Posted on 02/27/2009 11:08:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The big news today, well, yesterday, is that AG Eric Holder plans on reinstating the Federal assault rifle ban which was signed into law during Bill Clinton’s presidency, and was not renewed during Bush’s.
I oppose this move, and allowing it to expire was one of the few things I liked about Dubya. Yes, I wish our former president had actually taken advantage of his political clout to push through some sort of Federal CCW law nationwide. (Yeah … I can’t find something nice to say about him without finding something to criticize, too!)
Despite what people might think, I am not some right-wing conservative. I didn’t vote for McCain, and I didn’t cheer Palin. I voted for Obama. I’m not some liberal nut who’s getting his politics confused, either, I’m actually pretty moderate (with admittedly liberal sympathies).
I’m not going to talk too much about the Second Amendment here — that’s the wrong conversation. And the reason it’s the wrong conversation is because there is a method to legally change the Constitution (we call them ‘Amendments’), and so it isn’t enough to say that gun ownership is a right, rather, it must be argued why gun ownership should continue to be a right.
There is a lot of talk about the vicious “Nanny State”, and while the right-wing blogosphere blows it out of proportion, there is some truth in what they say: namely, that when government starts treating its citizens like they are incapable of making decisions for themselves, government might just kind of be a little too intrusive. There are a lot of laws — sodomy laws as anti-homosexual legislation, co-habitation laws to prevent unmarried couples from shacking up with each other — which aren’t much more than government’s clumsy attempt to legislate morality.
Guns are not sexy. They aren’t safe, either. A big mistake the pro-gun crowd often makes is to liken a gun to a hammer, or a car: someone can bludgeon you to death with a hammer, they’ll point out, and, well, they’re right in the technical sense. On the other hand, a hammer isn’t designed as a weapon, and make no mistake, that’s what guns are: weapons, designed to kill as effectively as the user is capable of utilizing said weapon.
Which is, uh, sort of the point. If you own a gun, it’s likely either because you like to hunt, or because you believe that for whatever reason, at some point, you might have to use it against someone. There’s nothing wrong with either of those, with the caveat that some of the people for whom the second part of that sentence applies might be buying a gun with the express intent of robbing a bank, or killing a rival in a drug war.
I completely understand Vittoria’s reaction to this story, in which a kid fired a shotgun and killed his father’s pregnant girlfriend and her unborn child. I think her reaction is normal, and I think her response, particularly the latter part of it, is right on point:
[W]hy did the kid think that shooting someone was OK enough to do, but bad enough to lie about it when the police questioned him. Why was this gun not locked up - was it for similarly unconcerned-parenting reasons that led this little child to feel that shooting a person, killing her and a baby that could probably have survived if only someone had found the woman before hours had elapsed? Ultimately, gun ownership is about responsibility. You can try to legislate responsibility, but it’ll always fail. And the quick reaction to pass new laws is almost always going to be a bad idea: the simple matter is, I believe, that these sorts of laws are almost always passed because of the conduct of the exception to the rule. Or, to the multiple exceptions to the rule.
There’s an interesting write up on the assault rifle ban here. The ban strikes me as largely cosmetic — really, what’s the practical difference between an AK-47 with a fixed stock versus a collapsible stock? Seriously, what’s the point?
On a political note, what exactly is the point? Gun control is a dead issue: Pelosi knows this, Reid knows this. Obama won the presidency by a landslide, and he’s building a lot of support. This is only going to turn people away from him at a time when he shouldn’t be. Frankly, there are a lot more things, considerably more pressing, that he should be using his political clout for.
>Frankly, there are a lot more things, considerably more pressing, that he should be using his political clout for.
Agreed.
Like maybe “changing the way things are done in the Capitol” by:
-Disallowing lobbyists.
-Cracking down on corruption.
-Improving “Government Transparency”, which apparently means opening the arrivals of our returning dead soldiers to the press, and yet pushing through a law with 1000+ pages.... before anyone could actually READ all of it.
-”No Earmarks”, “I will line item veto things to make sure we are spending our money wisely”
But, yeah, he HAS made some changes:
- Repealing the policy of not funding [foreign-aid] programs which promote abortion.
- Repealing the ban on Government-funded _embryonic_ stem-cell research. (Note, non-embryonic stem-cells have always been “fair-game”.)
Instead of erring on the side of caution with regards to the question of when human life begins, which is admittedly above his pay-grade, he tears through it with the speed of one possessed.
Is this the kind of change you, me, or ANYBODY wanted?
I don’t know about everyone else, but I want change for the better: more freedoms, more liberties, more JUSTICE (for all).
-
There’s a very consistent undercurrent of gobbledygook thinking in this post.
“I’m not going to talk too much about the Second Amendment here — that’s the wrong conversation. And the reason it’s the wrong conversation is because there is a method to legally change the Constitution (we call them ‘Amendments’), and so it isn’t enough to say that gun ownership is a right, rather, it must be argued why gun ownership should continue to be a right.”
Complete BS. It’s not like these rights have to be “renewed” every ten years or they cease to exist. They are unalienable rights. Permanent rights. You take those rights away, it isn’t the United States any more. Period, end of f’in subjet, get off it.
“There is a lot of talk about the vicious “Nanny State”....which aren’t much more than government’s clumsy attempt to legislate morality.”
No, no, and no. Unalienable rights, period. No interpretation, no shades of meaning, no living Constitution, no equivocation, and no, you aren’t smarter than the Founders and you don’t get to try to prove you are smarter by imagining yourself as more clever or overthinking it.
“Guns are not sexy. They aren’t safe, either. A big mistake the pro-gun crowd often makes is to liken a gun to a hammer, or a car: someone can bludgeon you to death with a hammer, they’ll point out, and, well, they’re right in the technical sense. On the other hand, a hammer isn’t designed as a weapon, and make no mistake, that’s what guns are: weapons, designed to kill as effectively as the user is capable of utilizing said weapon.
Which is, uh, sort of the point. If you own a gun, it’s likely either because you like to hunt, or because you believe that for whatever reason, at some point, you might have to use it against someone. There’s nothing wrong with either of those, with the caveat that some of the people for whom the second part of that sentence applies might be buying a gun with the express intent of robbing a bank, or killing a rival in a drug war.”
Or, equally, preventing the robbery of a bank, or, defending against a drug robbery, or a carjacking, or a rape attempt, or any number of other absolutely viable situations. But neither you nor I are smart enough to state in advance who will hit another over the head with a hammer, nor who will rob or assault with a gun, and any attempt to do so is both that nanny state you decry and takes away that unalienable right already established. No matter how many sociology course you got B’s and C’s in, you’re still not smarter than anyone else. So, no go.
“I understand .....in which a kid fired a shotgun and killed his father’s pregnant girlfriend and her unborn child. I think her reaction is normal, and I think her response, particularly the latter part of it, is right on point:
[W]hy did the kid think that shooting someone was OK enough to do, but bad enough to lie about it when the police questioned him. Why was this gun not locked up - was it for similarly unconcerned-parenting reasons that led this little child to feel that shooting a person, killing her and a baby that could probably have survived if only someone had found the woman before hours had elapsed? Ultimately, gun ownership is about responsibility. You can try to legislate responsibility, but it’ll always fail. And the quick reaction to pass new laws is almost always going to be a bad idea: the simple matter is, I believe, that these sorts of laws are almost always passed because of the conduct of the exception to the rule. Or, to the multiple exceptions to the rule.”
Gobbledy, gobbledy. You state that quick reactions to this are a bad idea, then you proceed with a reaction this isolated incident. You liberals are great at stating impossible ironies. That’s fine, that’s an excellent parlor game. Do it all you want. Leave me out of it. Don’t use it to take away my freedom or eliminate my ability to defend myself against an attacker.
“There’s an interesting write up on the assault rifle ban here. The ban strikes me as largely cosmetic — really, what’s the practical difference between an AK-47 with a fixed stock versus a collapsible stock? Seriously, what’s the point?”
The point is that someone, somewhere, thinks they are smarter than someone else on specious grounds. That’s another parlor game I don’t care to play. Maybe you are, maybe you’re not. What’s that you said about the nanny state again?
“On a political note, what exactly is the point? Gun control is a dead issue: Pelosi knows this, Reid knows this. Obama won the presidency by a landslide, and he’s building a lot of support.”
B f’n S!!! 52.7% is not a landslide.
“This is only going to turn people away from him at a time when he shouldn’t be. Frankly, there are a lot more things, considerably more pressing, that he should be using his political clout for.”
Yeah, get back to destroying the country, crushing the economy, and turning the US into a socialist utopia ripe for terror attack. Please, we’re eager to see the next instalment of 0bamanirvana. Meanwhile, maybe the few adults who know how to handle guns and understand their nature will be able to protect YOUR ASS from the criminal class now being promoted and nurtured, should the need arise. You can thank us later, even as you see the utter failure of all gun laws enacted to date to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals you’re so worried about. Now go come up with some more intellectually simulating ironies, parlor games, and clever sayings about how evil Republicans are. We’ll make sure you get extra credit on your humanistic cretinology 201 exam.
“Ultimately, gun ownership is about responsibility. You can try to legislate responsibility, but it’ll always fail.”
Yes.
But the government is always legislating responsibility like seat belt laws, and civil rights protections etc.
So why would they think they couldn’t make gun laws because it is government responsibility to protect its servants?
The Obama gun laws might not get thru congress. A lot of southern and rural dems will oppose it. Also didn’t the
gun control Slick Willy singed in 1994 help lead to the Republican blow out that year?
I don’t think the dems are suicidal.
Why is O administration picking a fight that can only
bring it trouble?
“Why is O administration picking a fight that can only
bring it trouble?”
You have to wonder what their internal polling is looking like. If they are losing support and see trends showing them losing the votes in 2010 now is their only chance. I figured they’d wait till after 2010 and possibly 2012 depending on their outlook. To not sink 2012.
If Obama and his communists try messing around with the 2nd Amendment, then 2010 should be good for the Republican party.
Change party to ARMY!
If people blame killing on guns, then I can blame my pencil for my spelling mistakes...Larry the Cable Guy
Is that because the majority of your dysfunctional party doesn't respect the Second Amendment?
U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote: To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Burris (D-IL), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
This is a wonderful piece and you would think the left would be scared as can be. It’s howdy gulag time!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/its_official_saudi_puppet_to_h_1.asp
“Why is O administration picking a fight that can only
bring it trouble?”
Because they are arrogant enough to believe that everyone loves them except for the “fringe” right wingers.
CHANGE is their mandate promised to the voters who elected them. Consequently everything legislated by Republicans has to be purged.
Let them pick the fight. We can knock them out for a long time because rats never learn.
“On the other hand, a hammer isn’t designed as a weapon, and make no mistake, that’s what guns are: weapons, designed to kill as effectively as the user is capable of utilizing said weapon.”
A firearm is not designed from the ground up to kill. It’s designed to use chemical and mechanical reactions to propel a projectile at high speed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.