By now, everyone has heard that Attorney General Holder last night came out and said that a new AWB is in the works.
"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 told reporters.The truly bizarre part of this is that we're apparently expected to accept the destruction of our Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms because of crime in Mexico:
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.The New York Times is dutifully performing its job of government lapdog (the days of the press as government watchdog are long over, obviously), saying that the "U.S. Is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels."
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.Left unmentioned is the fact that the way to "get approval from the military" is to grease the right official's palm--do that well enough, and the military might even provide you with firepower you'll never get in a U.S. gun shop or gun show--firepower like the RPGs, mortars, and grenades that keep turning up in Mexico's drug war.
Also interesting is this part:
In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico.Well that's odd. California--number one Brady-ranked California--is the second greatest source. Even stranger is the fact that a large part of California's high rank comes from its implementation of the very laws the Brady Campaign says will effectively combat gun trafficking--laws like "gun show loophole" closure, one-gun-a-month, universal background checks, etc. Oh, did I mention that California already has a ban of so-called "assault weapons" (and California's AWB casts a particularly wide net), and a ban of non-reduced capacity magazines? But I hear those are just the kinds of weapons that are causing the biggest problems (after the machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, and mortars that aren't coming from anywhere in the U.S.).
It sounds as if Holder would like, as part of his strategy to block gun trafficking to Mexico, for federal law to be just like California law. Just like the laws that don't prevent California from being the second largest source. That should work great, Eric.
For more on Holder's announcement, see David Codrea's column today.
For more on the Mexican drug war, and what it has to do with U.S. gun laws, see a column of mine from last week.
For a slightly older look at this administration's coming anti-"assault weapons" storm, see a column of mine from late last month.
Stumble it!
24 comments:
Don't you think you're exaggerating just a bit when you say, "the destruction of our Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms?"
Well no, actually, I don't. Care to elaborate on why you apparently think that's an exaggeration?
Another thought...following the logic Holder has, if the AWB doesn't control violence in Mexico, then more stringent gun controls in the US will be required.
Written law means nothing to criminals, or they wouldn't be criminals. More law on top of failed law is useless.
Don't you think it's a bit of an exxageration when you say, "the destruction of our Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms?"
Here is my take on the story.
I think it's an exaggeration because, just perhaps, those scary automatic weapons might not be included in a reasonable interpretation of what it means to "bear arms." You have to draw the line somewhere, unless you want no line at all in which case there's nothing to discuss. But most people think a nuclear surface to air missile is beyond the line. Just so, many think assault weapons should be too. But to say, "fundamental human right" when we're talking about assault weapons, to me is an exaggeration.
You are "on-target." The all out war for our gun rights has begun in earnest. Yes, I agree with you, this is a war on our Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Who cares whether Mexico gets their guns from certain areas in our country? I doubt it. But what if they did? For one, after a gun ban, they will still get them - from other countries, if necessary. We have no obligation to help Mexico with its gun problem no more than they have a obligation to help us with our drug problem.
Assault wepaons? Just what is an assault weapon aynway? If Obama and his minions have their way, it would any firearm above the caliber of .380.
After the Clinton AW expired, the left's pronouncements that blood would be filling our streets proved to be a lie. There is no need to add to the more 20,000 gun laws currently on the books in this country.
scary automatic weapons
Who said anything about machine guns? Those are already heavily regulated, as are grenades, rocket launchers and such, but apparently those regulations aren't working either, to hear the media tell it, because apparently the American gun stores & gun shows are apparently one-stop shops for such munitions...
@Mikeb302000:
Actually, the framers intended for civilians to be able to keep and bear arms of current military application, so that they could be called up as "irregular" militia in a time of crisis. Machine guns were not banned until the thirties, and regular folks could own one if they so chose and could afford it.
If the thinking is that we should be limited to arms of less potency, because "we have to draw the line somewhere", why not apply the very same logic to the First Amendment too? You know: You should only be able to use 19th century quills, or early 20th-century (pre-ban) typewriters. No internet, no email, no word processors, no Radio or TV advertising (heaven forbid!), and certainly no "Extreme Views" on anything. You know, moderate your tone so you don't offend anyone...
Would that sit well with you?
Would you be able to raise an alarm if the Government decided that you needed to be silenced?
If you do not like the analogy, good. I might be getting through. Substitute Gun Rights with Free Speech Rights and see if your argument holds any water.
Remember that when the gun owners are disarmed, the press is next on the list.
Pax,
Newbius
Remember that when the gun owners are disarmed, the press is next on the list.
Yep. As one of my favorite writers put it, "Once the Second Amendment goes, the First will soon follow, because if some unelected elite determines that the people can't be trusted with dangerous guns, then it's just a matter of time until they decide they can't be trusted with dangerous ideas, either."
Pistolero, they're debating the Fairness Doctrine in the Senate this afternoon.
FYI, sv
Pistolero, they're debating the Fairness Doctrine in the Senate this afternoon.
I did not know that. It should be interesting to see how that one goes, considering the scarcity rationale isn't as, shall we say, rational as it once was. But the smart money says the people clamoring for the FD don't know any more about advances in electronic communication media than they do about guns.
"Just so, many think assault weapons should be too."
Especially when they're regularly lied to by the media and gun control groups who encourage them to believe that "Assault Weapons" are fully auto machineguns.
"Remember that when the gun owners are disarmed, the press is next on the list."
Do you really believe that? I invented a name for this. It's called grandiose victimism. That's when you exaggerate the threat and fantasize about defending your rights against an imaginary enemy.
I agree with some of what you say, but if the 2nd Amendment is the only thing protecting the 1st, why isn't the UK an out and out tyranny by now? Why hasn't freedom of speech disappeared from all the countries that don't have a 2nd Amendment?
Mike,
Look at the U.K. and see what it has came to, then tell us how much freedom is left.
The victims of crime fight back and are charged with assault, go to jail while their attackers get "ASBO"ed and walk around on the streets.
The government is now focusing on "knife crime" to the extent they have people scanning Facebook pages and visiting people's homes. No crimes need be committed before the police arrive to tell the people to get rid of the knives.
How free is Italy's press? Who owns and controls a majority of it?
Solve the problems of the country you are living in before telling us how to solve the ones here.
You don't accept statistics from U.K. proving over the years that gun control doesn't work. You don't accept statistics showing countries with high firearm ownership aren't any more suicidal or homicidal then countries with strict gun control....but you still push gun control.
It isn't about guns Mike, it is about our rights. Look at how far the government has intruded in the 4th amendment against unreasonable searches; then you have the gumption to question whether or not the other rights are in jeopardy?
why isn't the UK an out and out tyranny by now?
Some of us — in fact, arguably more than a few — would say it already is.
Why hasn't freedom of speech disappeared from all the countries that don't have a 2nd Amendment?
I'ma give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you missed this. At any rate, anyone who calls Britain a free country in the year 2009 has a, shall we say, twisted definition of the word.
Timing couldn't have been better, found this today
Civil liberties campaigners meet
Lawyers, judges, politicians, human rights supporters, anti-surveillance activists and members of the Countryside Alliance are gathering at several UK cities on Saturday to discuss their concerns about the alleged erosion of civil liberties.
The Convention on Modern Liberty is being held in London, Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Cambridge, Glasgow and Manchester.
They will hear from a roster of speakers that will include Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti, journalist Henry Porter, barrister Helena Kennedy and Tory MP David Davis. American journalist Jamie Malanowski, writing in The First Post, called for the UK to have its own Bill of Rights.
He added: "It's time to summon up the shades of such great British reformers as William Wilberforce and his fellow abolitionists. It's time to realise that Britain needs to make real something it already thinks is right."
From the country that has the most closed circuit television cameras in the world.
Mike,
Yes, I really believe that. I believe that governments are at their core either Free and heading towards some form of tyranny, or tyrannical and heading towards freedom. In truth, our economy and form of governance is a mixed bag of statist and capitalist principles. Unfortunately, we lost the courage to REALLY do Laissez-faire, for all that it truly means, long ago.
So, yes, I really believe that controls on freedom of speech will be intensified-ESPECIALLY after they disarm us. You see, there really isn't a need to stifle the press right now. Nope, the mainstream media types already slobber over The One enough to satisfy the left. Talk Radio is another matter though. The Senate just passed a Minority-ownership in Media amendment to S.160. It is the Trojan Horse that the Left will use to stifle free-speech in Radio in lieu of the Fairness Doctrine.
The UK has more surveillance cameras in place per capita than anywhere else in the world. They now have some of the most onerous anti-gun laws in the "Free" world. Yet, violent crime is up since weapons were banned (should be impossible since no weapons are supposed to exist there now). Also, The rights of the criminal are now more important than the rights of the victims. I would say that they have bigger problems than we do.
Pick your own poison. I will go down swinging if and when it comes to that. Let the chips fall where they may. I would rather be wrong on the attempt to strip away my rights while vocal in opposition, than be disarmed, lied-to, and enslaved.
Pax,
Newbius
What I see here in Mikeb 302000's comments are not true belief in freedom nor in the humanitarian principles he claims he holds. He does not. What I do see is any excuse to be cowardly while calling it something else. Call it pragmatism, call it response to "paranoia", call it "extremism", call it "grandiose victimism", but do not call it the courage and determination of free men to remain and/or regain liberty. NO, never call it that. Else he would be notable by his absence when the time comes to act like a man in defense of liberty.
Ergo, I do not envision discussion with him serving any real purpose. He has misrepresented his opposition to the facts, so you know damn well he opposes opinions based on those facts. Sort of reminds me of a man who watches a rape and instead of saying "I was afraid to try to stop it.", says instead, "She probably was asking for it and she got what she deserved."
Sounds like harsh judgment of a man I don't know. I grant that it does sound that way. Perhaps it is harsh. I would point however to his blaming the sinned against for the actions of the sinners. I would point to his questioning of our rationality when all the facts point out the path the transgressors are treading, especially in light of history both ancient and recent.
Harsh, uh huh, but he was probably asking for it and he got what he deserved.
How's that shoe fit?
Of course, there is one thing I had not considered, and that is he may have a different definition of reason and logic. Perhaps he wouldn't actually watch the rape, but rather, turn away, not look upon it,and then deny it ever happened. Some people however just might not see that as an improvement or a basis for ridiculing the revulsion and possible actions of others not quite so accepting of such transgression.
My point being Mikeb isn't being honest about his true objections. The proof of that is the necessity of denying reality that has and is happening before he shake his finger in our faces and tell us we are wrong or extreme. Were that true, he wouldn't need to deny the facts of the reality.
Sorry Straightarrow, that shoe doesn't fit very well.
One of the main questions seems to be whether tyranny is coming or not. I've been on both sides of this one. Often I write about the government going too far, fascist I've called them. But, when I read what some of you guys write, I think although the government has overstepped it's boundaries in recent years, the prospect of armed citizens being the only thing preventing a tyrant from rising up, seems like pure fantasy. Sorry if that offends.
I am sorry Mike, but you are living in a fantasy world. Because of people like you, we have seen the advent of "DUI" roadblocks, the militarization of the police, survelliance cameras, etc. Time for you to wake up to what has been happening in this country.
If the Tiahrt Amendment is a good thing (it is) because the sample of so-called "crime guns" is not a proper representation of guns used in crime (and it has been shown to not be), then why on earth would anyone think that the sample of ATF traced guns that are submitted by the Mexican Federales are representative of anything.
The ATF trace data of Mexican guns is only done so that the Brady Campaign can quote it as the reason for more anti-self-defense laws.
MikeB,
Define tyranny?
One of the main questions seems to be whether tyranny is coming or not.
McCain Feingold Act telling people how and when they CAN'T spend their money?
California telling parents unless they have teaching certificates they can't teach their kids at home?
How about any of the thousands of intrusions into the 4th amendment right against search and seizure? You've traveled recently, are you telling me that the TSA going through your luggage isn't a search that isn't supported by a warrant?
The right to self defense? Tell it to the people of England that their government hasn't started down that path of tyranny!
But modern English governments have put public order ahead of the individual's right to personal safety. First the government clamped down on private possession of guns; then it forbade people to carry any article that might be used for self-defense; finally, the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed "reasonable in the circumstances."
Just think,
Suppose possession of firearms were
outlawed today. Tommorrow half of the population would be brand new felons. Where would the other half
house all of those new prisoners? How would they feed us?
Mikeb302000,
Got Freedom? No, you don't. You are in legal jeorpardy, possibly losing your civil rights if: someone breaks into your home, steals your home defense firearm, uses it in a crime, and throws it down for the police to conveniently pick up.
Or, how about this one: Your neighbor files a civil restraining order to have you stop playing tennis on your own property at night. (Or fill in your own complaint) In any case, it's a civil restraining order and has nothing to do with violence. You are in legal jeorpardy of becoming a felon, and losing your civil rights, if you own a firearm.
Or, how about this one: On your return trip from deer hunting, you forget to unload your rifle. The safety's on, and you've done nothing unsafe. Let's say, the rifle is in the back of the car, and you stop at the to-go window at the Burger Hut. The young lady that takes your order sees your rifle and calls the cops and reports that you're a dangerous man with a gun. Before you even leave the parking lot, you've got the whole city's police force pointing pistols at you. You're in legal jeorpardy of becoming a felon because you had a loaded firearm in your car. Not to mention, the risk of somebody accidentally letting one go in your direction.
No, Mikeb302000, you're not free. You're just a hair's breath away from losing your civil rights. I call that tyranny.
Post a Comment