Democrats using Fast & Furious to push for more Gun Cont
As predicted by Conservatives, this latest development makes it even more transparent that Fast and Furious was probably a staged operation designed to crack down on law abiding gun owners in the United States.
Right on cue, Democratic lawmakers have begun to say the DOJ’s lethal and irresponsible Fast and Furious program underscores the need for stricter gun control laws:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/05/i ... -gun-laws/
I'll let people read the article.
Right on cue, Democratic lawmakers have begun to say the DOJ’s lethal and irresponsible Fast and Furious program underscores the need for stricter gun control laws:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/05/i ... -gun-laws/
I'll let people read the article.
It was probably a staged operation. The proof? Because Republican conservatives predicted it.
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
Right on cue, Democratic lawmakers have begun to say the DOJ’s lethal and irresponsible Fast and Furious program underscores the need for stricter gun control laws:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/05/i ... -gun-laws/
I'll let people read the article.
It was probably a staged operation. The proof? Because Republican conservatives predicted it.
No, the usual suspects using fast and furious to push for more gun control are extremely predictable. This is the same type of new restrictions Feinstein was lobbying for in 1993 and 1994 that were not added to the now expired Clinton assault weapons ban, again in another Senate hearing shortly before the fast and furious scandal broke (she was hoping to get border petrol officials to request new gun control laws but they asked for more resources), this is similar to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's recycled assault weapon bill from 2007 she tried to get passed again earlier this year, and it's similar to what Holder has been pushing for since Obama was elected.
The democrats are using the same old playbook from the late '80s, it's only a new day and a new s**tstorm to capitalize on. As Obama's former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste and what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you didn’t think you could do before."
And now for a little humor:
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
Proponents of gun control don't need external events to fuel their political manouvers. Similarly, opponents of gun control don't need external events to fuel their political manouvers. Each side is motivated by a conflicting set of priorities, and very little middle ground is left in which to find a practical approach to public policy on firearms.
Opponents who are absolutist in their reading of the second amendment will brook no limitations, and view irresponsible use by a small number of firearms owners as a reasonable price to pay for individual liberty. Meanwhile Proponents of gun control uncritically assume a causal link between reductions in the number of firearms and reductions in the number of firearms fatalities.
From my perspective, both perspectives are flawed. The Opponents are more correct (individual liberty always comes with a price, and the question of whether or not that price is reasonable is open to subjective interpretation. But the Proponents for all their erroneous logic are, nonetheless, engaged in a legitimate public policy discussion about the proper role for government in maintaining public peace and security.
At the end of the day, it's all patently ridiculous, of course, because firearms policy in the United States will always be made by the Supreme Court. The legislative branch has merely been tilting at windmills for decades.
_________________
--James
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
The problem is very minor. If you stay out of criminal activity, the problem drops even further.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
The problem is very minor. If you stay out of criminal activity, the problem drops even further.
Rightyl or wrongly the perception where I live is that guns are prolific in the United States as is gun crime. Its hard to tell the truth.
You don't see them here, even police aren't allowed to carry them in routine policing work.
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
The gang wars going on in the worst parts of some major cities and small border towns tends to get the most attention in any mention of violent crime problems. While those areas do need most of the attention, it can tend to give the impression that the rest of America is like that. America's homicide rate is slightly lower than the world's average, and it would drop off closer to European levels if the inner city gang territories were removed from the calculation.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
Personally when it comes to weapons I think that the second amendment was worded perfectly. The problem is entrenched political interests on both sides. It's allowed militia movement whackjobs to beat people around the head with anti-gun control legislation by referring back to the constitution, which is apparently perfect, whilst democrats also assuming the constitution is perfect, whilst also resolutely being against gun ownership.
Here's the amendment as congress passed it:
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.
For me the qualifier is a well-regulated militia. This is not anything to do with personal defence. It sounds like people should have a right to own and use a weapon but the fact is that they should be using it whilst part of an organised and regulated militia, a state militia, as qualified by the statement necessary to the security of a free state.
The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is the sticking point. Shall not be infringed seems to contradict the statement of well-regulated militia because to be able to keep and bear arms would suggest no sort of regulation of the militia for which bearing arms was supposed to serve.
This is why the second amendment is a shattered amendment. It wants privately owned weapons for the purpose of a well regulated militia but enumerates the ability to do as one wishes with weapons.
Militia was taken at the time as ablebodied men in the area. Any command structure was elected locally.
We The People.
Like the Wall Street crime spree, the government claims they will pass laws, after the looting is over.
We are in a worldwide war on terror, and like Israel, where the full automatics are seen on everybody, on the bus, in the market, on the street, or the Swiss who keep them in every home, well they have survived, and both have low gun crime.
They took our jobs, our savings, our houses, we are keeping the guns.
If you would like to take my Freedom, I have something for you.
Any Pakistani can buy a fully automatic AK-47 for $6 in most markets.
Americans you want to disarm? Here the People are also the Army, the Local Guard units, we have plenty of weapons.
So far, elections are cheaper. 2012 will be fun.
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
Here's the amendment as congress passed it:
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.
For me the qualifier is a well-regulated militia. This is not anything to do with personal defence. It sounds like people should have a right to own and use a weapon but the fact is that they should be using it whilst part of an organised and regulated militia, a state militia, as qualified by the statement necessary to the security of a free state.
The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is the sticking point. Shall not be infringed seems to contradict the statement of well-regulated militia because to be able to keep and bear arms would suggest no sort of regulation of the militia for which bearing arms was supposed to serve.
This is why the second amendment is a shattered amendment. It wants privately owned weapons for the purpose of a well regulated militia but enumerates the ability to do as one wishes with weapons.
The wording of the second amendment is modular, look:
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.
So you have 3 separate issues going on:
1) A well regulated Militia
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
3)being necessary to the security of a free State
I mixed up the order to make a point. Private gun ownership is needed for personal defense against criminals, invaders, and corrupt officials. The militia is needed to help protect against foreign invaders on US soil as well as protect against an abusive government, and a personal supply is needed for those tasks since supply lines may not be available. Both of the previous 2 elements of the 2nd amendment work together to protect national security. Here's a flow chart. I know it's crude but I'm tired and I'll make a nicer one some other day. All 4 elements of the second amendment are interconnected and work to support each other.
If that's not good enough for you, check out the definition of militia:
ITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
You can argue little technicalities, but what it comes down to is the people ARE the militia, and they are able to have guns to protect our home soil from threats at home and abroad.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
That could simply mean a state militia. The National Guard is not a state militia. It is a federal military reserve force.
No they are not three separate issues, they are dependent upon each other.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is to be read together, not as separate issues.
Any attempt to see otherwise is warping the english language.
They are not little technicalities. The second amendment was to facilitate the creation of a regulated non-federal militia. That doesn't mean all the people are militia and it certainly never suggests for the people. It simply says people have the right to buy and use weapons in order to serve a regulated miltia for state defence.
First: it is not.
Second: That is not covered by the constitution. it covers the creation of a federal militia for defence of a free state. It says nothing about individual vengeance or defence.
@ Gedrene
The problem with your entire argument is the Federal Government was supplying Mexican Drug Cartels with guns (and hand grenades), then turning around and blaming Gun dealerships that they had lied to about it being a sting operation to catch gun runners.
This policy of letting the guns go into Mexico started in 2009, which means it was on Obama's watch, while the initial project was under Bush. Bush's DoJ did not allow guns to make it the Mexican Cartels, the policy changed under Obama, which means Obama's DoJ is responsible.
It honestly looks like the Obama administration was trying to come up with a manufactured crisis to crack down on gun owners.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
If You Can Walk Fast, You Can Also Run Fast |
09 Sep 2024, 6:36 pm |
Do you feel stressed around fast-talkers? |
06 Oct 2024, 1:35 pm |