, D-Ill, the guy who whopped Obama in his first election, which requires firearm registration and photographing, fingerprinting and testing for anybody who tries to buy a gun--another unneeded gun bill that deserves a quick and decisive death.)
Holder’s AWB might have a chance of getting a hearing in the House of Representatives. The House could conceivably pass it, but it faces certain death in the Senate, even as a rider on a must-pass spending bill. So, President Obama, I suggest checking which way the political winds are blowing and then cut your losses before letting fruitless efforts to control gun owners go any further.
As I’ve asserted in the past, we’ve essentially won the war for guns and the Second Amendment. Politicians, including many Democrats, are simply sick of the gun issue and refuse to be put in the politically risky position of having to vote either for or against gun control, knowing they’d suffer the wrath of one side of the issue. Hence, the extreme unlikelihood of even having a committee vote on the AWB or H.R. 45.
Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), commonly considered anti-gun, has backed away from prospect of new gun legislation. “On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” she announced, surprisingly taking the same position of pro-gun groups.
Witness the recent vote on the new Washington D.C. gun regulations. In an act of defiance after the Supremes overturned the ultra-strict D.C. firearms ordinances in the landmark Heller vs. D.C. case last year, the city council passed regulations almost as restrictive. But last week, the U.S. Senate voted 62-36 to overturn those new regs--and with a bipartisan vote. Twenty-two democratic senators, including Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV), joined Republicans in sending the big message to the D.C. city council.
Backers of such sure-to-fail legislative efforts like the AWB should consider how counterproductive it can be. With gun sales already through the ceiling even in a bad economy, the threat of new laws like the AWB and H.R. 45 only further boast sales, putting even more guns into circulation. When and if it gets introduced, perhaps anti-gun groups should title the AWB bill the Gun Sales Promotion Act of 2009.
We probably don’t need another reason to spike the AWB, but here’s one more. How many segments of our economy are doing well nowadays? Not many, right? One is the firearms industry. So, should Congress pass legislation like the AWB to purposely send even more thousands of American workers to the unemployment lines?
“A ban on sporting firearms also would have a severe effect on jobs and the economy,” says NSSF. “Sales of semi-automatic rifles have been strong over the last several months--overall sales of firearms have increased as much as 42 percent--and have allowed the firearms industry to withstand, to some extent, the downturn in the economy.”
“These semi-automatic rifles are the most popular rifle in America today and they are largely behind the recent increase in firearms sales,” adds Sanetti. “This is a bright spot in our economy and has helped save jobs in our industry.”
So, Congress, do you really want to slap down one of the few industries still running close to full employment?
I only hope Holder’s pronouncement was merely a token political balloon put out there to appease the gun-hating constituency with no intention to push hard for it. If not, well, I see it as a serious broken promise by Obama who came to New West several times during his campaign and promised hunters and gun owners that they had nothing to fear from him.
President Obama, you have plenty of reasons to not-so-quietly tell Congress to forget about the AWB (and H.R. 45) and put a cork in Eric Holder.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NRAMembersandGunOwnersforObama
-----
March 3, 2009
SENATORS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER: STAY AWAY FROM OUR GUNS
Baucus And Tester Send Warning Shot To Protect 2nd Amendment
(Washington D.C.)- Montana’s U.S. Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester sent a simple and clear message to Attorney General Eric Holder today: any new gun restrictions are a non-starter.
In a letter to Holder, Baucus and Tester emphasized the need to enforce current laws on the books instead of passing additional laws which could infringe on Montanans’ 2nd Amendment rights.
“We oppose reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons, and we call on the Department of Justice to enforce existing laws before it considers imposing any new restrictions on gun ownership,” Baucus and Tester wrote.
The letter continued by explaining Montana’s proud outdoor heritage and how important gun ownership is to that heritage.
“We value our outdoor heritage, and a large part of that is our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Passing this heritage down from one generation to the next is a sacred part of being a Montanan, and something that we will always fight to protect,” the letter states.
The Senators’ letter was prompted by recent comments that Holder made about wanting to introduce new gun restrictions.
Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock applauds the stand that Baucus and Tester have taken.
"Max and Jon are exactly right—we need to be enforcing the laws that we have on the books," Bullock said. "These one-size-fits all gun laws might be popular in some parts of the country, but they don't work for Montana."
As senators, Baucus and Tester both are members of the Congressional Sportsmen Caucus, which consists of Senators and Representatives working together to protect public lands so future generations can hunt, fish, hike and enjoy other outdoor activities. Baucus is a past Chairman of the caucus, and Tester is the current Vice-Chairman.
Dear Attorney General Holder:
This letter is in regards to your recent comments suggesting the reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons. We oppose reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons, and we call on the Department of Justice to enforce existing laws before it considers imposing any new restrictions on gun ownership.
Your comments noted increased violence among international drug traffickers as a reason to reexamine the ban on assault weapons within this country; however, this statement fails to acknowledge laws already in place that work to address this issue. Under current law, both transferring a firearm to someone knowing that it will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime as well as possessing a firearm in furtherance of a Federal drug trafficking crime are already federal felonies punishable by imprisonment.
We will strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners. We value our outdoor heritage, and a large part of that is our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Passing this heritage down from one generation to the next is a sacred part of being a Montanan, and something that we will always fight to protect. In the light of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right, we urge you to avoid any legislative proposals that would jeopardize the Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to own firearms.
Sincerely,
U.S. Senator Max Baucus
U.S. Senator Jon Tester
-----
Associated Press --
MT-Gun Rights-Congress,0163
Tester, Baucus tell AG to back off on gun control
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester have a message for the Obama administration: they will oppose any gun restrictions the new administration may be considering.
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the two Democrats
said the Justice Department should enforce existing laws rather
than propose additional laws they said could infringe on Second
Amendment rights.
The letter was prompted by Holder's comment that reinstating a
ban on the sale of assault weapons could help reduce bloodshed in
Mexico, where 6,000 people were killed last year in drug-related
violence.
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has said she plans to push
legislation to reinstate a federal ban on some assault weapons that became law during the Clinton administration in 1994, but expired a decade later.
Barrett Kaiser, a spokesman for Baucus, says the letter was sent
as a "pre-emptive strike" to warn the Obama administration that
any effort to push new gun control will meet with resistance.
Regarding the definition of an "Assault Weapon", there is no confusion in such regard. It is a weapon already classified by "legal definition", regardless of its appearance, in that has "select fire" capability. For those confused about this, it means that the gun in question has a "selector switch" that allows it to fire in either semi-automatic or fully automatic modes.
This well understood definition is only subject to misunderstanding when politicians, many of whom have little or no actual experience with firearms, attempt to re-define what is already clearly defined. We are all then subject to posturing and obfuscation, and soon all real meaning become lost. The political class is more concerned about cosmetics than function, and when the "Soccer Mom" mentality is what now governs the voting booth, well, cosmetics work.
This particular type of weapon has been heavily regulated since 1934, and possession of such is illegal unless the owner of such a weapon has been checked out nine ways from Sunday and has been granted a "Category Three License" from the B.A.T.F. In addition, the license requires that a hefty fee must be paid to said agency to gain said license.
Further, Category Three weapons are exponentially expensive as compared to their semi-automatic counterparts. Add to that the fact that the economy of scale relating to production and sale to the civilian market is almost prohibitive. There is no market because of existing regulation.
Then there is the matter of the cost of firing them. Ammunition has never been an inexpensive proposition, and given its recent rise in cost, firing a weapon that fires several hundred rounds per minute is enough to cause the shooter to need a second mortgage to feed the habit. Not currently available...nor a prudent act even if they were.
As an aside, a not-too-surprising discovery was made during the Civil War in the former African State of Rhodesia. Due to boycotts from abroad, the basic necessities required for a functioning state, let alone the needed ammunition to fight the war, Rhodesians attempted to become as effectively self-sufficient as possible in an attempt to continue on.
Ian Smith, then leader of Rhodesia, instructed his troops in the field to not fire any weapon in fully-automatic mode to conserve ammunition. Not surprisingly, kill ratios rose as a result of the increase in marksmanship. The lesson? Fully automatic fire is pretty well pointless except when used as "cover fire".
In the end, it didn't really matter as Rhodesia became Zimbawe, and the international sanctions gifted the Rhodesians with the disastrous and murderous dictatorship they now enjoy under Robert Mugabwe. Unfortunately, most often tyranny is replaced with tyranny.
Violence in this society has little or nothing to do with guns - it has everything to do with the morals and ethics held by both its citizenry and its government. We have a government that has engaged in expansionist policies at the point of a gun since 1941, with nary a let up from that point on.
The result has been an almost universal inculcation of a martial mindset in the population, reinforced daily by propaganda from all forms of media and entertainment venues, as well as varied sources of literature. Television shows, pundits, movies, and magazines, as well as the constant fear-mongering by the government about unseen enemies from far away lands who are always at the ready to pounce upon our "innocent" and "pure" souls are daily faire. We have sacrificed our former ethos and adopted one not dissimilar to that of the Spartans.
We revel in it, we enjoy it, or it wouldn't sell. And sell it does.
Another aspect of crime in this country that is rarely or never discussed is exactly by whom violent crime is committed. The breaking down of statistics is an uncomfortable thing to do in a society where the discussing the the role of various races in regards to certain social pathologies has become in effect, taboo. Nevertheless, if we are to solve these problems, such examinations are an intellectual imperative.
According to F.B.I. data, fifty percent of the murders committed in the U.S. are committed by a very small slice of the African-American community, whose overall percentage of the general population is 13%. Oops! I just touched a "Third Rail". Taboo!
The question then is "why" is such the case?
One can presuppose by a cursory examination of such a figure that Blacks are predisposed to violence, up to and including murder, on a scale significantly higher than other races. Were such the case and proven to be such, the country collectively should suggest to the new President and Mr. Holder to get their own racial house in order and leave the rest of us alone.
But, and there's always a "but", the statistics do not tell the whole story. If we are to assume that there is no such proclivity for greater rates of violence by Blacks than the other races, then why such startling data? Perhaps we should then return to the question of morals and ethics.
In 1964, illegitimate births amongst Blacks was 24% and now it is 70%. With Hispanics it was 18% and now sits at 56%. White illegitimacy has risen from 5% to 24% over the same period. This circumstance is an ethics crisis spread amongst all races, and a moral crisis that is individually worse amongst Blacks than amongst the individuals of the others.
Why is this the case?
The blame, outside of individual choice, is that once sociological mores are lost due to behavior of a critical mass of a certain population subgroup, should be shouldered by the U.S. Government due to its policies, and business.
The U.S. Government provided perverse economic incentives that encouraged single parenthood by African-American females, and the subculture reflecting such behavior grew to the point where it became the main culture of urban Black existence.
Single parent households are statistically disaster areas in every aspect of social behavior, period. When headed by a female, the maladies are statistically even worse. Combine these truisms (I care not about the many exceptions, data is data.) and then add to that the cultural isolation of the problem in government constructed ghettos (projects), you have a violent subculture waiting to explode. This problem was created by both government policy and larger economic forces, and we have had an unfolding disaster on our hands for decades.
Amongst the Black population, gangs replaced the male head of household as the "Father Figure". Such organizations are based upon hierarchial internal violence and the economics of such on the trafficing of drugs, thus the inordinate level of violence both amongst Blacks and by Blacks upon others in the population.
Add to this obvious circumstance the fact that beginning in the 1960's, well-paying "Blue Collar" jobs began to disappear from the urban centers. This exodus became a flood as the cold-hearted instruments of Globalism such as NAFTA and GATT provided the Corporatists more profitable opportunities by shipping jobs abroad. Add to this the tax benefits provided to these soulless creatures by their lobbied and lubricated Government for such moves, and what social problems that existed before became even more exacerbated.
And Holder and others expect to solve violent crime how? The political class over the past four decades has created tribal psychopathy, at a bare minimum sociopathy, and they somehow believe that removing a class of weapon that statistically is rarely ever used in the commission of crime will solve the ills that their failed system has brought upon us all?
Excuse me!
As Bill pointed out, there are real problems facing this country, let alone the world, that require undivided attention. Focusing either the energy and acumen (sorry about that) of the legislature or that of the citizenry on this non-issue is damned near criminal in and of itself.
Holder and his ilk should grow up and stop with the politicing. Rome is burning and attempts such as this are tantamount to throwing gasoline on the fire. Holder and his comrades should be ashamed.
You're a typical willfully ignorant, spoon-fed-by-the-MSM fool.
I wonder if you've given a moment of critical thought to
this issue? Or do you just believe what you're told about it? (By the PROPER authorities of course.)
Lemme guess, you think the CRIMINALS (as opposed to the law-abiding types an "assault weapon ban" will target) are going to
comply with an "assault weapon ban"? If so, I'll bet you're also one of those mouth breathers who believes in astrology, the
occult and so on. (That stuff DOES seem popular with libs, hippies
and so on.) After all, if you're gonna swallow one kind of magical belief (namely, "gun control" reducing crime) then why
not other superstitions as well..?
BTW, SHAME ON YOU for wishing unemployment on anyone (especially considering the payoff will be ZERO reduction in crime at best, and a BRITISH-STYLE INCREASE in crime at the worst!) YOU deserve to suffer whatever consequences come from this, IMHO.
To wit, I'll laugh my a$$ if your home gets invaded by thugs
and you find yourself in a situation where you COULD have
defended yourself and your own had you had a weapon... and
you KNOW it at the time.
(Gee, I wonder how your attempts to "reason" with them will
go???)
Ban golfballs........... once they're banned, only criminals will have golfballs, we can then send law enforcement to the 9th hole of every golfcourse in America, and arrest the criminal elements in our society.
Or, are you convinced that criminals will no longer have balls once the law passes?
John Molloy, that's one of the best comments I've seen in quite a while too. A+
For the uninformed, it is good justification for obama to push for his new bans.
I am a true believer in the fact that the rifle/gun does not kill anyone, it is the person doing the killing. I just don't understand the need for private citizens to own semi-automatic rifles.
Let's take that argument a step further. How about:
"Why does anybody need one of those EVIL SCOPED
SNIPER RIFLES to hunt a deer? Why not a black powder
musket? You can hunt with that. Hell, why does a
REAL hunter need more than a Bowie knife clenched in his
teeth, testing his skills against the deer's antlers and
hooves?" That's what's coming sooner or later with
your line of reasoning; I haven't seen it fail yet!
I hear you saying, "That's the slippery slope argument"
(along with an audible *CLICK* as your brain turns off.) I
agree with ya there, the slippery slope argument doesn't
hold any water. Just ask any English (former) gun owner!
BTW, the 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting. Just
FYI, you understand. And might I also add, that life
isn't about "need" anyhow? It is about DESIRE. (Makes
the world go 'round...)
I certainly don't wish to pick on you or others of similar perspective, so I shall attempt to explain why some may choose to own a semi-automatic without tossing pejoratives your direction.
As with you, my own serious hunting began with a 30-06 at the age of 14. I (with Dad's help due to legal strictures) bought a Santa Barbara Mauser Barreled Action "in the white", and a semi-inletted Fagen stock with a Schnabel fore-end. I spend dozens upon dozens of tedious hours finishing the stock, and finally matched wood to steel perfectly. I took the steel in for bluing, and ended up with a lustrous finish almost as beautiful as what came out on the Weatherby Mark V's of that era. I topped it off with a Redfield 3X9 Widefield "Accurange" scope. Think Nixon's first term.
Perfect. And what a shooter it was and is. But over time as my skills improved, I grabbed a Ruger No. 3 Carbine in 45-70, because I was close to the game all the time and generally didn't need the range an '06 offered. Then came archery. Then varmint hunting. 22-250.
The world of hunting. And so what?
The problem with the anti-semiauto folks is that if someone else's interests are at variance with their own, the argument presented against such is as you posited above. You question their skills as a rifleman. Amongst the dozen plus of elk I have taken over the years, several of these were taken using a Belgian made B.A.R. chambered in '06 with a single shot. Actually, I have never had to use a follow up shot on any Big Game I have ever hunted except for a Bear that was charging me. Two rounds total, and a whole passel full of excitement.
It is hardly axiomatic that a man with a repeating rifle is a poor marksman. Please recall that the lever actions that flooded the West from the 1870's on were fairly accurate. And believe it or not, during the last "Assault Weapons Ban", a shipment of replica Model 92 Winchesters chambered in 32-40 from Italy were held up because they held over 10 rounds in the magazine. Due to this, they were considered "Assault Weapons", even though both the gun and that particular caliber is almost the exclusive province of those engaged in "Cowboy Action Shooting". After an appeal to the B.A.T.F. and thousands spent on attorneys, they were allowed to continue on their way to chaps and hats guys. "Assault Weapons" indeed!
The anti-semi auto crowd that does engage in the shooting sports suffers from a bit of delusionary thinking in that they believe they exist in a world that is static, rather than dynamic. The general mindset is one that imagines a "reality" such as, "The world will never change. I won't be in L.A. having to defend myself against rioters and looters the next time a Rodney King-like riot occurs. There is no possibility of widespread violence and rioting if the economy worsens or, God forbid, collapses. The government will always be a benevolent force, guaranteeing my rights to X,Y,and Z, and thank God those Canadians are pretty mellow people. And those five guys walking up my driveway with the shaved heads and the "I love Adolph" tattoos are just lost, and need my friendly and generous assistance to provide them directions." Uh huh.
Well, your bolt-action '06 may well have just outlived its practical usefulness in any of a number of those scenarios. And since every scenario presented in that paragraph excepting the Canadians happened somewhere on this rather dynamic planet today, why do you argue that a free man or woman should not be reasonably well-equipped to defend themselves in any and all of those scenarios?
Denying people the right of individual self-defense by restricting the ownership of semi-automatic firearms is the denial of a basic right. And don't bother with the why don't you "Call 911" argument - the Supreme Court decided long ago that the police are NOT legally obligated to protect you or come to your aid. See "Gonzales v. Castle Rock". And besides, its a dynamic world and maybe 911 just won't be there when you need it. Maybe nothing will be there when you need it.
Before parting, let us revisit your trusty '06 for a moment. Some of our enlightened members of Congress in recent years actually did refer to any scoped rifle as a "Sniper Rifle", whether it was a bolt-action, lever, single shot, or semi-auto. If they knew there were such terrible devices as those magnificent works of art known as Double Rifles chambered in those "Nitro Express" cartridges, they would have included them in that bogus description as well.
Perhaps you should consider that for a very long moment, and then perhaps the following as well -
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
It is a dynamic world, and only the naieve could believe that the horrors that have been inflicted upon our fellow men will never, or cannot, happen here. Act accordingly.
Extremely well stated posts.
(To Blizzard)
I hunt with my .308 AR and have never needed more than one shot to harvest a Deer or Antelope. I don't hunt with AR platform rifles because the mag holds 20 rnds. I hunt with these rifles because they are the type of rifles I prefer. Your 30-06 has more velocity and energy than my .308 semi-auto, why do you NEED something with such DANGEROUS power? Do you see how ridiculous you sound when you read stuff like that? I hope so.
Disarming innocents results in the murderous mayhem of our cities for DECADES. Supporters of gun control are guilty of the murders of disarmed innocent Americans!!!!
And so I come to the conclusion that the doomsday gun has been built so many times, and is always improved and modified and made better over time. HO hum.....a tempest in a tea pot, and VERY dangerous for the Presidency of Obama....if he loses after putting out some sort of gun control, that will be noticed, and that chink in his armor will be further tested and more armor is going to be chinked. He is better off leaving that alone, as his plate looks like a fat kid at the all-you-can-eat buffet.
A very conservative friend of mine said the best news that we might have would be to have Obama re-elected in 2012...because it would mean that the economy had recovered...
I don't know much about guns. Don't want to. What I do know is that I've lived in the inner city of Chicago and Washington, D.C. I've been robbed at knife-point and car-jacked at gun-point -- in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley by white tweekers. A gun wouldn't have helped me in any way in either situation. We always stayed the heck away from our moutain cabin during hunting season as we got tired of drunk guys trespassing and accidentally shooting at our dog on the back deck. We once awoke to find six guys shooting at deer off our front porch (in the DARK!), after pointing our spot light at them to temporarily blind the animals. This is sport? The next morning, we cleaned up several six-packs of empty beer cans where they'd been sitting. More times than I can count, we argued with guys with alcohol on their breath, and dragging 7-year-old boys in camoflage outfits with big rifles (?), to get off our property. Some doctors we know who work at the local hospital, dread hunting season, too, because of all the hunting accidents. Although some of these guys actually ate their kill, from what could be overheard around town, you could deduce this was more a "mine's bigger than yours" contest. My guess is the bigger the gun, well you can figure it out. So, what does that say about men who want big, bad assault guns? That's what I thought. Powerless little men.
I'd feel better if these hunters and other gun owners cared more about safety. Most of the (white) kids who shot up children at their schools were easily able to get guns, often from the rec room of their own homes. That's NOT safety. Drinking and hunting is NOT safety.
Some of the comments in this blog are just down-right silly. C'mon folks. A little common sense, please. Saying we shouldn't have gun laws because not everyone will abide by the rules is a great argument. I know, let's not have ANY laws. Why bother with laws against speeding, murder, identity-theft since some people will break those laws, too?
While Obama said he wouldn't take anyone's guns away, he never said he wouldn't stop you from buying certain kinds. From from day one, his platform has included reviving the AWB.
I don't know why so many people (especially the people who voted for him) are so surprised. Eric Holder just happened to show his hand sooner rather than later.
"I've lived in the inner city of Chicago and Washington, D.C. I've been robbed at knife-point and car-jacked at gun-point -"
How ironic that both of those places have more "gun control" than the rest of the country. Your anecdote is a perfect example of the failure of gun control to protect the people that it disarms.
"So, what does that say about men who want big, bad assault guns? That's what I thought. Powerless little men."
Considering most "assault guns" are on the lowest end of the power scale when compared to other guns, it says those men want a high quality, easy to handle firearm to protect their home, neighborhood, and country.
ralpherus said:
"HEY TRAITORS- THE BORDER IS STILL WIDE OPEN. CLOSE IT< PROBLEM SOLVED"
The problem with that is the people coming over the border provides people like Obama with a fresh, growing supply of new democrat voters. For the Obama administration, closing the border would be akin to cutting off their blood supply.
For the uninformed, it is good justification for obama to push for his new bans.
The only reason that pelosi is against the ban at this time is because holder tried to steal all the attention, and brought it to the media without following protocol. He did not acknowledge pelosi's power and position, and did not get permission to talk to the media about it, without talking to her about it first, so she could get credit for it also.
Well congratulations Bill. You have won. Thank you for reminding us that Obama has promised not to ban our guns. I'm sure that Eric Holder was just fooling with you, and he and Obama are really supportive of Second Amendment rights. After all he promised, and a good politician always keeps his word. We should really not look at Obama's and Holder's records of threatening gun rights at every opportunity - after all they promised - and a promise is a promise.
Never mind that Obama had gun ban goals in his campaign web site, and now has the same language in the official white house site. Don't be concerned that Holder stated he wanted to ban assault weapons in his confirmation hearings, and wrote an opinion to the court that Second Amendment rights were "collective rights" in the Heller case. Do you know that Holder opposed the Heller decision - the very one that your cite as a reason we have "won the war for guns and the Second Amendment"? Do you know that when he was asked in the confirmation hearings whether he would support the Heller decision if it came back to the supreme court he would not commit to do so. He said it would "depend on the facts of the case".
Yup, I'm sure that our Second Amendment rigjhts are secure with the Obama adminsitration. No doubt Obama, Biden, Holder, and Hillary have now seen the light despite their records of being tenaciously anti gun for their entire political histories. After all, history is history and a promise is a promise.
And Senator Dianne Feinstein was just kidding when she promised to bring the AWB back to congress.
So, I take it that you and your family just cowered in the house while these hunters drank beer, littered and attempted to poach deer while sitting on your front porch (and using your own family's spotlight, no less)?
Interesting... at first I thought your words foolish, and then considered them doubtful, but finally concluded that they are just very trollish.
There are many out there that do not feel comfortable handling or using a gun, and do not want to own or carry one. To those people I don't argue their point as I personally wouldn't want them carrying or using one, either. If they don't trust themselves with a gun, I don't think I would trust them either and certainly wouldn't want them to go against their right to NOT have one.
However, when those same people suddenly take it upon themselves to pass laws (based on their emotional feelings and self-doubt) prohibiting law-abiding citizens from owning, carrying or using a gun, whether it be to put food on the table, protection of themselves, their family, their property, their state or our country, THAT is when we see the freedoms, liberties and rights our founding fathers fought and died for take a back seat and begin to fade away.
When these freedoms, liberties and rights are gone, those that supported and passed those laws will be the ones screaming the loudest again... only then it will be for us to save them from the tyranny and lawlessness that the TRUE criminals in society are imposing on them. If we allow ourselves to travel down that path, we may only have rocks to offer when the time comes.
1. These are not assault weapons. they are not used by any military in the world. They just look like them and the left depends on this confusion to demoize them.
2. These semi-auto weapons ARE used in hunting, target shooting as the national rifle and pistol matches.
3. they shoot no faster than every pull of the trigger. They do not spray shoot. They are not more powerful. They are banned from hunting deer in many states due to ntheir lack of power.
4. They are used in less than 1% of crimes in the USA. the 1994 ban was shown to not change this nor have they increased crime since the ban expired in 2003.
These are the facts and if democrats want to ban them its just further evidence they don't trust you. So why should we trust them.
Remember that most folks recognize a distinction between sporting guns (designed and used for hunting game animals) and assault weapons (designed and used for intimdating, injuring, and killing humans). If that distinction cannot be made in any regulatory fashion, then efforts to reduce violence in our society may be for naught."
Your second sentence assumes that guns cause violence. This is a common assumption in some camps, but there is absolutely no good evidence for this. Check your assumptions.
Also, there ARE good and provable ways to reduce violence. They have to do with societal mores, policing, and sentencing.
The major downside of it passing and being signed into law would be the totalitarian harrassment of those who own them, until a 'ripe' case reached SCOTUS. But struck down it WOULD BE.
The psychologically disturbed creature that just left the Presidency after two-terms, the man whose so-called "Justice Department" wrote position after position justifying the concept of the "Unitary Executive" and thus convinced him that he was "The Decider Guy", sent the Solicitor General of the United States to argue IN FAVOR of the continuance of the D.C. gun ban.
My recollection is that he was a member of the G.O.P. Yes, that is correct, the administration of former President Bush sided with the District of Columbia to continue the ban of the private ownership of guns in the District. A "Republican".
When it comes to the murderous bloodbaths that occur in the major metropolitan centers, please refer to my first comment above. The guns are not the problem, their ill use is simply an exponent of the multiple psycho-social-economic pathologies which plague the nation, particularly the inner cities. The problem in this country is not guns, nor even a certain type of them. The root of the problem is that this society has degenerated into one that has lost any recognizable ethical foundation and is one where individuals have lost their moral compass.
As an aside, in regards to the recent spate of school shootings, of note is that virtually every single one of the perpetrators was on some sort of prescribed psychotropic drug and most were under the "care" of therapists. Food for thought...
As a society, we are always looking for the "quick fix" to complex problems. Crime rises and the knee-jerk response has been to outlaw guns, and as the evidence shows, these laws have not only been ineffective as statistical data has shown, rather, such laws have been counter-productive. "We", both individually and as a society, no longer possess well cultivated and reflective conscience's, nor do we have the political will to dissect our own past actions and then engage in the proper steps to rectify the errors.
Our thought processes are emotionally based, lack syllogism, and are self-absorbed. Sadly, our so-called "solutions" are based on the momentary and varied directions of the political winds, and are dependent not upon what is discernable as right or wrong, nor basssed upon the universal truths recognized by philosophers for millenia.
Rather than such, what passes for "progress" politically is what unelected congressional aides and executive branch "camp followers" construct while their bosses posture for the cameras. The society as a whole is victimized by both parties because the war in which they engage is based upon presumed "political victories" that are structured around electoral cycles. Little consideration is given to the long term. They vote on bills they have never read and call themselves responsible. From the ill-named and oppressive "Patriot Act" to the fiscal insanity of these "Bailouts" - they never read the bills.
Our political process has abandoned the statesmanship of the long past, where decisions on legislation was made only after deliberative consideration. Our Senate, given six year terms by the founders to insulate that body from the whims of the moment, oft times votes on introduced legislation faster than does the House. It is like watching a race by groups intent on proving who can demonstrate the least competence. It's a tie.
Perhaps the following from Thoreau should be considered in its broadest sense as we contemplate these problems -
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
touche for everything you wished upon me... i shall hope your children have a wonderful time playing with your gun collection and dispose of themselves and your family either by accident or a fit of adolescent rage so that you can breed no more ignorance...assuming you found some desperate, trailer trash ape to reproduce with you anyway.
more guns, guns for all...the wild west is back, pace off and shoot em up!
But, "we've won the war"? With HR45 in the house and Holder talking about a new PERMANENT "AW ban" it doesn't look to me like the anti-gunners know they've lost.
And, despite that the Senate voted to add gun-rights to DC by attaching an amendment to the voting rights bill I'm not so sure they wouldn't turn right around and vote an AW ban. The 1994 AW ban started in the Senate don't forget. I don't think the Senate voting to restore gun-rights to DC guarantees that they'll all oppose an AW ban.
I'm gratified that so far the Congress seems to be running scared from the gun issue, but that doesn't mean they'll continue that way.
“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder said
Bill, thank you for voting in Mr. Obama. I'm sure his promise to you is still solid as gold. Your Second Amendment rights are in good keeping.
Oh, the other changes Mr. Holder mentioned in his confirmation hearings were: Banning "cop killer bullets" which might be translated to mean any center fire rifle cartridge. Also closing "gun show loopholes" which would affect transfer of your legally owned firearm to your son or daughter.
We don't have any indication yet what the other "just a few changes" might be, but I'm sure Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder will make sure your Second Amendment rights are as fully protected as possible.
Incidentally, I have an old bridge in Brooklyn which I am not using any more. I plan to sell it at a very reasonable price. Anyone interested?
I see that your remarks about my comments were made in the middle of the night, so perhaps you were a bit sleepy and not able to grasp what I was saying. Just to help you out: Our mountain cabin was in Basye, VA on 80 acres, almost on the West Virginia line, in an area of secluded cabins used only occasionally by D.C. residents. Our nearest neighbor was almost a mile away. Our van was in the garage and there were no lights on, so these local hunters probably assumed no one was in the cabin. (If you have ever been in this area of the country, you'll understand that these folks are a special breed.) Some previous owner had planted several apple trees around the cabin which attracted the deer (and the hunters). These guys were QUIET on our front porch (they didn't want to scare away the deer -- duh), and we were sound ASLEEP. We were awakened by the guns. Terrifying. Our son and granddaughters (from MT) were visiting. They were terrified, too. The granddaughters have never forgotten that noise. The idiots left quickly as soon as the lights came on and they realized someone was in the house. Cowering? You bet. Damn. Wish I'd had an assault weapon so I could have blown off their faces.
"While I disagree with what you say, I would gladly give my life for your right to say it", Give me the same respect.
Dirigo
look at waco, ruby ridge, move (1972) in philadelphia. the government already has "complete control"... if they want you, they will come after you, your land, whatever they want. you can raid the federal arsenal like john brown or stockpile dozens of weapons in your home, makes no difference anymore, they already have you.
your guns will do you no good as long as people keep enforcing and carrying out the "government's will"...now that's a whole other story.
the belief that these guns will protect you from government control is asinine.
“I am prepared to wage the assault weapons battle again and intend to do so. I have been quiet about this because there are many other pressing needs of this Nation. But with the help of the President, the administration, and the people of this great country, we do need to fight back against these kinds of amendments,” said Senator Feinstein, the author of the original assault weapon ban enacted in 1994
I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court decision in Heller that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to possess weapons for private purposes not related to State militias, and that the Constitution does not permit a general ban on handguns in the home. But that is the law. It has been adjudicated. It has gone up to the highest Court, and I am one who believes if we do not like the law, we should try to make changes through the proper legal channels.
From the Amicus Brief in Opposition to the findings in the Heller vs. D.C. Case:
This Amicus Brief signed by Eric Holder makes one fact clear. We know that he believes the Second Amendment relates to "collective rights" of militia - not individual freedoms.
From the Official Obama White House Website 3/06/09:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent
Bill Schneider 3/05/09:
"As I’ve asserted in the past, we’ve essentially won the war for guns and the Second Amendment"
Yea! WE WON. Yeah Hoo!!!!
Thanks a million to Bill and all who voted in the Obama Administration. Our Second Amendment rights are in good hands now!
Incidentally, our First Amendment rights are equally protected. We don't really need to listen to those bad old radio programs and TV personalities who confuse us with facts - we've already made up our minds and Obama knows what's best for all of us.
If the second amendment protects any type of firearm, it would be military style weapons. Do you expect us to keep the federal government in check with bolt action remingtons?
You said "I see that your remarks about my comments were made in the middle of the night, so perhaps you were a bit sleepy and not able to grasp what I was saying."
Nope, early in the morning, but not middle of the night. Not sleepy one bit as I had just woke up and was "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" as the saying goes. But that's OK, I understand your difficulty in knowing what's fact and what's not. ;-)
You also said "We were awakened by the guns. Terrifying. Our son and granddaughters (from MT) were visiting. They were terrified, too. The granddaughters have never forgotten that noise. The idiots left quickly as soon as the lights came on and they realized someone was in the house."
Having said that, I can imagine you were quite startled. The way you had originally written about it though, it came across as you and your family just stayed inside, not letting out a peep while they went about shootin' and hollerin' and drinkin' and litterin' all night on your porch and just waited until the light of the day before venturing out and seeing all the many six-packs of empty beer cans they left behind for you to pick up.
At least you (or someone in your family) had the courage to turn on the porch light to let them know they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and doing the wrong thing.
However, when you close your comment with "Cowering? You bet. Damn. Wish I'd had an assault weapon so I could have blown off their faces."
That just reaffirmed my suspicion that you are here just trolling to antagonize others that may fall for your bait. And not to have any kind of meaningful debate or dialog.
They were creeps, to be sure, and by poaching deer with a spotlight at night, not only were they stupid for mixing drinking with firearms but performing a very illegal act as well. Criminals they were... not law-abiding citizens, so I'm sure you were glad and felt lucky that they ran.
Fortunately, not everyone that admires, uses or collects guns can be judged by that group of vermin and even though your sarcastic remark was meant to be a baited jab, I personally don't know of a single person that owns or uses black semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips (as many have already pointed out, incorrectly referred to as "assault rifles") waiting around for an excuse to meet some idiot so they can "blow off their faces". Heck, I know a ton of people using those rifles and I can't think of a single one that even *wants* to meet a violent criminal in the act just so they can do that. Taking another's life is not something anyone I know would even wish upon their foe, let alone themselves. Citizens we are, not crazed lunatics.
I guess that's what makes us different though, and is why I respect your decision to not own a gun since you don't trust yourself to not "blow off their faces" in a situation such as what you experienced.
Just think though... what if those jerks poaching on your front porch *didn't* scamper out of there when the lights came on and instead started to break *into* your cabin? I certainly wouldn't have waited around to see what my family's outcome would be by pleading with them for mercy (nor would I be the one to start a firefight either).
I would like to think that my family and I would not only survive the outcome, but come out unscathed (yes, we all own and regularly use our guns), and we all have the conviction that we don't intend to get beat to a bloody pulp, raped or killed by some mad and violent criminal without putting up a defensive fight.
Since I fully trust in my emotions and skills, and don't feel the way you do at all, please don't try to deny me my right to a gun, whether it be semi-automatic, bolt, lever, pistol, revolver, flintlock or whatever the future unfolds, as it was my forefathers that fought and died for our freedoms and liberties. Your's may have, too, but I don't plan on letting their blood, sweat and tears go to waste.
Actually Bill, there are two definitions for "assault weapons". First is the political definition which focuses purely on the cosmetic features of the rifle i.e. flash hider, removable magazine, folding stock, etc. Then there is the actual definition as defined by the military which I consider to be the authority on weapons.
If you go back to World War 2, in 1942 the Germans developed what is credited today as the worlds' first true assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44 "Storm Rifle". It is the grandfather of all authentic modern assault rifles today. I won't go into the rifle's specifications as they are easily researched online, however, the one function that all authentic assualt rifles share is select fire, full auto capability.
By military standards an assault rifle must also be a machine gun otherwise it's just another semi-automatic rifle. Today, machine guns are heavily regulated under the 1934 Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.
So any politician who claims that "assault weapons" are not regulated does not know what they are talking about.
"Remember that most folks recognize a distinction between sporting guns (designed and used for hunting game animals) and assault weapons (designed and used for intimdating, injuring, and killing humans)."
Actually, in my experience, just the opposite is true. Many clueless supporters of restricting gun rights THINK they know what they're talking about, until you actually start questioning them, and then it quickly becomes apparent they have no idea and have formed most of their opinions about guns, and about what constitutes an "assault weapon" from sensationalized evening news.
Most, for example, take it for granted that "assault weapon" is an actual, defined, category of firearm - it isn't. It's a media created term designed to create a gut-level reaction in the public. And like most gut-level reactions of this type, it creates emotionally-charged misunderstanding.
Ask them to define what an assault weapon is, and they will often give you a description based on cosmetics more than anything.
Ask them to articulate the difference between a full auto and a semi-auto, or between a muzzle-loader and a pump action for that matter, and they can't.
You have people clamoring to restrict something that for the most part they know nothing about. And that is invariably a recipe for failure. If you're going to get fired up about an issue, whatever the issue, you should at least take the time to educate yourself so that you can have an intelligent and informed discussion about it.
You could argue that is not true but it would ring hollow.
My curiosity has gotten the better of me. What "principles" keep you from owning a gun?
We're not unprincipled, immoral criminals because we enjoy shooting sports and refuse to be victims. WE don't walk around looking for somebody to shoot. We just want the right to deffend ourselves if we have to. As far as our guns not protecting us from government control, isn't that what the british soldiers and hessian mercinaries thought of the Pennsylvania rifle?
I guess you had no phone to call for police intervenntion then? Sure- yeah, I would be scared too, to wake up to people shooting outside my front door... But-They fled- so you would have been guilty of murder- because a justifiable shooting of a human is in self defense to prevent greivous bodily harm or death, or the same for another person.... Was your property posted: NO HUNTING, NO TRESPASSING? If not- how would they have known? But look- you need to understand a few very basic items about our freedom. The right to keep and bear arms, is merely a recognized condition, in the constitution. The law can say all kinds of evil treasonous garbage some scum democrat writes- but we still have the right to keep and bear arms. Another thing is- there is nowhere listed in the constitution, "freedom from fear" as you seem to wish so much that you imagine it into the document. Who gives a damn whether you are scared of idiiots you have ever met. I was an attempted hijack victim- before my concealed carry permit days- and I had my knife ready and he saw it and changed his mind. But I was not some stupid buffoon unaware of all going on around me. If you are too dull of wit to have situational awareness, well, it gets darwinian. Because there is another situation you all should contemplate. If the podwer keg blows, being too close will get some all over you dems.
Thanks, but I wasn't just referring to Dems - H.R. 6257, The Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 (which thankfully went nowhere), was sponsored by;
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [R - IL]
Co-sponsors:
Rep Castle, Michael N. [R - DE]
Rep Ferguson, Mike [R - NJ-7]
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R - FL]
Rep Shays, Christopher [R - CT]
Not one "D" on that list. We need to keep an eye on all of them, regardless of party.
By the way, to all of you who worry about your gun rights being taken away: have you been concerned the past eight years about the erosion of our other constitutional rights? Did you write letters, contact your congressperson?
Who told you I am a democrat? Who told you I want to erase the rights of others? Please write again and point out where in my letter I said that. Otherwise, please keep to the issues and just state your OWN opinion. I can give mine all by myself.
P.S. Ours and most other properties had No Hunting/No Trespass signs posted everywhere. Sadly, there was some resentment of us as "outsiders" who occasionally spent time in this area of generations of "local folks." I'm sure at one time all this land was open and it was just taken for granted that it could be hunted. FYI, when any of the hunters, some of whom we knew, asked persmission, we (and others) always gave our okay to hunt - as long as they stayed away from the cabins. Interestingly, these guys who were nice enough to ask, where never the ones who drank while hunting.
P.S. Re my comment about you writing in the middle of the night: the website posted your letter at a little before 1 a.m. (altho who knows if that's accurate). I live in a retirement community and except for me everyone's sound asleep by 8 p.m., so one o'clock IS in the middle of the night! Teehee!
"By the way, to all of you who worry about your gun rights being taken away: have you been concerned the past eight years about the erosion of our other constitutional rights? Did you write letters, contact your congressperson?"
Absolutely, and yes I have. This isn't the only Constitutionally-guaranteed right of ours that has been under attack by any means. If we're not careful, the Constitution is well on it's way to be an historical artifact, not the brilliant, and guiding, document of our country that it was intended to be.
It may be legal; but we need to know who is packin' heat.
I will give the deceased credit for wordsmithing that frankly, were we all to aspire to, we would be better off. In general terms, the greater the linguistic skills, the better on can think. Pardon the pun here, but words are ammunition. Again, pun intended, the better one articulates their points, the less ammunition one provides to their opponents.
Poor grammatical mechanics allows one to be attacked for the associated lack of clarity, not just the argument presented. My preference is to keep the debate and discussion on the subject presented, rather than allow attack on the presentation through the offering of a syllabus of grammatical errors.
Back to Buckley.
Though long considered an "idol" by those on the supposed right, that Patrician snob started the modern "Conservative Movement" in 1951 with his book "God and Man at Yale". He followed that work up shortly thereafter with the publication of "National Review" magazine. "Conservatism" had been effectively killed shortly after American entry into WWII, as F.D.R. went after the members of the anti-war, anti-"New Deal" group "America First"
with the sedition trials held in '42,'43',and '44.
Said trials fell apart quickly once behind the Bar. There was no "there", there. The effort was little more than a political witch hunt by F.D.R. and the Dems, but as the country was then gripped by "War Fever", the damage to what remained of "Conservatism" was well accomplished.
We were all "New Dealers" now, and we were all in the war together, like it or not.. Dissent to either of these was squashed by propaganda, and in some cases, by the crushing weight of the courts. The situation was little different than Bush with his "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists" inanity which was followed by Bush spokesman Ari Fleisher's warning to the public to be careful about what they may be tempted to say.
"War is the health of the State" - Randolph Bourne
So along comes Bill. For the few remaining conservatives, he was a beacon of strength and intellect in an otherwise dark world of growing liberal socialism. And what did this C.I.A.-connected Yale graduate do? He argued that the country and the "Conservatives" would have to put up with "Big Government" until the threat from the Godless Commies had been wiped from the face of the earth.
That ill-considered utterance framed the political picture for the following decades, as the "Right" became myopically focused on the "Red Menace" rather than expending more of its energies on limiting the excesses of government. Prior to WWII, "War" had not been a "Republican thing", so to speak (we'll ignore Lincoln, the G.O.P.'s first Pres), and because of Buckley, they embraced it. War and "defense spending" defined the party. It still does.
Being a libertarian-minded fellow myself, to use a formerly common and now discarded response - "I'm just not into it, man." A more colossal waste of resource, energy and blood cannot be imagined. But war is what defines us as a people now, and it is the prime contributor to the "death culture" that permeates our society today. Ask the rest of the world. They know well what we cannot yet even see.
War and the love of it also allows for strange bedfellows. The "Neocons" are a prime example. This almost sub-human lot of Trotskyites (see: Leo Strauss) used to be Democrats up until about '72, when they "saw the light" and realized the way to power was to join the guys who already had it. Screw revolution - win from within. If you want to run the world, join the guys with all the planes and bombs and tanks and missiles and submarines. Redefine yourselves so to speak, and bingo, "World Revolutionaries" became instant Republicans.
Richard Pearle, Wolfowitz, et.al. had been camp followers of Scoop Jackson (D-Boeing), and as his star faded, they needed a new home. So did Irving Kristol and his horrid offspring who plagues us today, Billy. These bastards love war and revel in it, manicured hands and all. "Think Tank Warriors". But simultaneously, they raised little or no objection to an ever-expanding government on the social side. They took Buckley's ill-uttered dictum to full maturation, and now we exist in a collapsing Hobbesian Leviathan that is nothing but a "Warfare-Welfare State", and just a bit fascist. A whole lot fascist.
I ain't Bill, and I don't want to be.
Where was Bill while all this happened? Just going with the flow that he had he fathered, enjoying time out on the yacht and entertaining guests in his exquisite Manhattan Penthouse with a snifter of brandy in hand, all the while espousing brilliant and well-articulated eruditions on topics lost to most of the rest of us.
Thanks, Bill, you bastard.
Wasn't having to give our social security number to get a huntinig liscence enough? How many "dead-beat dads" did the Clinton Crime Family catch with that one?
How many criminals have been stopped by "common sense gun laws"? You claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder, yet you think a ban on certain types of weapons is. Liberals supported Obama's claim that a law against killing survivors of botched abortions would be redundant, yet you support thousands of redundant gun laws. Is this about stopping violent crime and saving lives or about flailing about and whining until you get your own way one piece at a time?
Your last assertion is "spot on". Such is the tactic adopted by the "Fabian Socialists", a group founded in 1884 whose tactics were to win by methodical attrition, rather than in head-on confrontation.
Their method is to employ a "death by a thousand cuts", or by the incessant dripping of Chinese water torture to eliminate their ideological foes. Their arguments, positions, and intensities ebb and flow based on the intensity and determination of the opposition. In effect, if you can study the tactics, you can identify the nature of the opponent.
There is no rest, nor is there any peace.
Don't let anyone convince you there is such a thing as an "legal gun." There is no such thing as an "legal gun".
There are only illegal people and unconstitutional laws.
El Paso Texas is considered one of the safest cities in America.
Len . . . Bubi: checked the El Paso kidnap / shooting score lately?
By Crowder: When the government takes away the 2nd Amendment, the next to go will be freedom of religion and then speach.
Crowder . . . Bubi: let's have some more domino logic a la Vietnam. First, the 2nd Amendment, then religion, the speach [sic], then gas-powered lawn mowers, then one-side-only toilet paper, then Mom, the apple pie.
Just puerile.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Yep, kinda like dominoes.
Our "Christian Society" has a 53% divorce rate, and court filings show "Mom" initiates the proceedings 70% of the time. Studies by Harvard University and the University of Michigan have proven, much to my surprise until I considered them a bit, that "women" initiate what is referred to as "domestic violence" almost 60% of the time.
"No fault"? Someone is at fault, and I may add, that brilliant concept as signed into law by Republican President Gerald Ford, may he rest in constant turmoil. Everyone loses.
The "Apple Pie" comes from the supermarket or is microwaved at McDonalds, not from the "home" oven. There are houses, but today, rarely is there a "home".
While we engage in the suppression of "free speech" through idiotic "Hate Speech" laws, the Russians are doing away with theirs (See: Zhirinovsky proposes end to ...).
Tell me whose winning this war?
It would take less time and energy than the first one, certainly; and would no doubt finally prove the silliness inherent in the rightwingloons' notion that a gunowners militia would serve as a significant brake on runaway governance...
A second civil war--fought over the anachronistic second amendment-- might not go quite like you imagine. I imagine it would involve U.N. peace keeping forces since most of the
American military, who have taken an oath to defend the constitution, would probably mutiny and fight on the side of America instead of the U.N.
If the U.N. won, would we ever have a life free of occupying peace keeping forces?
I imagine you were among the loudest critcs of the occupation of Iraq. Do you want your home to be occupied by foreign forces for the rest of your life?
A few simple points to ponder.
A bunch of Afghanis with rusty Lee Enfields have Obama ready to turn tail. The Mexican drug cartels, allegedly armed with weaposn purchased at American gun shows, have Eric Holder ready to wave the white flag of surrender. Two guys with a Bushmaster rifle and an old Chevy Caprice nearly brought Washington DC and the surrounding area to it's knees.
As we can see, it's incredibly dangerous to underestimate any determined group of armed people.
expostulate.
Salman Khan
<a >Salman Khan</a>
http://www.google.com/
Ann - You're apparently a soul-mate of Mr. Buckley!
When I was in College (many moons ago) I had a Criminal Justice Prof. Paul Lawson, and he said, on about the first day of classes. "One should NEVER assume." In case you don't know the rest of the statement, he said; "because it makes an ASS out of U & ME." I'm only going by what, and how long you write. nothing more.
It is very, very expensive, and not simple (forms, tax, BATF etc) to buy a full-auto rifle in the US, even legally.
Does anyone seriously believe the Mexican cartels bother with purchases in small quantities ? No, they buy from corrupt officials in their own country or import directly from elsewhere in the world.