Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumIncrementalism.
My biggest issue w/ the gun control crowd is that they have proven over and over that they are incrementalist in nature.
Looking back over the history of gun control starting w/ NFA Law abiding citizens were taxed to keep Clyde Barrow from stealing automatic weapons from National Guard armories. GCA 1968 was passed to keep losers like Lee Harvey Oswald from assassinating people w/ bolt action rifles.
We tried 10 years of limiting magazine size and since no one could show that they had any effect on crime they scrapped them.
It’s been my experience that most of the pro control crowd keeps asking for just one more (slightly more restrictive) law. And when that law doesn’t work they wonder why gun owners won’t meet them in the middle of a field that (up till 1994) seemed to keep shrinking.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cary
(11,746 posts)Right?
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)They're just so very expensive that only the 1% can afford them. ICBM's are not legal and I'm pretty sure if you turn in your NFA paperwork for one the several alphabet agencies would be paying you a call.
Cary
(11,746 posts)that it may be legal to own an RPG but it is highly regulated to the point where you would have notify the BATF every time you fired a round. Not sure if that's true but my unstated and half thought out point stands. There is still a line.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)You do have to fill out NFA paperwork on the projectile, which is considered a Destructive Device since it contains an explosive.
So, where exactly do you wish to place that line? How burdensome do you wish to make the exercise of a Constitutional Right?
Cary
(11,746 posts)I don't. I ascribe meaning to the words "A well-regulated militia."
But I'm not sure where to draw the line. The current line doesn't seem to be working all that well.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)You see, the Supreme Court and even our beloved President are in agreement that it is indeed an individual right. So you're really pretty deep in the hole trying to get anyone to take any of your policy suggestions seriously. The real world has left you behind. It is an individual right of a lawful citizen to keep and bear arms for both their own protection and for collective defense. It's the law of the land, even if some people are kind of slow in getting on board.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I'm entitled to my opinion and it's as relevant and as efficacious as yours.
It seems that causes you some pain. Too bad for you.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)It isn't correct. According to American law the Second Amendment protects an individual right not connected with service in a militia to keep and bear arms.
Cary
(11,746 posts)What an odd comment.
I am not entitled to say that the words "A well-regulated militia" have meaning? Where do you come off making that declaration?
Missycim
(950 posts)during the 1700's mean well trained and in good working order?
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Show me.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
from link: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Cary
(11,746 posts)52,000 deliberate and 23,000 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries and 31,000 firearm-related deaths every year, is that militia in proper working order? Is it functioning as expected?
Do you suppose it might benefit from some calibration?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)most of the rest are gangs killing each other for market share. Almost all of the deliberate ones are.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)the militia is being starved out by its corporate overlords and morale is low, sir. 
Cary
(11,746 posts)No is saying that anything is "the gun's fault." No one is questioning the gun.
And you used the old change the subject tactic. You were trying to tell me something about the Second Amendment, but you failed miserably. Apparently you recognize your failure.
I suppose that's progress but your use of trite, empty slogans is still pathetic.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Missycim
(950 posts)why do Pro gun-control people say it means something else all together?
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)But you'd have to ask one of them to be sure
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)These days, "well regulated" is thought of as "greatly restricted by regulations".
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)Quite simply, I agree with the Supreme Court and the President that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Being on the right side of the issue is not painful at all.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I have noticed in my life that when I get too confident, that's when life let's me know who is the real boss. I think you may be due for a life lesson.
What do you make of this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/gun-owners-frank-luntz_n_1699140.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)all but maybe one of these are current law and no one, including the NRA, is advocating repealing them.
It gives the impression that gun laws are laxer than they really are. All it really shows is that most of the NRA supports the status quo.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)I did not complete a safety course before receiving my permit. There you go. But I think I ought to have been required to. That is about as far as I am willing to go with the gun control: no training to own, but if you want to walk around in public you ought to have some sort of training course and instruction on when and when you can't use your gun to protect yourself and others.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)last I checked, Alabama was may issue.
> it is indeed an individual right.
The ultra-conservatives on the present SCOTUS overturned decades of precedent about that. We already know that conservatives, teabaggers, know-nothings, repigs, and all the other America-destroyers love that.
I have to keep repeating this because the gun-relgionists keep posting the semi-lie about it.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The collective-right side has lost. It is an individual right. That is the law of the land. Deal with itl
Cary
(11,746 posts)Deal with what? Your opinion?
Thanks but no thanks. I am going to state my point of view. If you want to whine about that, be my guest.
permatex
(1,299 posts)He stated a fact. the SCOTUS has ruled that it is an individual right. That makes it the law of the land, not opinion. Now your opinion may be that the SCOTUS got it wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an individual right.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I stated my opinion. He changed the subject from my opinion, which he asked for, to something else.
And the Supreme Court opinions can be revisited.
permatex
(1,299 posts)so, if I were a betting man, I wouldn't hang my hat on that hope.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Where did that come from?
I have stated my opinion that there is gun control. I have said that I don't know where the line should be drawn but that the current line doesn't seem to be working.
As for the opinions of this particular iteration of the Supreme Court, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of their unprecedented judicial activism isn't wiped out if and when the "conservatives" are no longer the majority. I do not have a crystal ball.
Your opinion of me, even combined with the opinions of your compatriots, is utterly irrelevant.
permatex
(1,299 posts)2A is an individual right, not a collective right? The dissent was on restrictions.
As far as where the line should be drawn, I happen to agree with the Pres., the current laws are sufficient.
Where did my opinion of you come in, I haven't expressed my opinion of you.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I said I ascribe meaning to the words "In a well-regulated militia." That's all. That's my opinion. I never represented it as being anything else. You are suggesting here that I have.
I'll go further to say that the Second Amendment, if you study your history, has nothing to do with "an individual right." The Second Amendment was about the debate between the founders over whether or not to have a standing army which Jefferson believed to be dangerous to a democracy.
As for the Supreme Court, as I have said this particular iteration, and the one preceding it, has been unusually activist. If Democrats have a chance to put in their justices a lot of things will be undone or it is also possible to have a Constitutional amendment or two.
I am not commenting on the likelihood of either. Grasp the simple concept that I am stating my opinion--not pretending to be Nostradamus.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)unprecedented. There never has been a ruling favoring collective rights. The previous rulings were pre-incorporation, which meant that the BoR limited the federal government, but not the states.
The ruling McDonald over turned (what was left of it, parts of it has been overturned since the 1930s) ruled that states can violate 1st and 2d Amendments. It also ruled that private persons and organizations (in this case, the Klan) may restrict your 14th Amendment rights. That made the Reconstruction era civil rights laws unenforceable.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and that the votes shouldn't be counted in the 2000 presidential elections. The current courts' decisions mean absolutely nothing in terms of common sense OR interpretation of laws.
As for the president, he is a conservative who panders to almost any fringe right-wing group when it's politically expedient.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. The facts are that the collective-right view LOST. That SCOTUS decision is now protected by Stare Decisis, and extremely unlikely to be reversed, even by a liberal court.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Get a grip.
lastlib
(28,264 posts)Bad law can be overruled. I continue to hold out hope (however feeble) that in my lifetime, this idiotic, flawed individual-right principle will also go the way of the dodo, and that some measure of rationality can be brought to American gun laws.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)just not bans. I take it that is your problem. That said, McDonald overturned a precedent that was as bad or worse than the ones you mentioned.
HALO141
(911 posts)It's just the little piece on top that people get really twitchy about.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Upgraded to a word processor then a computer.
HALO141
(911 posts)I hadda go back and read my previous post twice looking for the typo. Hahahah!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)manual.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Triplicate!
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)ICBMs are not personally transportable. You can't carry them around with you, nor can you aim one at an individual. You throw that in thinking that you are somehow proving something.
Rocket launchers are noting but hollow tubes with a firing mechanism. You can use a rope stretched between two trees as a rocket launcher. Or go to a hardware store and buy a piece of pipe the right diameter.
It is the rockets that are tightly controlled.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Obviously the prospect of gun control has hit a nerve with you.
That's good. I don't know where it will go but I'm pretty sure you will feel some pain in the future. There was just a pretty good discussion, on the Ed Show with Mike Papantonio, about the NRA probably not being the force it claims to be.
More pain in your future. Hahahahahaha.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there has been federal gun control since the 1920s. Granted, the one Harding signed (but still law) was as big of a joke as the ill fated AWB, but it exists never the less. That is before you get to NFA-Brady bill.
Here is where Ed and Pap miss:
It is not the NRA per se, it is the massive grass roots movement they and this issue can generate. See 1994.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I'm sure it will pop up on today's podcast. I didn't catch the guest's name but he was saying that the NRA took credit for 1994 when the analysis of the numbers don't support that conclusion.
you should read Bill Clinton's book, My Life, in it he says that the 1994 AWB cost the Dems the House and Senate. I'll believe him.
permatex
(1,299 posts)Besides the usual suspects, who in congress is introducing any new gun control legislation? Not even Pres. Obama is talking about any new laws.
Meanwhile, gun rights keep marching on.
Cary
(11,746 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)most of us have nothing to do with the NRA, I'm more of an SAF guy also I belong to this org.
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/
When you make statements that are not factual, expect to get corrected, sometimes things do get heated around here, but, after all this is the jungle where we're used to getting insulted by terms like, gun nuts, gun lovers, blood on our hands, NRA terrorists, etc,etc.
Don't take it personal.
BTW, welcome to the gungeon.
Cary
(11,746 posts)but your "correction" is a classic straw man.
Your "debate" and that of compatriots is amateurish and quite pathetic. Let me know if you ever gain enough competence and discipline to actually confine yourself to the actual issues.
come here, post a bunch of shit, when called on it, start with the snarky remarks
Have a good day.
Cary
(11,746 posts)You know, if you don't like my opinion you really don't have to look at it. So why whine about it? Where does that get you?
permatex
(1,299 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Telling me to "deal with it" is what, exactly?
Missycim
(950 posts)Our manhood is small and we need a gun to compensate.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)So far this year there have been 31 NRA backed bills signed into law among various states. That's 31 victories. There have been zero anti-gun victories.
Over 50% of the House and almost 50% of the Senate have NRA ratings of A. That means that they agree with the NRA. They aren't scared of the NRA but are active supporters.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Why is this such an emotional issue with you if you've "won" and there's no prospect of undoing your "victory"?
I come along and simply express that I'm not on board 100% with your schtick and you all put words in my mouth and jump down my throat after them?
WTF?
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)While you may have intended to "come along and simply express that I'm not on board 100% with your schtick", what you actually did was post a series of factually incorrect statements. The errors were pointed out and corrected.
Feel free to express opinions, just please get the facts correct or ask questions as needed.
Cary
(11,746 posts)You're all on message. You all stick very well to your script.
Who's writing it? Frank Luntz?
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)If you are not familiar with the technology or not familiar with the technical terms, you will be at a great disadvantage in any such discussions you attempt, especially when you do not get it right.
If you go into the football forum and start posting messages that make it obvious that you do not know the rules of football, you will get the same treatment there as you are getting here, except here we are probably a bit more polite about it.
Cary
(11,746 posts)a license to practice law, and 28 years of litigation experience. I think I am qualified to discuss the law and to tell you definitively that your arrogance is inappropriate.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)you posts suggest a lack of knowledge when it comes to firearms and their laws. However, you should have easy access to the knowledge in your law library, should you choose to make use of it. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of as long as you don't take pride in it.
Cary
(11,746 posts)a legal argument or a statement of fact. Of course that is your script and you lack the aptitude to deviate from it and to have a real discussion.
I have stated my opinions that we have a problem and that the words "A well-regulated militia" have meaning. Contrary to the assertions of you and your swarming buddies I said nothing whatsoever about individual vs. collective. I have said that there is a line because there are weapons you can't just own or buy at a trade show and I have expressed concern about large capacity ammunituon clips. I have stated that I don't know the answers here.
But I do know that I am not constrained in my thinking by your interpretation of the law or by your arrogance.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)However, you eventually do stick in some qualifiers near the end of the posts just in case you were wrong.
"But I do know that I am not constrained in my thinking by your interpretation of the law or by your arrogance."
Congratulations. However, it is only arrogance when you are bragging, which is currently only being done by you.
'I have stated my opinions that we have a problem and that the words "A well-regulated militia" have meaning. Contrary to the assertions of you and your swarming buddies I said nothing whatsoever about individual vs. collective. I have said that there is a line because there are weapons you can't just own or buy at a trade show and I have expressed concern about large capacity ammunituon clips. I have stated that I don't know the answers here.'
Welcome to the conversation!
Cary
(11,746 posts)Stating my qualifications is not arrogant. One earns their qualifications and one of the reasons one earns their qualifications is that qualifications afford one credibility.
Not that I need my credibility to have a discussion on an internet board, because I don't. But it does come in handy when a lay person claims they know more about the law than I do.
They don't.
As I said, my assertion was correct. There are limits on the ability to own certain weapons. It is a matter of where the line was drawn. And you're just trying to be an ass for no real reason other than to be an ass.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)there have also been numerous anti-voting rights bills passed, anti-choice, anti-privacy, corporations-are-people, and so on. OVer the last 20 years the US has moved into fascist territory, with almost all far right initiatives steamrolling common sense and 200 years worth of laws.
As for 50% being "active supporters", the DC whores would support the Child Rapist League if that group gave them millions for their re-elections, hookers, "junkets", and so on. Your ridiculous logical leap is technically called "appeal to popularity", and it has NOTHING to do with civil rights or the law.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I made the statement that the future of gun control is bleak. That is not a moral judgment but simply a prediction. I pointed out the number of Congresspersons who agree with the NRA as an explanation of why gun control won't happen.
The reason that so many are active supporters is because the voters in their home states elected them, in large part due to their position on guns.
In a democracy the will of the voters has much to do with the law as voters elect the lawmakers.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Since I doubt even the Kochs could afford the initial construction of the silo and missile, maintenance (including parts that are not mass produced, hiring former USAF missile mechanics, facility manager, key turners, security, command and control system if you were to launch it. etc etc etc), making a law either way would be a solution in search of a problem. Call the ATF and NRC to find out. Let us know. I do know you can own a tank and artillery. Found a 105mm howitzer for $20K, demilled.
Want your own firing howitzer? Have fun finding ammo for it, or a range to take it. Then you need forward observer, three person crew, fire direction control crew and computer, artillery surveyor, know how to use the pan-tel and aiming points, without sending around off course. The latter is no joke. When I was in Army basic training (saw the light couple of years later) at Ft. Sill, someone kicked over a collimeter and stood it back up without relaying the gun. The round that was aimed for the impact area went to the rifle range and landed about 300-500 yards in front of me.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/13s.htm
ileus
(15,396 posts)Nothing short of a total ban will work. All these little feel good laws are meant for failure, it's what they want.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)guardian
(2,282 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)...is that you can't get around your emotional attachment to your position.
We clearly have a big problem. It may or may not be that we have a problem because of assault rifles or large capacity magazines. I honestly don't know but I really think it sucks that you people who take issue with "the gun control crowd" have to go off like stuck pigs just because there is a discussion that may lead to some kind of gun control.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)I’d say the “gun control crowd” is more prone to emotional argument than the pro rights crowd.
The “gun control crowd” has been posting all weekend that the assault weapon ban would have prevented this tragedy, even when present w/ factual evidence to the contrary
The “gun control crowd” has been posting all weekend that magazine capacity limits would have prevented this tragedy, even when present w/ factual evidence to the contrary.
Even when it’s pointed out that we did magazine capacity limits for 10 years and no one could show even a causal link to any reduction in crime and you guys are still screaming for it. What is that if it’s not emotional?
Cary
(11,746 posts)I stated that I believe that the words "A well-regulated militia" have meaning. I stated that I don't know what laws would be best.
And then you all swarmed me, as if I wasn't entitled to an opinion that differs from the pro NRA crowd here at DU.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Yes they do but the meaning in the context of the time they were written has been established
Cary
(11,746 posts)it therefore follows that I can't have a different opinion.
You're wrong. I can.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Not liking the established definition is fine. To declare it to be not established just makes you look like a fool for getting the facts wrong.
There is a difference between knowing what the current state is and liking the current state. Your posts suggest you have a hard time distinguishing between the two. The problem could be just a matter of your writing style. It's hard to tell at this point.
And since when do I need your permission for anything?
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)If you want to increase your knowledge, ask questions.
If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, speak knowledgeably.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I seek out legitimate sources or simply observe and come to my own conclusions.
Today I learned that the NRA is out in full force at DU, making what appears to me to be a well coordinated attack on legitimate debate on the subject of gun control. Your m.o. is to accuse anyone expressing any deviation from your script of being wrong abput "the facts" regardless whether any facts are stated. You do the old denialism thing. Ad hominem? Straw man? Of course.
My favorite is the "you don't have tbe technical knowledge" schtick.
You aren't here to answer questions. You are here to quash discussion and I am surprised that this conduct is allowed.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)has the express goal of banning civilian firearms ownership and has continued to move in that direction, we can't have a legitimate debate on gun control. you guys aren't to be trusted. Some of us find the individual RKBA to be extremely important to living in a free society. It is not the NRA that convinced us of this, it is facts, logic, and history. I still have issues with joining that NRA because I abhor some of their right wing tendencies and the fact that they won't stay exclusively on a gun-rights message. But I find when it comes to gun rights I tend to agree with them a lot more than with people like you who don't think we should have any.
Cary
(11,746 posts)The subject is not the Supreme Court or what it thinks of the Second Amendment.
We need an honest dialogue in this country about how we're going to deal with the violence. If it turns out that the Second Amendment has to be repealed because you all have mucked it up so badly, then so be it. I don't really care what the Supreme Court has said. The Supreme Court has been wrong about many things and there's even a pretty good argument that they have usurped their authority under the Constitution.
And let's face it. You don't really care about the Supreme Court either. You only want to stifle a meaningful dialogue. So who are you crapping?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but neither ideology is interested because it gouges sacred cows esp. when it comes to every day violence. The right doesn't want to deal with:
inequality
residual racism
gangs making money from drug prohibition, and killing each other for market share
The left doesn't want to face the fact that the drug culture fuels the above.
they don't want to deal with the fact that most of our violence is an urban problem, not a rural gun culture problem
Cary
(11,746 posts)I don't see where my lefties don't want to face the drug culture or rural versus urban.
In this particular instance I have not stated whether I am or am not in favor of gun control, other than a facetious thread which some took too seriously. I have stated several times that I don't know whether or not we should have gun control, except that I did point out that we do have some.
Yet somehow, here at DU, I have managed to attract a half dozen or so people whom I have never met. They have clearly made a coordinated attack of some sort as I have since learned that they use the same tactics against others. And as I said, I'm not even for gun control.
I don't know about left or right in this instance but clearly the NRA is out of control in its extreme opposition to all regulation. And clearly there are some severe reactionaries here, perhaps even on someone's payroll.
I assume they are on the right, even if only on this issue. I see nothing as obnoxious as this on the left.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)just calling it as I see it. As I see it, from my experience being a lefty from rural America. Basically, hunters and target shooters are being scapegoated for the problems funded and fueld by the drug culture. Some members of the drug culture, like Randi Rhodes and Bill Maher, don't want to hear it.
The NRA was for and supported much of the current regulations. Things changed. Part of it is that they are extreme. Part of it is simply knowing that "sensible regulation" will not be enough because it will not affect murder and violence rates. Most gun control advocates I found, if not general population, don't have the slightest idea what the current federal gun laws are. For example, here is Thom Hartmann blaming Arizona's gun laws because the ATF could not make a case. He knows that the ATF does not enforce state law, the straw purchasers were violating the Gun Control Act of 1968. I'm sure he knows that feds do not enforce state laws at all. A lot of his information on FF is wrong, but that is a different issue.
PS: Alex Jones is full of shit on this one, if he really said that.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I really haven't seen anyone complaining about sportsmen although I am sure there are extremes on that end as well. It does seem to me that there is some merit in the idea that large capacity ammunition clips are a bad idea. Apparently if this latest whack job's gun hadn't jammed, he would have out gunned the police.
It also seems that this guy fits a familiar profile. There ought to be some better way to track people who amass extraordinary arsenals.
I'm not interested enough in this subject to spend a lot of time researching. My area is advocating for people with special needs and I have enough of a learning curve figuring that out. I would defer to sober thought on the subject, which you seem to me to be displaying. The tactics being deployed here by others are less impressive.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)I know people who own 100 guns. who cares? you can't hold and use more than a few at a time. what's the difference between a person buying/owning 1, 4, or 400?
I love that you are "not interested enough in this subject to spend a lot of time researching." until you are, please stop embarrassing yourself and STFU? you sound like one of those anti-abortion assholes who has NO clue why a woman might want/need a late term abortion, but about guns instead.
Cary
(11,746 posts)BFD.
Stick to the issues. No one cares what you love or don't love. I know I certainly don't and the crap that a lot of you people are throwing around is useless and old.
The relevance is the profile. It appears that the nutbars are loners who hoard weapons and apparently it has to do fear of some sort. The problem isn't people who have a lot of weapons. The problem is with people who are going to go out and shoot up movie theaters.
You don't seem to be worried at all about the problem.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)You're not one of them.
Grow up.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)then we can have a real grown up conversation. mmmkay?
Cary
(11,746 posts)You don't impress me and I have better things to do than tolerate your nonsense.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Although Jones is correct about Operation Northwoods (which never was carried out. JFK told LeMay to shove the plan up his ass.) and Tonkin Gulf, most of the time Jones is some place between Mike Parenti and take your pick on the right. IE, off his rocker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
I said Hartmann was less than honest about his description of FF. He said the problem was ATF could not make a case because Arizona law. Anyone who took high school civics knows the feds do not enforce state laws. The ATF enforces federal laws like Gun Control Act of 1968, which the straw buyers violated. Why federal prosecutors did not do their jobs had nothing to do with Arizona law. That was my point. Most of the details about Wide Receiver and the differences between it and FF were also wrong.
Thom has complained about sportsmen, or gun clubs teaching kids marksmanship and responsible gun safety.
Cary
(11,746 posts)ATF could very well go to a State's Attorney with an investigation. I have no idea whether what Thom is saying here is true or false but it certainly possible that the ATF tried to get Arizona prosecutors to prosecute and it is entirely possible that they refused.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Perhaps so, but Thom did not mention the federal law violations. That was the point. Thom implied, by lying by omission, the straw purchasers violated no law. He was correct that they did not violate Arizona law. What he forgot to mention was that they were violating federal law.
CBS and other not so ideological (AKA mainstream media, liburall media, lamestream media) outlets have been reporting on it. I'm not going to dump a link collection on you. Here is a start.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57461204-10391695/a-primer-on-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/
Cary
(11,746 posts)I have had several conversations with them about how they operate. The conversations are general as I would not want them to tell me anything that they could not lawfully tell me, and I am sure they would not tell me anything that they could not tell me if I wanted them to.
Investigations are confidential. They do leak certain things intentionally and strategically in order to induce people to give them more information. However outside of Justice no one knows anything.
So you do not know anything either. That's how Justice works. It is not unusual and they don't have prosecute. There's actually a name for that, which is prosecutorial discretion. They can choose not to prosecute for any number of reasons but it doesn't mean the person whom they choose not to prosecute is innocent.
Your link doesn't state anything that I didn't already know and it doesn't support your contention that Thom was lying by omission. It seems to me that you're posturing some kind of argument that there is something here beyond what David Frumm aptly called a really dumb right-wing conspiracy theory.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)He said there was no Arizona law against it. True
He did not mention there was a federal law against it. That would leave the impression that what the straw purchasers did was perfectly legal. That is where I was going. What isn't said is as important as what is said.
As far as conspiracy theory goes, mine is the agent in charge who dreamed it up was a fucking moron who should not have a badge. I don't think there is any false flag against the 2A or anything like that. That said, I could picture the Nixon administration doing that. I could picture Cheney being amoral enough to do it. I don't picture anyone in Bush's bright enough to think of a false flag and make it work.
Obama's folks seem too decent.
Cary
(11,746 posts)It's plausible.
And it's pretty disgusting what Darrell Issa has been doing.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Straw buying is still violating Gun Control Act of 1968. It is still a federal crime. He should have mentioned it.
Yeah, but if it were the DEA, Issa wouldn't be doing shit. If it were remotely true, do you think Cummings would do anything? No.
I am a Democrat, I vote for Democrats, but I'm also a cynic. I am a bipartisan cynic. My honest observation is this:
DEA commits crimes and violates peoples rights, Republicans are OK with it. ATF does it, Republicans get pissed off.
If Issa is really on a baseless witch hunt, yes that is awful. What is he really doing? I have no fucking clue. I have not been following it that closely lately.
Cary
(11,746 posts)What's Issa doing? He's throwing shit against the wall.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)might be something real and he can't let a good crisis go to waste. All I care about is if they are true, the agents responsible for dreaming it up no longer have badges, and be extradited to Mexico. The one thing I am certain is that Geithner is happy ATF got moved to to DoJ during the DHS shuffle. I would be.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but this started with CBS, not American Spectator.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I'm not so sure you are a liberal. In fact I kind of doubt it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)here is a whole thread on the subject.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117246555
and you assume too much. I am a liberal, but I'm also cynical of all ideologies. I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that in order to be xx, that you have to blindly accept all of the dogma. I have no tolerance for intellectual dishonesty from the left or the right. I agree with Thom 80 percent of the time. If he says something that is bullshit, I'm going to call him out on it. Simple as that.
If Alex Jones says mentions something that is a documented historical fact (Operation Northwoods, and Gulf of Tonkin incident never really happening) I have to give him credit regardless of what is ideology seems to be. I originally heard those same things being mentioned by Amy Goodman on Pacifica years ago.
If you read the ToS, it says Democrat center to left. Basically, I'm part of the 99 percent who wants to win the class war against the oligarchs.
My FIL was a conservative in many ways. He didn't give a shit either way about the 3Gs. He was also a single issue voter. He always voted Democratic because they seemed to be for single payer or socialized healthcare. That was his issue.
Back to the Fortune article.
Ever deal with whistleblower cases?
ATF whistleblowers name Voth as idiot who dreamed it up. One of those whistleblowers is Dodson, the guy Voth told the writer "is disgruntled employee who whined about working weekends, and he let the guns go." See where I'm going with this? What's that word.......Oh yeah, retaliation. Basically, she accused the whistleblowers of crimes. Not saying the Fortune article is full of shit. I'm saying I'm skeptical and have questions. That is what a critical thinker does.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I said I'm doubting that you're really liberal. Your use of "lamestream media" is a bit odd and frankly your riff on "right-left paradigm" rings a bit of the Ron Paul cult.
ATF agents are not at liberty to disclose information about investigations. You don't seem to understand that basic point. Unless and until something real is discovered, this remains another "conservative" fake scandal IMHO.
I have no problem with you pointing out errors but you have to actually have the goods and so far I don't see any goods. I see some speculation but that doesn't cut it.
Darrell Issa isn't someone I admire or respect. Sure, he could ultimately be vindicated. I will be shocked if that happens.
The Republican Party has been hijacked by the extreme right. I don't quite understand how the moderates have managed to allow themselves to be totally eclipsed but I do hear some that the moderates are starting to let it be known, in private, that they are getting tired of the extremist crap and that they want to actually start doing their jobs. Why they can't stand up and do their jobs now, I don't really know. However, again, I see you making a false equivalence. I am a solid Democrat and at this point I can't see ever voting for a Republican ever again in my life. I am not an ideologue. I tend to be mainstream in my thinking. That is I tend to go with logic and reason wherever that logic and reason will take me. If it ever managed to take me to a "conservative" extreme, then that's where I will go.
And if if Hell ever freezes over...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)Your language just reminded me of that.
The whole practice of sting operations is a little dicey for a number of reasons. I am not sure how I feel about it. There is a balance to be struck here and if it was a well-intentioned effort to curb Mexican drug lords then I have to give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement efforts. I don't expect them to be perfect as that is an unreasonable standard.
I also recognize that there is a balance to be struck between accountability of law enforcement officials and the very real need for secrecy with respect to their investigations. Law enforcement officers have an incredibly difficult job. There is certainly a lot of potential for abuse. I reserve my judgment until I have more evidence than the thin case you have presented. As I said, the source of this inquiry--rank partisan Republican hacks in the form of Darrell Issa--is not an inspiring one.
And finally I cannot see how you fault Thom Hartmann. As I said, his theory is mainstream enough and it is certainly a reasonably objective one. He is not a reporter and makes no effort to claim that he is one. Your criticism of him is grossly unfair, IMHO, given the fact that your version of the possible malfeasance is so full of holes that you could drive a dozen Mack trucks through them.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I think you still miss the point about Hartmann. Enough people do view him as the ultimate truth teller and depend on him to provide that. That kind of puts a higher responsibility. I'm simply saying he should not said it was against federal law. Most people don't have the slightest clue what current federal gun laws are. We had a couple of people who actually thought you could buy machine guns at gun shows under the "gun show loophole". The most common is "I can drive to a gun dealer in the next state", which is also a violation of the Gun Control Act.
Ever see the Brady state score card? If they were completely honest, no state would have a zero, the lowest possible score would be five or six. Unless, of course, there is value to have redundant federal and state laws.
I'm not so sure about the holes in the possible ATF malfeasance or stupidity theory, but that is unrelated what Thom was saying. If he would have said that the Gun Control Act was too broad about what you could do with the guns once you walked out the door, and then mentioned Arizona law, then it would be a valid point.
See the difference? He misrepresented what the laws are, which is a different issue than Voth's or Newell's investigative skills.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)It's your tactics and your strategies.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)I'm afraid that I cannot be accused of having any strategies that I have come up with them. I'm guessing that many of us just happen not to be buying any of what you are spewing. it's pretty easy to agree on that, even with out communicating with one another.
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)other than disagreeing with your "arguments"?
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Here's the FBI stats for murder by type, you tell me if rifles of any type seem to be the problem:
2009 FBI Murder Statistics By Type Of Weapon Used
13,636 total murders
Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%)
Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%)
Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%)
Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%)
Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%)
Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%)
Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%)
Even rifles + shotguns kill less then hands and feet.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)the answer to the question "what do we need to ban to be safe" is always "just this one last thing . . ."
janlyn
(735 posts)I have to agree with another poster on here who said we don't have a gun problem we have a societal problem.
If it was a gun problem then it stands to reason that a society with guns in every household would have an extremely high rate of violent crimes.
And that a society where guns are outlawed would have less...
Switzerland has guns in every household and has one of the lowest violent crimes rate,and yet the U.K. where guns are outlawed has the highest in europe..
I am a liberal,but I am also a realist.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)The assault rifle that the swiss military forces me to keep at home is not really the same as privately owned assault weapons.
There's also other differences, but i'm on my iphone. I posted about guns in Switzerland and gun deaths before - search for that if my perspective is of interest to you.
If not, i'll just repeat: Switzerland is a case in point for tight gun control, well, the lack of dead people is...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)your military rifle is full auto, the "assault weapons" are not. The parts of the US that have the tightest gun controls such as DC, USVI, Chicago, etc. have murder rates that rival countries that also have tight controls like Brazil, Jamaica, and Mexico. Even then, the problem is concentrated in a few neighborhoods within the city. Places, mostly rural, that have the lowest murder rates like El Paso, Vermont, Wyoming, etc. Have the lowest murder rates. El Paso's murder rate is lower than many Canadian cities.
I am not saying loose gun laws save lives or gun laws matter either way. I am saying gun laws are not a factor either way.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)But you are free to do what you want with your semi.automatic aussalt rifles if it is privatly owned, which is the case for such weapons in the US. Not perefectly free to do what you want, of course. But it's yours.
The assault rifle in my closet - granted, full auto - is not mine. It is the governments. They spent hours and days telling me what the consequences will be if ever use that rifle for anything else than what they tell me to do with it.
A couple of years ago, they used to hand out ammo with the guns. They told me that I would go to jail if the ammo was ever opened in a situation short of war. In fact, they told me that if someone entered my apartment and threatened me, I'd still not be allowed to use that ammo and rifle.
They told me that should I ever remove the rifle from my home in order to use it for anything they didn't intend, that I'd spend my life in jail.
Then there's the serial number on that rifle. It leads to a pubic directory in which my name and adress are stored.
They told me that I would be liable for any damage resulting from theft of the rifle from me.
I haven't checked this, but I suspect that way more than 50% of the weapons that Swiss people have at home are of this nature.
What I'm saying is this is absolutely different from privatly possessing a semi-automatic assault rifle in the US. To equate these two forms of gun-ownership is simply deceptive.
This is not an argument that guns kill, or that less guns mean less dead people. This is an argument that the possession of the rifle to which this government forces me is not at all comparable to owning guns privatly, as someone in this thread implied (although I was pretty drunk when reading this thread so I might have misunderstood something).
Angleae
(4,801 posts)They already decided to kill people which would either get them locked away for life or killed.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)He would not have had any ammo for it.
Of course he could have gotten that illegally - which isn't all too easy in Switzerland, though.
All I'm saying is there's a difference - therefore these two forms of keeping guns should not be conflated.
And obviously, in Switzerland, some psychos do respect those rules, as crazy as that sounds. there is gun-related violence here, but the majority of those are not carried out with military weapons. Which is rather noteworthy because most of the people doing these killings could have used their military weapons (at least in those days where ammo was kept as well).
I don't really know what the Swiss example proves. I'm just convinced that the situation here is totally different, something I tried to point out with my posts.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Does it only fire nerf pellets?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Secondly, there's a very narrow range of things I'm allowed to do with it (Self Defense and Hunting are not allowed, for example)
Thirdly, by regulation I should not be able to purchase munition for it in the market (only at designated gun ranges, and only the amount I'm going to expend at the range). This is somewhat of a problem though: Though regulations are active, I actually could find the appropriate ammo. But I think it still would be illegal, as far as they told me.
Further, the rifle is traceable to my name, adress and military file.
I think there's more, but maybe this suffices?
Remember my claims: I did not say that it would be impossible for me to use this rifle in order to massacre a bunch of folks. But it is definitively not the same as buying and therefore owning a private firearm as done in the US, for example.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)which of those restrictions would stop you?
You say you can get ammo if you want it, but it would be illegal. Ok, so is murder.
You aren't allowed to use it for hunting, doesn't apply.
It's traceable to your name: great, such shooters are looking for the notoriety.
Nothing you listed would have done a thing to deter a mentally ill individual from misusing the weapon.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Why does everyone in this thread construe my rebuttal of a false equivilancy as saying that something could have been prevented?
I'm saying that there's a difference between what has been stated to be equivalent in this thread.
I have not said anything further than that. But I can, if that's what everyone here wants from me.
The fact is, I don't know what Switzerland is doing right - but it's something, the statistics speak for themselves.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)just like we can, yes? And you can buy ordinary civilian ammunition (including .223 Remington/5.56x45mm) just as we can.
Americans cannot own automatic weapons without jumping through a *lot* of legal hoops, and the going rate for a civilian-transferable Title 2 assault rifle (M16, actual AK-47) is around $15,000 USD even if one qualifies and obtains the proper paperwork. For the most part, we are limited to the same semiauto-only rifles that Swiss civilians can own, as I understand your laws.
armueller2001
(609 posts)Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc. was quoted in the New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, with what frankly crystallizes the alleged paranoia many of us have for preserving the Second Amendment. "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."
DIANE FEINSTEIN (California Senator, author of "Feinstein Amendment" which became the ’94 gun ban): "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it." (60 Minutes episode, CBS) - What is interesting about this one is that Diane Feinstein has a concealed weapons permit. "one law for thee, another for me". Apparently her life is more important than anyone else's.
Janet Reno - "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
Something to think about next time you hear that "No one is coming to take your guns away, relax.."
alabama_for_obama
(136 posts)thanks for posting this history for all to see.