The McCarville Report shares (via ABC News) that the Obama Administration’s Attorney General is beginning to ramp up its gun control efforts. First up? Reinstatement of the so-called “assault weapons” ban (which generally means that if a gun is big and scary looking, the government won’t let you legally own one). Of course, Dear Leader just happens to consider semi-automatic hunting rifles “assault weapons,” too.
[Despite the emphasis on "assault weapons" as instruments of destruction, FBI data does not support the contention they are used regularly to commit crimes. Furthermore, the definition of "assault weapons" as used by Holder et al includes semi-automatic hunting rifles.]
We knew it was coming. What shall we do about it?
37 comments
Comment by Nazuri on February 26, 2009 at 11:21 PM
I say that he’s right to implement the assault weapons ban. The 2nd Amendment was created years and years ago when there was no structure in America. That was the time to carry guns. What reason do we have to “bare arms” now? Especially big assault weapons. The only 2 reasons why someone would need to bare arms is because you’re about to shoot someone, or someone is about to shoot you.
So I say let him go ahead with that decision. And please don’t try to be so ignorant about it. Please.
Comment by Nazuri on February 26, 2009 at 11:23 PM
And my twitter is kingbomani if you want to answer back.
Comment by Tyson Wynn on February 26, 2009 at 11:46 PM
You’re wrong…on so many levels.
Amendments 1-10 (and the 27th, incidentally) were all created years and years ago. Which of the other Amendments would you like to ignore simply because they are old? And frankly, the term “old” is very relative here. In the course of human history, we are a very young nation. Though our Constitution is one of the older ones in use today, it is very recent in terms of the whole of human history.
Second, if you honestly believe “there was no structure in America” when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, you most certainly have no working knowledge of this nation’s history.
Reasons to bear arms? They are numerous. The primary reason is that an armed citizenry is a safer and more secure populace. Totalitarian regimes can only exist when the people have no means of protection. The right to bear arms (not bare arms, as you said) is an inherent right from our Creator recognized and preserved by our Founders and it keeps us safe.
Someone’s ignorance is certainly on display here, but it’s not mine.
Comment by Darby Livingston on February 27, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Those who don’t know history are doomed to forever repeat it. The right to bear arms is not for the sake of Americans defending themselves from outsiders. The right to bear arms was so that Americans could defend themselves against a possible future tyrannical government. The second amendment is all about the government being afraid of the citizenry. That’s why it was designed. There are founding father documents that clearly point to this purpose for the amendment. I’m so sick of people saying, “You don’t need assault rifles to hunt.” The second amendment was not about hunting. It was about scaring the government into leaving its citizens alone, which is exactly why they’re always wanting to take away the more dangerous guns.
Comment by Tyson Wynn on February 27, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Darby,
Well said! Welcome to the discussion.
Comment by meeciteewurkor on February 27, 2009 at 5:32 AM
Nobody will take my guns away.
As far as I’m concerned, ALL laws pertaining to arms are unconstitutional.
Comment by Tyson Wynn on February 27, 2009 at 5:53 AM
Agreed, with this statement:
I find it much less likely that they will do a weapon roundup than that they will enact such arcane weapons restrictions that they will make everyone guilty, thus a felon, thus deemed unworthy to own a gun. Not saying it’s right, just saying how I see their methodology. It’s much better spin to say we’re only restricting the gun rights of criminals than it is to say we are criminalizing gun rights.
They need draconian laws the public will all run afoul of. And believe me, they are starting with “assault weapons” and they will move to handguns, etc.
It’s kind of funny to see the new plans in DC when we have the new Republican legislature here in OK moving to make even open carry legal.
Comment by Man of the West on February 27, 2009 at 6:42 AM
I don’t want to see any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. That said, they are coming. It is going to be very difficult to disarm a nation wherein so many people own so many guns, but rest assured that the attempt is going to be made.
To my mind, firearms are but one component of individual defense. Since the attempt is going to be made to get rid of them, now is the time to look at all the other components.
Comment by Redneck Diva on February 27, 2009 at 8:26 AM
You said, “We knew it was coming. What shall we do about it?”
I say, “We hide our guns and whistle innocently when the regime marches by.”
Comment by Tyson Wynn on February 27, 2009 at 8:28 AM
What about when the thugs kick in our doors to arrest us and search our homes for illegal arms?
Comment by Josh on February 27, 2009 at 10:16 AM
“What about when the thugs kick in our doors to arrest us and search our homes for illegal arms?” – Do you really think that is going to happen?
Likening the President that the people elected to Kim Jong-Il is neither appropriate or accurate (Obama-derangement-syndrome?). My stance on gun control is that it should primarily be a state issue and that the federal government really has no business in it. Nice to see more people actually posting!
Comment by Tyson Wynn on February 27, 2009 at 10:48 AM
In the words of the next President of the United States, “You betcha!” The longer answer is that it won’t happen tomorrow but it very possibly could happen someday if the citizenry allows incremental erosion of our right to bear arms.
How long have you been waiting for me to criticize President Obama so you could accuse me of Obama-derangement-syndrome? I said nothing of Kim Jong-Il. You made that leap all on your own.
It is, however, a hallmark of totalitarian regimes that they have had a field day with an un-armed populace. Do I take it that, due to your strong states-rights position on this issue, you are opposed to the federal “assault weapons” ban?
Comment by Redneck Diva on February 27, 2009 at 11:08 AM
“What about when the thugs kick in our doors to arrest us and search our homes for illegal arms?”
Uhm….we shoot ‘em?
*grin*
Comment by Tyson Wynn on February 27, 2009 at 11:12 AM
I knew I could count on you to get it and make my point…
Comment by Josh on February 27, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Do you not think your comment is in the same tone as the Bush-haters of the last 8 years? When did it become an impossibility for ideologues on either side to respect A)the person who is trying their best to do what they think is right for our country and B) our elected leader? Maybe I am misinterpreting your response to my comment…
Comment by Tyson Wynn on February 27, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Absolutely not. I respect President Obama as my president. That does not mean I will not respond when his administration begins to threaten the one liberty encapsulated in our founding documents that secures all the others. You don’t really want to get in a discussion of tone, do you?
Yes, he’s elected, and yes, he’s my president. But he’s dead wrong on this issue. He and his people are strongly anti-gun. They will take as much as they can get, that’s why we don’t give an inch.
And, sir, I have endeavored to answer your questions. Would you care to answer mine?
Comment by Josh on February 27, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I was a little confused. I misread you response to Redneck Diva as a response to my comment and didn’t, until your most recent response, see the questions you asked to me.
As far as the Kim Jong-Il comment, Dear Leader is the term used to describe him by his people out of fear perhaps). Your use of a proper form of the title is a clear allusion to him or if not him, another totalitarian leader who used was referred to similarly.
As far as the Obama derangement syndrome comment, it was based on the assumption that you knew what your Dear Leader comment meant. If this is not the case, I will certainly retract that statement. Once again, you seem to be a smart man, so I’m fairly sure I didn’t make the Dear Leader leap on my own. It was in no way meant as an answer to criticism of the President, but one of my major concerns with our country’s politics is the lack of civility and respect for one another. We need more respectful disagreement and less hyperbole and hate (like the Bush-haters of the last 8 years). I disagree with this President and the last on many issues, but I have never publicly called into question whether either of them wants anything but the best for America.
I couldn’t agree with you more on you statement about totalitarian regimes and their unarmed populace. As far as a federal ban on assault weapons, I would oppose such a bill. Let states decide what weapons people can possess within their borders. Are you opposed to things like background checks and waiting periods too? Just curious.
Comment by Josh on February 27, 2009 at 1:17 PM
On a side note, who is In the “words of the next President of the United States, “You betcha!’” referring to?
Comment by Tyson Wynn on February 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Josh,
I did use Dear Leader as an allusion to a totalitarian leader (though not specifically N. Korea’s) as a means of emphasizing the bent of totalitarian leaders to disarm their
citizenssubjects. It was neither hyperbole nor deranged lunacy. If I granted you that Pres. Obama desires the best for this country (which would require that I believe he is ignorant of his “new” policies’ history from the last time they were tried and failed), we must resist encroachment on this right because his underlings or successors might make hey with it.And incidentally, which other of the Constitutional Amendments do you propose delegating to the states?
As for your second comment: Google it.
Comment by Josh on February 27, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Well I think that gay marriage/civil unions is an issue best dealt with by states. Many aspects of education (my biggest interest area) I think should be left to states. I don’t see Sarah Palin surviving the king of the hill match going on now in the Republican party. I think Romney and maybe even Gingrich are your top two candidates. MAYBE Palin in eight years, but she needs to find an avenue to get some coverage sounding well informed on national issues, which probably isn’t easy given her time zone. Right wing documentaries and interviews with Fox aren’t going to be enough. (Not a Palin fan here at all but the hits she took during the election were low)
Comment by Tyson Wynn on February 27, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Gay marriage/civil unions are in the states’ realms unless the Constitution is amended (or the Supreme Court finds and emanation of a penumbra). Education was a state issue until the Federal government usurped the states’ authority.
Regardless of where you might think gun issues should reside, the United States Constitution states:
By ratification of the Bill of Rights, each state has agreed that it is a federal issue, and that the right (not privilege) to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Let me ask again: Which of the current Constitutional Amendments do you propose making a state issue?
I’m not sure if Palin will be able to recover from the liberal/media smear job. I hope she does. Obama’s a one-termer.
Comment by Josh on February 27, 2009 at 3:51 PM
None. The reason I mentioned gun and marriage/civil unions is because there have been proposed amendments on these issues.
Comment by Tyson Wynn on February 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM
What, then, is your rationale for arguing that only gun rights, of all the rights secured to us by the Amendments, should be left to the states?
I’m not sure what gun amendment you refer to, but the marriage/civil union amendment only gets discussed because Americans fear (rightly so) that the courts will create a “right” to homosexual marriage where none exists. If the federal courts do what the California courts have done, it will start the push for an amendment. Of course, the California courts didn’t care that the people amended the state constitution…
Comment by Josh on February 28, 2009 at 6:58 PM
I’m not arguing that states should decide whether people can bare arms. What I am saying is that the states can best determine what weapons are appropriate for their citizens and what, if any, requirements those citizens need to fulfill. That is all I have to say on this topic.
Comment by Tyson Wynn on February 28, 2009 at 7:25 PM
But how can you square that view with “shall not be infringed”?
Comment by RSUProf on March 5, 2009 at 8:03 PM
It’s been quite a while since any Democratic candidate for the Presidency actively campaigned for gun control. Of course, GOPers are rightly fearful that in their weakened state, Democrats will trot out all manner of “librul hobbyhorses.”
I suspect, however, that the worst Democrats would seek to do is impose reasonable restrictions on certain kinds of annunition (armor-piercing bullets, for example), that lapsed with portions of the Brady Bill.
Tyson, your extreme reading of “shall not be infringed” seems a bit out there. Taking the language to its logical extreme, a person could own a nuclear weapon so long as its method of delivery was a rifle barrel. Surely you don’t mean that?
It’s been quite a while since the military-civilian “correlation of forces” could meaningfully be maintained by an armed citizenry. Wistful analogies to bad conservative movies like “Red Dawn,” notwithstanding, technology has rendered this insistence a bit fanciful. More importantly, it appears to encourage the cross-border movement of weapons to feed the rapidly-expanding war between Mexico and their drug cartels, not to mention the kinds of home-grown extremism that really seem to blossom whenever a Democrat wins the White House.
By the way, livy-livered librul that I am, I favor gun ownership. Both my parents owned guns (Mom was a better shot with a rifle), and my father-in-law owns over 250. Most Democrats recognize that pushing radical gun control would imperil their majority and render “Red State Dems” like Dan Boren an endagered species.
But that’s how the political pendulum swings: the act of governing tends to [redacted] people off. But seriously, I doubt that this will be one of the things that Democrats will push.
Comment by Tyson Wynn on March 5, 2009 at 8:22 PM
It’s terribly unreasonable to outlaw armor-piercing bullets. That just tells thugs to wear body armor when they terrorize law-abiding citizens.
RSUProf, I know; everything I believe and hold dear seems “out there” to you. I’m a 32-year-old relic because I look at what’s written in the Constitution and expect it to be interpreted as it was intended when it was written. You look at it and see a living document that means whatever a majority of life-tenured judges want it to say. Maybe the Founders should have been smart enough to hide the right to bear arms in an emanation of a penumbra; then it would be crystal clear.
I favor gun rights because they are just that, rights, and because they secure our other God-given rights—regardless of whether anyone in my family owns them.
I’m sure those in your party serious about retaining power won’t push it visibly and publicly; however, they will do as much behind the scenes as possible, and if it becomes convenient and they feel safe, they will restrict gun ownership as much as they can—for our own good and safety. And like most of your party’s most unpopular positions that could never win at a ballot box, it will be tossed on the bench for the judiciary to hijack, especially if it can be shopped around to a liberal federal court. And you know it, too.
Comment by RSU Prof on March 6, 2009 at 8:33 AM
I don’t follow how banning armor-piercing bullets incentivizes criminals armoring up. Help me out on that one.
Did I mention that gun control is a wedge issue between red and blue-state Democrats? Why impose a self-wedgie when you have tons of other issues that could gain broad support from Democrats and independents? I realize that Nancy Pelosi is as barking liberal as they come, but she has to manage a pretty broad coalition that includes Henry Waxman on the left and Heath Shuler on the right.
By the way, it was the bank heist in Bakersfield, CA in 1992 that was a major motivation for the Brady Bill, and most sheriff’s depts and police unions supported it because they were being outgunned in the streets.
And I’m not a liberal activist when it comes to judicial interpretation. I doubt that if you read through all my posts on this or any other site that you find any reference to a “living constitutition.” I like the basic rules of the game to be firm and fixed to the extent that any rules governing human behavior can be fixed. I just don’t take an evangelical view of the Constitution as the perfect and immutable word of God. It’s a human document, with human mistakes, and society should be able to correct mistakes when they become clear enough to a consensus of the community.
So we are in similar legal territory in expressing a distaste for obiter dicta and pursuing political goals through the federal courts. In that, I think a lot of liberals — and now, a lot of conservatives — learned the wrong lessons from the civil rights movements: just because African-Americans were compelled to seek a legal remedy for decades of discrimination does not mean that everyone should parade along down that path.
Comment by Tyson Wynn on March 10, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Is it not obvious that if criminals know that law-abiding citizens cannot legally buy armor-piercing weapons that there is an almost 100% chance that they will not be shot by one? Kind of like how Islamic terrorists knew that no one would have a gun when they skyjacked planes with box cutters.
RE: The Constitution. It is a human document, with a defined method of modification if and when the people determine that it has a mistake that should be corrected. That was exactly my point. Typically those who cannot convince the people to change the document or the law run to the courts and attempt (often successfully) to get a sympathetic judge to read something new into the document. That is not the proper method of fixing mistakes.
Comment by RSU Prof on March 11, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Based on that logic, perhaps state and local govts. should mandate the wearing of body armor and that all citizens should possess 44’s filled with dums dums? Again, its obvious but doesn’t strike me as something likely to happen. It’s cops that are disproportionately the targets of armor piercing bullets, and criminals load their guns with armor-piercing bullets precisely because they know that their preferred mode of crime (e.g. bank robbery) has a high likelihood of provoking an armed encounter with said body-armored cops. Whose side are you on? (Snarky, I know, but its been a bad couple of weeks, and snark comes unbidden).
RE: The Constitution. We have found common ground! Hallelujah! Let’s do lunch sometime
Comment by Tyson Wynn on March 11, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Yes, you got me. I’m on the side of the cop killers. I can sleep better now that my secret’s out.
Seriously, you fall into the old trap of believing that criminals won’t do something (or possess something, in this case) merely because it’s illegal. They are, by definition, law breakers.
Comment by RSU Prof on March 11, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I guess this is a perennial issue of contention between American liberals and conservatives: guns vs. speech. One side is perfectly willing to restrict the one and adopt a maximalist position on the other, and sees the antipodal position as evidence of derangement.
Just so long as you know that I am not advocating a “take all the guns” policy, and I don’t really know of many liberals that are interested in doing anything more than returning to “Brady’s” restrictions on certain kinds of ammunition and automatic weapons. I acknowledge the primordial role that guns play in the American political cultural view of freedom, and have no interest in butting my head against that particular wall.
Comment by Tyson Wynn on March 11, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Have I advocated restricting speech?
And I never said you were crazy. Should I assume you think I am?
Comment by RSUProf on March 11, 2009 at 6:41 PM
I was making a generic statement regarding the mutual stereotyping, not making a specific statement about you… or me.
Certainly, if I thought you were crazy I would merely be lurking at your site, not engaging with you on issues of your choosing.
Comment by Tyson Wynn on March 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM
It did not come across well in the printed version, but my tongue was way in cheek.
Comment by RSU Prof on March 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I was patroling the blogosphere this morning and came across a site that was taking snippetts from a recent speech NRA’s Wayne LaPierre in which he said something to the effect of “man with guns make the rules.”
I have always been somewhat troubled by the idea that the right to speech originates with the threat of violence. I concede that the willingness to defend — to the death, if necessary — is what the framer’s risked their lives over, and I have never been particularly troubled by an expansive reading of the 2nd Amendment, but at some point threats of coercion yield to a basic commitment to rule of law, doesn’t it?
My point about guns and speech is mainly that guns are tools: they can protect property, or the right to freedom of movement or speech, but they can also be tools of coercion. Likewise, speech can be used to utter eternal truths or damnable slander. We don’t protect people in the service of lies, and we should offer blanket protection to people who use guns to break the law. Members of Congress in the pre-Civil War period who placed dueling pistols on their podiums weren’t exactly opening the floor to free wheeling debate, were they?
In modern society, the capacity of armed militia’s to resist the tyranny of the state has necessarily yielded to the power of people collectively to resist unlawful force by symbolic protests. The correlation of force as it relates to gunpowder and lead has long since been decisively tilted toward the state. Ghandi and MLK demonstrated that non-violent protest can exert power pressure on states. It may not be as satisfying as the buck of a Colt ‘45, but nonviolent action in the service of what Judith Shklar described as the “sense of injustice” can offer a more stable path to correcting injustices.
But then, I’m just an old librul college professor.
Comment by RSU Prof on March 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Should have edited that a bit more before I posted. Oh well…