I’m beginning to wonder about A.G. Eric Holder’s priorities, not to mention his knowledge base of weaponry. Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have this one exactly right. Any attempt to resurrect the “assault weapons ban” should be opposed, because it’s absolutely ludicrous.
… “Senator Reid would oppose an effort (to) reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future,” Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.
It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.
Reid’s stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat “no” when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it’s clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.” [...]
First, there is no way to “ban assault weapons.” I’m not the gun expert in my family, but “ban” an assault weapon, and the gun manufacturers still provide ways around the “ban” so people can have their assault weapons, one part at a time.
Besides, there is no reason in the world a law abiding American shouldn’t be allowed to own whatever he or she wants, including an assault weapon. My husband used to have one (which I had the pleasure of firing), though I won’t get into the special license etc., because it’s in the weeds for most people. He’s a gun expert and someone who appreciates the craftsmanship of firearms. So I’d like someone to tell me why he shouldn’t be able to own whatever he wants, especially if all he’s going to do is case it or collect it. But even if he wants to fire it, why should anyone else care?
A.G. Holder is involving himself in the sort of activism that is mindlessly political and stupid amidst the real issues Justice should be tackling. Go after the gun shows, encourage more study on “microstamping” (something California will require by 2010 on all semiautomatic pistols), “encoded ammunition”, enforce the laws on the books, among other things, but resurrecting the “assault weapons ban” is a monumental waste of time.
It seems that folks may have had the wrong appointee pegged as having their own agenda.
What does that mean djjl?
I’ve never been a big Holder fan. There is something about him I don’t care for.
Holder was questioned about this very issue in his Senate hearings. He said it was nothing the administration, or he, was interested in pursuing. Now it is just the opposite.
I loved it yesterday when he couched the ban in terms of helping Mexico in their drug violence.
I think Holder is capable of being a good force at Justice. But this is just ridiculous.
Yeah Taylor — I didn’t know we made decisions on our 2nd amendment rights, or any rights, based on the needs of other nations.
I’m opposed to the banning but I can see where he may be coming from. It is really terrible in Mexico. But I don’t think banning assault rifles are going to curb the violence at all. The criminals will figure out how to get them anyway, they always do.
My point Betsy is we don’t change our constitutional rights for other countries.
It’s kind of like the issue in the UN right now of what nations will agree to and sign an agreement to not say negative things about Islam. If a reporter, etc. does they are subject to prosecution. That is absolutely ridiculous. And btw a reporter in India has already been jailed for it.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4684&page=0
This is the article I am talking about.
Kris, I agree. But read this article. It seems that the Mexican cartels are now here in the US. Of course we don’t change the Constitution for another country, but we need to figure out how to stop this. I still am a firm believer that they need to put more Border Patrols on the border.
And by the way, when we were headed home from South Padre Island we had to go through a check point on the highway. We pulled up and all he asked was if we were US citizens. That was it. The dog they have there was sniffing for drugs, but not at our car. We could have been smuggling in illegals and they would never have known it. My point is, we really need to improve our security points.
I agree with you too Betsy. Something needs to be done.
I am listening to the Prez at Camp Lejune. I wouldn’t say he has gotten an enthusiastic reception so far.
I admit, not a gun person (they scare me), my daughter has one for her profession (that scares me too)
But can someone explain why a hunter needs an assault rifle? This is not a snark, but an honest question.
AG, most law abiding people that have assault weapons are collectors or they use them at a firing range. My son has one. He only uses it at a firing range, no where else.
My husband is a gun collector but doesn’t have an assault weapon, just has never been interested in having one. He used to hunt but one day decided he didn’t need to hunt anymore. Maybe it’s because the kids and I don’t like wild game meat.
It’s not about “need,” AG. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Not being harsh, just responding honestly.
Kris
That was the complaint about appointing Clinton – that she would set her own agenda and not implement that of President Obama. I like Holder, but he seems to be setting up some unnecessary issues.
“[Th]ere is no reason in the world a law abiding American shouldn’t be allowed to own whatever he or she wants, including an assault weapon.”
Really? I’d love an MRAP for my daily commute. And the boys and I are sick of paintball — we could really use some RPGs. Kick things up a notch. I mean, if wanting is all that counts.
Thanks for the explanation Betsy and Taylor. I flipped by Lou Dobbs last night, and he was screeching about Obama/Holder taking away our 2nd amendment rights (this of course, was after him screeching about Obama/Holder not doing enough to protect our borders from the Mexican drug war the previous night). I think all those Obama waffles are getting to Lou.
I was not raised in a gun culture (my dad only went home to the country to hunt on Thanksgiving). Unfortunately, I think these laws are not for the law abiding citizens that want them for a collection or a hobby, but for people who are using them for some far more sinister purposes. I’m not sure what the answer is.
Upfront, I’m not a fan of guns. They scare me and I feel less safe the more guns there are around, both in a home or in my city. However and perhaps with some self-contradiction, at a more philosophical level I don’t have a problem with gun ownership per se. I have been hunting and while I didn’t much enjoy the shooting, I enjoyed the camaraderie and being outdoors. At some level, I think I get the appeal of at least some parts of the gun culture and I’m not for banning or restricting all guns.
On the other hand, I believe in freedom of association and movement. But I don’t think driver’s licenses, auto licensing or laws that prohibit me from driving racing cars on city streets deprive me of those rights. I feel the same way about guns.
However for those who take an expansive view of the 2nd amendment, perhaps most importantly for precisely those individuals, you need to prepare yourselves with strong coherent arguments related to the Mexican situation. It is certainly being very much talked about in counter-terrorism and security circles, and is making its way into mainstream media ranging from the NY Times to the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal, hardly political bedfellows.
Two issues. From what I’m reading, it appears that much of the weaponry being used by the drug cartels in destabilizing and terrorizing whole regions of Mexico are being supplied (purchased from) by the US gun sales industry. Second, there is some evidence that the “war” between anti-drug forces and the cartels, and between rival drug distributors / cartels is spilling over into the US, with hit squad activity in some US cities. If you want a particularly apocalyptic view, see some of John Robb at his blog globalguerillas.typepad.com. Counterterrorism.org also has a piece posted on this in the last few days.
Even if you don’t accept worst case scenarios of how this could play out (I’m worried but not yet apocalyptic), it is an issue that is only going to gain increased attention, particularly if there is a high level assassination of a US drug law enforcement official. Or if there is a major armed confrontation involving multiple casualties other than the drug dealers (police, hostages, by-standers in the wrong place at the wrong time). The strongest position for true 2nd amendment advocates would be to engage the issue seriously and develop some real strategy rather than just say “the 2nd amendment says…”
Jim in St. Louis
Audiegrl,
Nobody that I know hunts with a assault rifle but that isn’t the point really. The gov has no business tell us what we can and can’t have when it comes to our 2nd amendment rights. I love to target shoot with mine. Its not for anybody else to decide for me.
As far as what to do, start enforcing the current laws and prosecuting the criminals that do the crimes and stop trying to to take our 2nd amendment rights away. I don’t care what they do in England or Australia, I’m an American and live in Free America not over in those countries.
I’m tired of people trying to force there views on me. I don’t go around forcing me views on anybody. You want to buy a gun legally go ahead if you don’t then don’t. Speaking in general not at you