Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Meet the new boss (just the same as the old boss)

War on Guns tells us yesterday about Hillary Clinton's "belief in the Second Amendment."

You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms.
Well shucks, Hill--why didn't you say so before?

I want to look at another Hillary quote from the same article:
And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books.
Hmm--that sounds familiar--where could I have heard that before?

Let's see--could it be here?
Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.
Fred Thompson, candidate for U.S. president, and "Second Amendment stalwart"

Or here?
"Until you provide 100% enforcement of the existing laws, (criminals are) going to laugh at you, and ... go about their business."
Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association (you know--the "800 lb. gorilla of the gun rights movement")

And, come to think of it, that sounds quite a bit like this:
The country doesn't necessarily need new laws to limit handguns, but it should enforce the laws it has and resist efforts to weaken them, one of the nation's top handgun control advocates said Thursday.
Paul Helmke, President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Oh, by the way--there's also this:
It starts with enforcing the law. We need to say loud and clear to somebody, if you’re going to carry a gun illegally, we’re going to arrest you, if you’re going to sell a gun illegally you need to be arrested, and if you commit a crime with a gun there needs to be absolutely [sic] certainty in the law.

[ . . . ]

Saying America is “still wrestling with the lessons of Columbine,” Bush today called for tougher enforcement of gun laws and a greater emphasis on character education as the way to promote school safety. “Today is the sad anniversary of a terrible tragedy-a tragedy that shattered our sense of safety and security-a tragedy that hit home for every parent and every child and every school in America,” Bush said. “A year later, America is still wrestling with the lessons of Columbine,” Bush continued. “Strict enforcement of tough laws is important.”

[ . . . ]

I’m in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them like felons & juveniles. I’m for enforcing the laws on the books.
George W. Bush, President, United States of America (also known as the "Vote Freedom First" President)

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it a bit disturbing that the president of the biggest "gun-control" group, the executive vice president of what claims to be the largest gun rights group, the presidential candidate who might be gun owners' biggest fear, the presidential candidate whom many gun rights activists point to as our greatest hope, and the "vote freedom first" president, all say the same thing?

Of course there is one presidential candidate who will never be heard calling for "enforcement of existing gun laws"--one who, in fact, calls for their repeal. Ah--but I guess I'm forgetting about "the art of the possible," or something.


Vinnie said...

Until we(everybody) as a group get together when someone says "we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals" and shout "WHY AREN'T CRIMINALS IN JAIL?!" We will have this problem. If we can't trust you with a gun we can't trust you with a fork.

Anonymous said...

It is not in the interest of politicians to have a self-reliant citizenry. That's why they all say the same thing.

They can negotiate with each other on how to split the spoils. But first they must take those spoils from the defeated citizenry. Defeating them is easier if they are not armed and self-reliance has been bred out of them.

It is easier to kill the attitude of self reliance if you can convince the citizenry that the tools of such are to be forfeit for the common good. That is much easier to accomplish at lesser cost, though greater expense of time, than trying to remove the tools before the attitude of self-reliance has fallen from popular practice.

That is why you hear them all saying the same thing.

Anonymous said...

I think you are mis-stating Fred's position. Fred is the only candidate expressing himself against the Bush DOJ brief, he quotes Kates, and in all respects shows that he fully understands the Parker/Heller case, follows it, and wants the same outcome all of us in the Gun Civil Rights cause want.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Fed Farmer, I respect Thompson's statement of opposition to the DoJ's amicus brief, and I acknowledge that he does generally say the kinds of things about the Second Amendment that I would hope to hear from a presidential candidate, but I'm not "mis-stating his position" when I refer to him calling for "strictly enforcing existing laws . . . "--I'm directly quoting him.

Keep in mind that pending the SCOTUS decision, D.C.'s draconian handgun ban is the "existing law"--and he calls for strict enforcement of "existing laws."

Anonymous said...

So which laws do we enforce and which do we not? Are we not a nation of laws?

Isn't the surest way to overturn an unjust law to strictly enforce it? How else has Cook County's first AWB been able to survive over a decade?

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

So which laws do we enforce and which do we not? Are we not a nation of laws?

Personally, I can't think of a single gun law that can be reconciled with a right that shall not be infringed, so I consider all such laws to be unconstitutional, and thus subject only to repeal, rather than enforcement.

Isn't the surest way to overturn an unjust law to strictly enforce it?

That's a line of reasoning I hadn't considered. Still, do you think any of the people quoted as advocating "enforcing existing gun laws," Fred included, is doing so in order to stir up activists to force the overturning of said laws? I find that possibility more than a little implausible.

Anonymous said...

I read "enforce existing laws," not "enforce existing gun laws."

Face it, the only reason RP folks attack Fred is due to the fact that Fred is a serious threat to the loyalty of the 2A contingent of Paul's rather diverse backers.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Well, even if "enforce existing laws" was not intended to mean "enforce existing gun laws," gun laws are a subset of "existing laws," so it's a bit difficult to imagine he meant "enforce existing laws, except existing gun laws."

I can't speak for any other Paulista who has "attacked" Fred (if that's what I have done--a pretty mild "attack," if you ask me), but if Ron Paul were not a candidate, I would still have a problem with the ostensibly pro-2A candidate who, in a discussion about gun legislation and the Second Amendment, says we need to "enforce existing laws."

Any so-called gun rights activist who fails to notice that Dr. Paul opposes every federal gun law, or who believes that any other candidate has taken so strong a stance on the Second Amendment, is probably too immune to facts to be worth trying to persuade, anyway, so I probably wouldn't bother trying to change such a person's mind.

But hey, any day now, Fred might start drawing as many votes as Dr. Paul ;-).

Anonymous said...

All laws should be enforced or repealed.

Laws that are not enforced become a vehicle for corruption, wherein they are selectively enforced or, passively enforced by their effect of preventing the law-abiding from violating them.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Agreed, but when someone, in a discussion about gun laws, argues that the solution is to enforce existing laws, I cannot help but see that as an endorsement of current gun laws.

If that's not what he meant, I think I can be forgiven for misunderstanding, and perhaps he could have done a better job in stating his position.

In the end, I wouldn't be unhappy with a Thompson presidency, but as long as we're backing long shots, I like my long shot more than I like Thompson.

I like him better on guns, and I like him better on just about everything esle.