On Friday’s Special Report with Bret Baier, FNC correspondent Shannon Bream informed viewers of a letter written to Attorney General Eric Holder from 65 House Democrats who oppose the Attorney General’s recently expressed wish to "reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons" to try to reduce violence by Mexican drug cartels. Bream further relayed the recommendations of Democratic Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester, both from Montana, that the Obama administration should focus on enforcing current gun laws.
Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Friday, March 27, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC:
BRET BAIER: The Obama administration is looking for ideas on how to reduce the flow of American-made guns across the border and into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. So Attorney General Eric Holder has floated an old idea, but is it winning any support? Correspondent Shannon Bream reports.
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, TAKING OATH OF OFFICE: I, Eric Holder-
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -do solemnly swear-
HOLDER: -do solemnly swear-
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -that I will support and defend-
HOLDER: -that I will support and defend-
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -the Constitution of the United States-
HOLDER: -the Constitution of the United States-
SHANNON BREAM: He took the oath to uphold the Constitution today, but gun rights advocates say they have concerns about Attorney General Eric Holder's commitment to the Second Amendment specifically.
WAYNE LAPIERRE, NRA EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT: I just wish the Attorney General would respect it as opposed to running out now trying to use this tragedy in Mexico as a way to pass some other gun ban on the backs of the American public.
BREAM: It was against the backdrop of the horrific drug cartel violence in Mexico that Holder broached the idea of ramping up gun control here in the U.S.
HOLDER: 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. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.
BREAM: But the administration will have a tough time finding support from its own on Capitol Hill. Sixty-five Democrats on the House side sent Holder a letter saying they will actively oppose his efforts. Quote, "Law-abiding Americans use these guns for all the same reasons they use any other kind of gun – competitive shooting, hunting and defending their homes and families." Across the Hill, Democratic Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester say efforts are better focused on enforcing the gun laws already on the books, writing to Holder, quote, "Under current law, both transferring a firearm to someone knowing that it will be used to commit a violent or drug- trafficking crime as well as possessing a firearm in furtherance of a federal drug trafficking crime are already federal felonies punishable by imprisonment."
LAPIERRE: The truth is, in regard to Mexico, everything these drug cartels are doing is already illegal on both sides of the border. What we need to do is enforce the existing laws on the books and stop it.
BREAM: Senator Dianne Feinstein, author of the original assault weapons ban, says she will likely introduce legislation to reinstate the expired ban, but admits it will be an uphill fight. In Washington, Shannon Bream, Fox News.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why?
March 31, 2009 - 12:03 ET by USAnumber1Who needs an assault rifle for hunting or for protecting your family?
Unless you're trynig to kill about 100 deer or protect your family from the hulk, a regular rifle should be sufficient.
There is no need for more of these weapons to be made, which always end up in the wrong hands
idiocy
March 31, 2009 - 12:35 ET by cjones27This is what irritates me about the liberal anti-gun crowd. They throw around terms like "assault rifle" in order to evoke fear. Then they use that fear to get rid of the 2nd amendment.
An "assault rifle," in the minds of liberals, is any gun that looks scary. If it can accept detachable magazines (like many common deer rifles do), it's potentially subject to this ban. My .30-06 has a detachable magazine, and I use that specifically for hunting. And in all honesty, my father has a pre-ban AR-15 that I would use to go turkey and varmint hunting when I was a teenager.
"Assault rifle" implies in the minds of people a fully automatic weapon that the military would use. Fully automatic weapons and "cop-killing" (as Eric Holder likes to say), or armor-piercing, rounds have been illegal for the general public for quite some time.
The problem with Mexican drug cartels getting the guns is NOT laws. These laws, and our border laws, are not being enforced. Before passing more laws, perhaps we should see how our existing ones work when properly enforced.
poor jones
March 31, 2009 - 13:20 ET by USAnumber1Im so sorry you may be minorly inconvenienced. i know it's real hard to load a rifle without your handy magazine clip, but what's the problem with hunting deer or turkey with a gun not subject to this ban? seems to me you'd be up for the challenge.
theres absolutely no reason why anyone needs one of these guns. you know, theres lots of things id like to have because they are fun, unfortunately we can't always get what we want.
why not just play duckhunt on nintendo if you need to get a thrill out of killing things
A num1, One hunts in order to EAT.
March 31, 2009 - 14:37 ET by upcountrywaterThe idea is to use one bullet to assassinate the un-lucky critter.
Drop that critter right where it is standing, without it making " the last dying screaming noises". A bullet destroys meat, one wants as much meat as possible.
However things go wrong sometimes and you want another round in the chamber as quickly as possible.
Go and boil your nintendo, and eat it.
Me I'd rather have an Elk tenderloin grilled to perfection.
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
greed
March 31, 2009 - 15:03 ET by USAnumber1see, our society has turned in to people who only care about themselves. you dont need to kill an animal to eat. but since it "tastes good", you could care less about killing a living creature.
why is it not ok to shoot a dog in the head and eat him, but its cool to shoot an elk? think about it
greed is good,
March 31, 2009 - 15:32 ET by upcountrywatergreed 1of 6
Elk heards needs to be culled
The reduction is the result of a decade of research and development of
a management plan to cut the number of elk in the park about 70 miles
northwest of Denver. Park officials want to thin the herd because
overgrazing by elk has nearly wiped out aspens and willows, prime
habitat for beavers and birds.
Hunting has been going on for THOUSANDS of years.
Is that your dog RUNNING FREE that just took a dump in my yard?
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
hunting
March 31, 2009 - 15:50 ET by USAnumber1yes, hunting has been going on for thousands of years, but that was for survival. people back then had balls and hunted with their hands and basic tools. the possibility of injury and death was very real for them. people today are wimps. hiding in a bush and shooting something from far away.
grow some balls!
with regards to reducing the population, nature takes care of that on her own. people just want to go out and shoot animals cause its fun and tasty. dont give me this "im doing it for the beavers" stuff.
btw - i have no idea what your last sentence means.
A freezer with 250 lbs of deer and elk IN IT is SURVIVAL
March 31, 2009 - 16:36 ET by upcountrywatergrow some balls!
Spoken by someone who is afraid to slap mosquitoes, LMAOROTF
cave man hunted in gangs, started huge forest fires to scare hundreds of amimals over cliffs, yea that ecological.
Average age of old cave man was 35...I hope to be hunting in my 70's
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
Joy Behar (or should I call
March 31, 2009 - 17:05 ET by SickofLibsJoy Behar (or should I call you "USAnumber1"), shouldn't you be working on a screed for tomorrow's show about now?
Yes, nature takes care of population control, but sometimes it takes several hundred years. Like in the case of whitetail deer in NJ and NY that cause hundreds of car accidents a year, a number of them fatalitites, because the deer population is out of control, even with seasonal hunting.
USA
March 31, 2009 - 23:50 ET by well99You really don’t know what you talking about do you. Have you ever been in the woods except with a Brownie troop? As far as nature taking care of its own. If you prefer animals to starve to death well just shows how pathetic you are. How many times have you tossed bales of hay for deer? None I will bet. Your just another know nothing but talking points yutt. You and the rest of these so called nature freaks would get lost without concrete. Just like those loser so called environmentalist. Don’t know jack but spout a bunch of bs.
→ well99
April 1, 2009 - 00:14 ET by Cool ArrowHe's taken you off on a tangent.
The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.
And I contend it's not a valid angle from which to defend the Amendment.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
CA
April 1, 2009 - 09:33 ET by well99Actually I wasnt defending the second Amendment.Yes I do understand what it is about.It ticks me off that these yutts are trying to tell folks how to live.I gave up hunting after the army.Still some folks where I live using hunting for food to help on the grocery bills.To hear some scut go on about something he/she knows nothing about irritates me.If that isnt acceptable well kick me the flock off the forum.
→ well
April 1, 2009 - 09:38 ET by Cool ArrowI wouldn't kick you off the forum even if it were in my power.
I'm fine with hunting if that is what somebody wants to do. And I'm glad hunters take a humongous role in defending the 2nd Amendment. I just hate it when 2nd Am detractors drag the debate into the area of "who needs an assault rifle to kill defenseless animals?"
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
CA
April 1, 2009 - 10:28 ET by well99Understood.It is lame since most hunters use 30-30s 308 or similar.People against the 2nd amendment rights do bring up Assault rifles but as far as I know automatic weapons are banned.So this "who needs an assault rifle to kill defenseless animals?" is just a crock.Along with all this tree and bunny hugging nonsense.
→ That's right, well
April 1, 2009 - 10:33 ET by Cool ArrowAnd as I've said before, I don't need a fully automatic. I'd just run out of ammo faster.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
CA
April 1, 2009 - 10:55 ET by well99Well 30/30 always worked for me.I really think that expression about the inmates running the asylum is happening now.Too many loose nuts running things.
Uhm, USA?
March 31, 2009 - 13:03 ET by UpNorthWho are you to qualify what I can shoot? I enjoy shooting, from handguns to shotguns to rifles. As was mentioned, my 30-06 has a detachable magazine, which makes it an "assault rifle" in Eric Holder's eyes. My .40 has a high-capacity magazine, which he'll be after next.
There are no qualifiers on a weapon allowed by the second amendment. How would you like it if this came about? H/T to "From my Position". I would have linked to this if I could have
One of the interesting things about Heller v. DC is that the Court, in passing, found there was no problem in requiring that an individual right secured by the Constitution be subjected to a permitting process before being exercised.
So, in light of this ruling, I am asking every politician in the Congress to please introduce the following:
"The Journalism Licensing and Record of Publishing Act of 2009 is introduced to amend the First Amendment by prescribing stringent requirements for license applications, issuance, and renewals. It prohibits a person from publishing an article unless they’ve been issued a license under the new Act, and forces journalists to report directly to the Attorney General regarding plagiarism or change of address. Every five years, journalists have to go through the complete renewal process for each article they publish, and failure to do so authorizes government searches without warrant".
hmmm
March 31, 2009 - 13:11 ET by USAnumber1oh ok, im sorry. you know, i like to shoot bazookas off every now and again too. oh, and i also like trying to pick off the ants in my backyard with grenades. lets make those legal too.
how about trying to hunt things with out using a gun!!!? that's a real challenge.
~Why don't you stop
March 31, 2009 - 13:23 ET by choselife3xLiving in the house you're in now and build one yourself from logs? That's a real challenge.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
come again?
March 31, 2009 - 13:53 ET by USAnumber1im not the one who is complaining about a possible ban on unneccesary guns, so why not offer up the challenges to the folks who need to shoot unarmed animals. i can imagine that must be real difficult
~Hahaha
March 31, 2009 - 14:00 ET by choselife3xfolks who need to shoot unarmed animals.
As opposed to the gun weilding ones?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
exactly
March 31, 2009 - 14:12 ET by USAnumber1now you're hearing me.
by the way, doesn't your profile name say something about choosing life? i guess that doesn't apply to animals. their lives don't count i apparently.
~Fun
March 31, 2009 - 14:28 ET by choselife3xSoooooo..are you saying you're against abortion?
And the fact is, "unarmed animals" is a ridiculous turn of phrase. There aren't any 'armed' animals so a qualifier is unnecessary.
If you want to look at it realistically, animals are 'armed' by nature to a much greater degree than humans. Poor defenceless creatures.....
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
hunt
March 31, 2009 - 14:34 ET by USAnumber1first off, i am against abortion.
secondly, you can not be serious when saying that a deer, just hanging out in the forest, deserves to be shot in the head!!?
If you are truly Pro-Life, you would never take the life of any of God's creatures....Human or animal.
do you agree?
~Question
March 31, 2009 - 14:40 ET by choselife3xtake the life of any of God's creatures.
Since you bring God into it, where did He get those coats of skin He made for Adam and Eve?
Because I am pro-life, I would hunt and kill animals to feed my children if I had to.
Because I am pro-life, I will kill terrorists if I get the chance.
Ever eat meat? Ever squash a mosquito?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
what?
March 31, 2009 - 14:49 ET by USAnumber1theres a big difference between killing for neccesity (feeding and clothing yourself) versus killing for sport.
are you for killing for sport? cause if you are, then youre not pro-life.
i dont eat meat anymore and i dont squash mosquitos. see i actually practice what i preach
~City girl
March 31, 2009 - 14:59 ET by choselife3xNever hunted. If I did it would be for food. Don't sweat the deer hunters, they're doing deer a favor.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
how is killing them, doing
March 31, 2009 - 15:05 ET by USAnumber1how is killing them, doing them a favor?
and how can you be pro-life and ok with people killing animals for sport?
im still waiting for your answer.
~You got my answer
March 31, 2009 - 15:16 ET by choselife3xShot in the head beats starving to death.
Murdering unborn babies=bad.
Killing an animal and eating it=good.
Being pro-life doesn't have a single damn thing to do with animals.
And I don't care about sport hunters. Or sport fishers. Don't give a damn.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
oh so every deer in
March 31, 2009 - 15:26 ET by USAnumber1oh so every deer in starving? i hadn't heard about that.
how can pro life not have anything to do with animals? animals live dont they? i guess youre only pro-life when it suits your needs.
btw - im all for hunting when its for survival
~Wow
March 31, 2009 - 15:31 ET by choselife3xonly pro-life when it suits your needs.
Are you really that asininely obtuse or are you high right now?
I make a distinction between humans and animals. I might be convinced to make an exception in your case though.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
umm, unborn children live also
March 31, 2009 - 15:34 ET by NayDisregarding forces of nature beyond human control, unborn children live also unless a metal instrument comes along to interrupt them. I guess you are only pro-life when it suits your needs.
thats not what i believe.
March 31, 2009 - 15:55 ET by USAnumber1thats not what i believe. you can say im not pro-life all you want, but i dont believe a 2 month old fetus is a living, spiritual being.
i do know that an animal is living, and that killing them is pro-choice
do animals have spirits?
March 31, 2009 - 16:47 ET by NayIs it your belief that animals are living, spiritual beings.
golly gee whiz
March 31, 2009 - 17:02 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonIt is very apparent that there are a lot of things you never heard before.
Here's one that you probably have heard about, but are completely lacking in knowledge of.
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
I know this is a difficult concept, that's why I capitalized the important parts.
If you would like, I can explain the difficult parts for you.
http://gjresult.com
Town & Country
April 1, 2009 - 08:49 ET by nofateEvery time I drive through that insulated, beautiful, well off little bit of a Berkley of the midwest, I get a laugh out of the signs that smugly proclaim that they do not kill deer. They are also overrun with them as many parts of west St. Louis county are.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
USAnumber1 are you really against abortion?
March 31, 2009 - 14:46 ET by NaySorry for doubting you UASnumber1, but this has always been my biggest beef with the "choice" crowd. Minnows spawning under a bridge is enough to stop the progress of new roads but an unborn human child, well, they can just die quietly in a laundry closet if the abortion goes wrong.
beliefs
March 31, 2009 - 14:54 ET by USAnumber1to be honest, i am against abortions after 3 months. i believe the physical body is created first in the womb, and once it is sufficiently ready to accept the spirit (after 3 months), then the spirit descends and the body becomes "alive". i think this is the main difference of opinion with abortion. everyone has different beliefs about when life is first formed. some believe it is created at conception, but others dont.
people who are pro-choice are not against life.
where did this "belief" come from?
March 31, 2009 - 15:08 ET by Nay"i believe the physical body is created first in the womb, and once it is sufficiently ready to accept the spirit (after 3 months), then the spirit descends and the body becomes "alive"."
On just what magic day does the "spirit" you claim appear? And how do you know for sure it is 3 months, what if it is 2 months? What if it is at the point of fertilization? What is your authority for this belief?
religion
March 31, 2009 - 15:31 ET by USAnumber1im an anthroposophist. thats my belief.
christians have their beliefs and i have mine. no persons belief has any more weight than anyone else's. thats what makes it a belief. unfortunatelt some people take one religious book as fact and not others.
there is no "authority" with regards to belief. we are allowed to believe what we want and since there is no proof one way or the other, mine is as valid as anyones.
what if the spirit entered the body at 8 months? would you be against abortion before that?
Rudolf Steiner's idea or yours?
March 31, 2009 - 15:45 ET by NayI am just trying to understand the specific belief that you have that the "spirit" enters the baby at 3 months. It sounds as if you have some basis for that belief and didn't just pull it out of the air.
'unfortunatelt some people take one religious book as fact and not others.'
What is your "authority" then?
numerous
March 31, 2009 - 16:02 ET by USAnumber1i have read numerous books from many different religions and teachings: steiner, blavatsky, bible, qabalah, etc. and have to come to certain conclusions about different things on my own.
do i think its exactly 3 months on the nose? no. but from my readings, i do believe it is around that time period. personally i am against abortion, but i would not be against it in certain circumstances (rape).
i could go on for days about my beliefs, but i dont think many people here want to hear it
numerous
March 31, 2009 - 16:05 ET by USAnumber1i have read numerous books from many different religions and teachings: steiner, blavatsky, bible, qabalah, etc. and have to come to certain conclusions about different things on my own.
do i think its exactly 3 months on the nose? no. but from my readings, i do believe it is around that time period. personally i am against abortion, but i would not be against it in certain circumstances (rape).
i could go on for days about my beliefs, but i dont think many people here want to hear it
your belief is based on your "belief"
March 31, 2009 - 16:21 ET by NayThat was very vague. And a very flimsy place stand while pointing the finger at others to tell them what is wrong with their beliefs. ie gun ownership and hunting. If you believe that your belief is no more valid than the next guys, why should you care what type of gun they own or what animal they shoot with it? As long as they are not shooting at you, what business is it of yours?
Biological fact here sweetie
March 31, 2009 - 17:04 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonLife PRECEDES conception.
It requires a LIVE sperm cell, and a LIVE egg.
Fuss all you want, but that truly is BIOLOGICAL FACT, not some made up claptrap that you are using.
http://gjresult.com
Most people don't believe
April 1, 2009 - 10:13 ET by redmikeMost people don't believe that. The earliest point that we contemplate life existing is at the point of fertilization. Only then do you have a complete set of DNA.
A sperm cell and an egg have no ability to replicate or grow on their own. Even if you believe that life begins before fertilization, you can't possibliy intend that no sperm cells be killed. Several million die even during a successful fertilization.
You like to shoot bazookas
March 31, 2009 - 13:45 ET by SpaceManSpiffYou like to shoot bazookas too?! ME TOO! I love to shoot my bazooka. I have a nice, safe, private area to shoot them in, and nobody has ever gotten hurt! I, too, wish I could get some grenades to kill ants in my yard, but I'm not sure how to do that safely. Maybe if I had a lot of property, and something safe to duck behind....
Of course, the key concepts here are that I use my firearms in a safe and responsible manner. Criminals don't care about anything.
BTW, Bazookas and grenades are Class 3 weapons (destructive devices), and are regulated by the NFA. So-called 'Assault' rifles are Class 2, like any other rifle (which is all they are), also regulated by the NFA.
wow
March 31, 2009 - 13:55 ET by USAnumber1i do have a perfectly safe area to shoot off a bazooka or lob grenades but the damn government makes it so hard to get them.
why are they being so unfair? i just want to destroy life over and over again
Yes, the US Government is
March 31, 2009 - 15:10 ET by SpaceManSpiffYes, the US Government is the problem. Funny how in places in the world with the strictest of gun laws, it's not difficult to get bazookas, RPGs, grenades, or anything else you want. Of course, it's all illegal, but that hardly stops bad people from doing bad things.
If you are a good citizen and not a criminal, and you can fit it into your living room, then it should be legal.
USA, now you're
March 31, 2009 - 16:09 ET by UpNorthbeing an ass, but seeing as how you're a lib, that's par for the course. Didn't care to address the idea that maybe, someday, someone will put restrictions on the First Amendment, that allows you to be an ass in public? Go back and read the quote from "From my Position" and comment. You wouldn't tolerate that, why should any American? So, why should we tolerate you trying to tell us what kind of, and how many, guns we can own?
A bazooka isn't a gun, nor is a hand grenade. And I've hunted with a compound bow, so don't try to throw that smoke screen out. You're just anti. And I don't believe you've ever shot anything, except maybe shooting your mouth off.
Hey USA
April 1, 2009 - 01:27 ET by pagg30An 'Assault rifle' is NOT a Machine Gun!!!!!
What the 1995 gun ban did was redefine what a machine gun is. Do your research. Nobody is using a full auto for hunting. In fact, you can't even use a semi auto if it has more than a five round magazine. This is the exact thing that got the law passed in th efirst place. BTW, the guns banned are used in LESS THAN 1% of gun crimes. The law is a bad joke along with it's author.
Assault Rifles
March 31, 2009 - 12:51 ET by NevadamanThe problem is that you have no idea of what an assault rifle is. It is a weapon designed to be switched from semi-automatic (pull the trigger once, one shot is fired) and full-automatic fire (pull the trigger and multiple rounds are fired). These are weapons designed solely for military use. Since it is illegal for the average citizen of the U.S. to own a fully automatic weapon, these are not "assault rifles." They are merely semi-automatic (remember, one trigger pull, one shot fired) that are styled to look like their big brothers from the military. The styling of the rifle has nothing to do with how it shoots. I personally don't care what a rifle looks like, all I want is for it to shoot straight and hit hard.
Save Nevada! -- Defeat Harry Reid!
Open dire
March 31, 2009 - 13:01 ET by Jack BauerAll I know is that ERIC HOLDER and his latte loving boss are both...
2nd Amendment Assault Weapons
Bulls-Eye Jack... ...and
March 31, 2009 - 16:29 ET by bigtimerBulls-Eye Jack...
...and please throw in DiFi...she has attempted to get this passed year after year, it seems endless with the old communist clueless bag.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Need Has Nothing to Do With It
March 31, 2009 - 13:43 ET by JustAlI don't golf, but I realize it is not my business to tell golfers how many or what type of clubs they "need." Golf clubs are designed to send a ball somewhere, just like a rifle is designed to send a bullet somewhere. Of course golf clubs never made nor kept a nation free. Guns are just as "designed to defend" as they are "designed to kill". News flash, it is not for others to say what a grown American citizen "needs."
Nosey busy bodies who want to impose their world view through the government keep pointing out that no one "needs" this or that sort of gun (or that sort of vehicle, or that big a house, or that sort of spouse) when, in fact, the Constitution does not say anything about hunting or self defense.
Not that many years ago the left hid behind the other part of the 2nd amendment "oh, they meant the National Guard can keep and bare arms," of course now they realize that the wording actually meant that the private citizen should have access to the arms associated with an armed militia. No one is out pushing for legalization of fully automatic weapons over and above those legal with an FFL, no one is pushing to legalize "bazookas" as you talk about, only the left interject such things to camoflauge their intent to make everyone live as they see fit. Maybe if those on the left actually educated themselves about the subject and stopped such childish "what if" scenarios we could all go on about our business.
An infantismal number of crimes have been committed with legally owned guns formerly covered by the so called, "assault weapons ban." And anyone who thinks the Mexican cartels pay inflated US prices for semi-autos, sneak them across Mexico's most patrolled border and then converts them to full auto is using too much said cartel's products.
"of course now they realize
March 31, 2009 - 14:03 ET by USAnumber1"of course now they realize that the wording actually meant that the private citizen should have access to the arms associated with an armed militia."
how do you know what THEY meant when they wrote the 2nd amendment? have a previously undisclosed time machine that the world is unawares of?
all im saying is that if you can get your rifles, then why cant i get a bazooka? it should be covered under the 2nd amendment. of course we realize that there is no reason for anyone to own one, and that they pose a threat. the same exact thing can be said about an assault rifle.
why is it ok for the government to tell me i can't smoke majiuana in the privacy of my home, but they can't tell you to stop purchasing ridiculous weapons. im not harming anyone.
see, its easy to pick and choose where you want the government to intervene.
its hypocrticial
~He admitted it
March 31, 2009 - 14:06 ET by choselife3xHe's a pothead. Explains a lot.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
As a Libertarian, I agree
March 31, 2009 - 14:20 ET by JustAlAs a Libertarian, I agree with you, it's none of the government's business what you do with your body as long as you are an adult IMHO. But one bad law is no excuse for another.
I personally have no objection to your owning a bazooka, swing away buddy, just remember that your freedom ends at the tip of the other guy's nose. I can honestly say that I have never, not even once, said that a new law should be passed to limit the liberty of a fellow law abiding American, you obviously can not make that claim. Those who would deny liberty to others, deserve it not themselves.
We need to draw the line right here, right now, no more errosion of liberty. Otherwise our grandchildren will be debating wheather or not anyone really "needs" a knife with more than a 6" blade, or a spare bedroom, or a second car, or a second TV, or any media other than the state run media.
If you want to see the future of American socialism, just look at England, considering the call to reduce their population by half, our grandkids may also be debating wheathr or not anyone really "needs" a second child, or to live past the age of 35.
change
March 31, 2009 - 14:46 ET by USAnumber1"I can honestly say that I have never, not even once, said that a new law should be passed to limit the liberty of a fellow law abiding American"
well too be honest with you, this does not work in the real world. when slavery was legal, would you have been against the new law outlawing a person the ability to own someone else? that would be a new law taking away someones right to own another person.
200 years from now people will look back and be surprised at some of the things we allow these days. its how its always been, and how it will always be. change is necessary.
now im not saying change always has to be about outlawing something, but in this case no one is taking away anyones right to own a gun. they are just saying that there is absolutely ZERO reason why anyone needs an assault rifle (just like no one needs a grenade). unfortunately, illegal guns kill people ever year and if we can do something abot this (to save lives), then we should/
~Think about it
March 31, 2009 - 14:51 ET by choselife3xMurderers will always find a way to kill people.They were doing it thousands of years before guns were invented. Guns are not the problem.
If you actually looked up the stats, assault weapons are not used by murderers. The weapon of choice is a .38. Someone just posted the stats very recently.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
hmmm
March 31, 2009 - 14:58 ET by USAnumber1try robbing a bank with a knife.
im not talking about weapons of choice. whether its one death a year caused by an illegal assault rifle, thats one too many. they serve no person other than for someone to get their rocks off.
~Nah
March 31, 2009 - 15:08 ET by choselife3xI'd rather use a torch or maybe a piece of paper.
Oh what the heck, I will use a knife.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Whether its one death
March 31, 2009 - 15:18 ET by ladywolfeWhether its one death causes by a knife its too much. Whether its one death caused by a bus its too much. Should we ban those too? Perhaps ban bridges to since people jump off them.
There comes a point where something called personal responsibility comes into effect, sadly personal responsibility is not something the left knows anything about. You kill someone does not matter what you kill em with you go to jail....you don't blame the weapon used by the killer and go after law abiding people.
big difference
March 31, 2009 - 15:38 ET by USAnumber1first off, bridges and knifes actually serve very useful purposes in society. their main function is not to kill and destroy things.
secondly, accidents happen all the time. (for some reason cheney didnt go to jail for shooting someone. guess personal responsibilty doesnt count there). when there are more guns lying around, more accidents are going to happen. that's just a fact. people are dying everyday due to accidental shootings. why? simple because someone wants a bigger, faster, more convenient gun so they can go kill something.
Guns serve a purpose to
March 31, 2009 - 19:24 ET by ladywolfeGuns serve a purpose to keeping your family and property safe and their ultimate purpose and reason why founding fathers created the 2nd amendment to protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic. you don't think there are any domestic emenies? Well besides criminals and terrorists there is a possibility it could mean the government. The founding fathers also thought of this instance in the declaration of independence:
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The people must remain armed as the founding fathers evisioned to protect the nation and uphold the freedoms and rights as laid out in the constitution. It was an armed people who in 1776 tossed off the tyranny of a king 3000 miles away and built the USA and its the armed people who will ultimately ensure that a government by the people, for the people shall never parish from this earth.
ladywolfe... ...Amen! Do
March 31, 2009 - 19:25 ET by bigtimerladywolfe...
...Amen!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
I took
April 1, 2009 - 12:33 ET by UpNorthmore than one bank robbery report, and numerous armed robbery reports, over my career, where the weapon used was a knife. Not to mention homicides and suicides done with a knife.
And FYI, "illegal assault rifle" does not exist right now. Run along now, troll, go hide under the bridge.
Doctors
March 31, 2009 - 15:07 ET by rockemsockem(A)The number of physicians in the U.S. is
700,000.
(B)Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C)Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.)
Now think about this: Guns:
(A)The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
(Yes, that's 80 million)
(B)The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C)The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
(Statistics courtesy of FBI)
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners
Now all we need to do is ban doctors, cars, airplanes, baseball bats, rocks, fire and water. Wrap ourselves in bubble packaging and bury our children in concrete bunkers.
Or we could not be fools and recognize that you cannot protect yourself from everything. CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW. Hence the title "Criminals". I have owned six "assault rifles" for over 10 years. I have yet to kill anyone. The same cannot be said for the average doctor.
Go smoke a fat doobie and think of furry animals. I will do the same; but while sighting in my SKS(w/40 round detatchable clip).
oh lord!
March 31, 2009 - 15:45 ET by USAnumber1why not show me a statistic that compares how many lifes are saved a year by a doctor, and how many by a gun.
as i stated before, the reason why we have other things (like bats, knifes, cars) is because the serve a purpose in out society.
ever stop and think how many crimes wouldnt be committed if the criminal didnt have a gun? guns give people the sense of power that they wouldnt have if yeilding a bat. how many car-jackings do you think there would be without guns. guns give some people the balls to committ acts they normally would not.
~So what you're saying is...
March 31, 2009 - 15:50 ET by choselife3xguns give some people the balls to committ acts they normally would not.
and i dont squash mosquitos.
If you owned a gun you might have the balls to squash mosquitos?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
!!!!
March 31, 2009 - 16:11 ET by USAnumber1hahahahaha
oh my lord! you are too much!
and im sure god created mosquitos just so you could squash them
~Actually
March 31, 2009 - 16:22 ET by choselife3xHe created liberals just so I could squash them.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Choselife, have you noticed....
March 31, 2009 - 17:12 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonLiberals were placed on Earth for normal people to laugh at?
http://gjresult.com
~And terrorists
March 31, 2009 - 17:29 ET by choselife3xAre for target practice.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
LOL...mosquito comment
March 31, 2009 - 17:36 ET by Georgia GirlYou slay me, girl.
please
March 31, 2009 - 16:06 ET by rockemsockemIts time for you to stop spewing stupidity and go do some research. You are starting to sound like a fool.
A.)Go look at crime rates before a state instituted concealed carry laws and after.
B.)Several countries have gun bans. Go and look at their crime rates before the ban and after.
C.)This one is very easy....Please explain how it makes sense that we should take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Also explain why criminals will comply with the gun bans, and not see it as an opportunity to terrorize an unarmed population.
*Don't say that we are talking "assault rifles here"...all outright gun bans start with assault rifles.
Rockem,
March 31, 2009 - 16:15 ET by UpNorthI fear we're wasting our time with this anti. I think he'd be one to fear if guns were outlawed. He's fully capable of telling everyone what they need and don't need, and acting on it. Bet he's an Obamaniac.
hmmmm.
March 31, 2009 - 16:17 ET by USAnumber1why is that all the european countries have a lower murder rate per person than us? very strange accordingly to your logic.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
and no, this is not some liberal website.
now what?
All the
March 31, 2009 - 16:24 ET by UpNorthEuropean countries have a lower murder rate than us? I count 10, that's ten for anyone using a s/n denoting he's a #1, that have higher murder rates than the U.S.
Look Again
March 31, 2009 - 16:33 ET by JustAlRussia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Poland, Georgia, and Bulgaria are all in Europe the last time I checked. And these nations as well as the ones on other continents which rated higher than the US also ALL have much stricter gun control laws.
Statistics can be examined in many ways. The website you reference also points out that burglery is roughly 2X higher in the UK than the US, rape is 2X higher in Canada than the US. But I'm sure the prospect of encountering an armed victim does nothing to keep criminals out of our homes. Just coincidence.
~Now what?
March 31, 2009 - 16:39 ET by choselife3xHow about this
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by
disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an
astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were
restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example,
found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a
population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies
in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many
gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions
"seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are
virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have
guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.
and this
and this
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
"starting" to sound like a fool?
March 31, 2009 - 17:12 ET by SickofLibsThat horse left the barn about 20 posts up.
Poof! All Guns Disappear!
March 31, 2009 - 16:08 ET by JustAlAnd now who ever is the biggest guy with an edged weapon or the biggest gang of guys with edged weapons rule, your country, your town, you. Welcome back to the Dark Ages.
Ever think how many more crimes there would be if criminals knew you had no gun? Here's an idea, put signs up in your car window and front lawn stating that you are proud to be gun free. Get back to us on how it turns out.
Guns definately serve a purpose in our society. America is an alternative to Europe and the rest of the world, it always has been, so rather than working for that "change" you want to make it more like the old world why not just move? I'm not trying to run you out of the country, but I do get tired of every culture being entitled to unquestioned tollerance. . . except mine.
"ever stop and think how
April 1, 2009 - 08:38 ET by NL207"ever stop and think how many crimes wouldnt be committed if the criminal didnt have a gun?"
OK. Tell me how many. Link or slink.
I say these same criminals would simply commit another crime first: They would obtain an illegal gun then commit their other crime. Failing that, I say these criminals would find other means to commit the same or similar crimes even if they didn't obtain an illegal gun.
?? I'm wainting ....
There absolutely IS a reason
April 1, 2009 - 10:21 ET by redmikeThere absolutely IS a reason to own assault rifles and you know it. In fact, the same could be said for fully automatic weapons, vehicular weapons, explosives, etc. It's that pesky 2nd ammendment that gives you the right as part of an organized militia, to defend yourself from your own government. One of the checks and balances required by our form of government is that it needs to fear the governed. Not the other way around.
tose folks down-under
March 31, 2009 - 15:11 ET by JIMMY1660lost the RIGHT to bear arms, and crime went up leaps and bounds. is that what you want? honest Americans-who never have contact with law enforcement will have the firearms taken away, and only bad guys will be armed-do you want that-funny how there are laws against drugs and we have a wa going on along the southern border to control those illegal drugs. Is that what nyou want.?
BHO- POTUS, is a Liar and Socialist
YEPYEP
March 31, 2009 - 15:28 ET by rockemsockemGo check out Great Britians crime rate. Banning weapons has turned out really well for them.
Also, concealed carry. States with concealed carry laws have lower crime rates. See what it has done for Michigan.
Yep gun crimes up like 47%
March 31, 2009 - 15:31 ET by ladywolfeYep gun crimes up like 47% since their handgun ban. Seems criminals did not obey the new law like the left thought they would.
Silly ladywolfe..
March 31, 2009 - 17:31 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. democRATS don't care about lawbreakers. Only in making criminals out of the law-abiding with their Draconian laws.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Well of course the good old
March 31, 2009 - 16:23 ET by bigtimerWell of course the good old boys in Montana are against this bull...they do want to get reelected here...and they will not be if they vote for anything like this... they know it, not enough leftists quite yet in this state for them to pull that off (as they would do if they could, finger in the wind leftists)...not by a long shot!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Trolls
March 31, 2009 - 16:37 ET by GlitchAww, did the little troll have to run back to his handler? This is the problem with these people, they set around all day getting baked and whining about how unfair and awful the world is. Don't worry little hippy troll daddy O will give you your Private Citizen Security Force uniform soon and then you can make al of us bad old hunting meat eating no tinfoil hat wearing conservatives pay. Oh and when you do, I would bring the Bazooka. Your going to need it.
Do not command that which you cannot enforce.
run back to handler?
March 31, 2009 - 17:15 ET by SickofLibsHannah Montana is coming on in 5 minutes!
Pretzel logic
March 31, 2009 - 17:25 ET by CecilNumber1, using your logic, we need immediate legislation ouright banning all motor vehicles, especially those barbaric SUV's, violent movies, violent thoughts, suicidal thoughts, lawn darts and canned spray duster.
Unsalted pretzels
March 31, 2009 - 17:34 ET by Sergeant ROCKNow we're talking! I'm guessing, though, that no progress was made with Jocelyn Elders 'safer guns and safer bullets'?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
daisy in my barrel
March 31, 2009 - 18:37 ET by Cecil"try robbing a bank with a knife.
im not talking about weapons of choice. whether its one death a year caused by an illegal assault rifle, thats one too many. they serve no person other than for someone to get their rocks off."
TO GET MY ROCKS OFF!?!?!? ONE DEATH A YEAR IS TOO MANY?!?
Somehow I think there would be many more gun deaths when only the thugs have them. Thugs, I might add, that would be protected by the system. Ghetto rage and all that psychobabble.
Furthers my argument that radicals dont want gun control for safety, they want CONTROL! AND RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS(CLINGERS) ARE WAY TOO WHITE AND CONSERVATIVE. (it's time to reign in whitey, you know)
"we contend that a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle” - Churchill
Cecil... You hit
March 31, 2009 - 18:40 ET by bigtimerCecil...
You hit the nail dead on the head!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Irrational liberals
March 31, 2009 - 18:43 ET by Sergeant ROCK..thats one too many.
Yeah, this is the same crowd that thinks the prospects of 'one' death resulting from the early release of a convicted murderer is worth the risk.
The difference? One is/was, will continue to be, a ward of the State. The other is the antithesis of that.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ At the risk of
April 1, 2009 - 00:02 ET by Cool ArrowAt the risk of sounding like Andy Rooney, did you ever wonder whyliberals have this stupid idea we defend our 2nd Amendment rights because we like to hunt?
Hunting should not ever be used by either side in a 2nd Amendment debate.
Does it state, "The rights of hunters to feed their families shall not be infringed"?
We know why the Constitution demands our rights as armed citizens is important. The government knows why also.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool, I believe it was
April 1, 2009 - 00:18 ET by JerCool, I believe it was because the NRA and gun advocates began running scare PR campaigns about the anti-gun crowd coming after your "hunting" rifles. And then they started showing deer hunters crouching behind trees weilding AK-47s. [I may be making that last part up.]
Jer
→ I know, Jer
April 1, 2009 - 00:24 ET by Cool ArrowYou may be right. The NRA used hunting as a Red Herring to get gun owners sniffing around for the fox.
But the argument is bogus. And a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its looks, is still just a semi-automatic rifle.
I don't need a totally automatic weapon. If I were under attack, I'm pretty sure I'd do better with a semi.
I don't hunt. It's lots of work and preparation.
But hunting has nothing to do with defending my country and family.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Yeah, Cool, the last time I went hunting,
April 1, 2009 - 00:34 ET by JerYeah, the last time I went hunting, I stood out in a field for about six hours, and was bored stiff--as was everyone else. We finally just started opening up on tin cans, fence posts, old tires, etc. and got drunk.
Jer
→ Been there, Jer
April 1, 2009 - 00:40 ET by Cool ArrowUS Military taught me to shoot. I liked the ease of the M-16.
It's natural I might want an AR-15 for personal defense from a strict familiarity standpoint.
If I were a hunter, I don't think the AR-15 would be my weapon of choice.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Go with the...
April 1, 2009 - 01:41 ET by pagg30AR-10
Well, Cool, I qualified
April 1, 2009 - 14:32 ET by JerWell, Cool, I qualified in basic with the M-14 during the relatively brief era between the M-1 and the AR-15/M16.
The M-14 was an extraordinarily accurate rifle.
Jer
Jer
April 1, 2009 - 16:37 ET by well99Wasnt Roosevelt president then?Teddy..)
I wish TR had been
April 1, 2009 - 16:41 ET by JerI wish TR had been president. He would have gotten us all the way in [Vietnam], or all the way out.
Jer
Jer
April 1, 2009 - 17:12 ET by well99Your right Jer.Like him or not he did not half step.
Ever fire
April 1, 2009 - 18:22 ET by UpNorthit on full-auto, Jer? It was just a tad difficult to hold down on target. I also carried the M-14, and the M-60. Also, got to fire the 90mm recoiless rifle.
Never full-auto with M-14,
April 1, 2009 - 19:13 ET by JerNever full-auto with M-14, UpNorth. However, I was hospitalized for about a week during the latter part of basic, and it is possible there was some brief full-auto training during that absence, but I can't say for sure. Later on, I did some with AR-15.
Jer
Every rifle
April 1, 2009 - 19:25 ET by UpNorthsquad was supposed to have one M-14 with the full-auto selector switch. It was impossible, on full auto, to get the last 4 or 5 rounds in the 20 round mag to anywhere but up, as in straight up. Never got to fire it on full auto until I got to my permanent duty station, not in basic.
Interesting, UpNorth... I
April 1, 2009 - 19:37 ET by JerInteresting, UpNorth...
I guess that's why it never was the multi-arm replacement [M-1, BAR] weapon it was intended to be.
But firing the M-14 on semi-auto, if I could see the target, I could hit it.
Jer
Yeah,
April 2, 2009 - 18:04 ET by UpNorththat's true for me too. That might be why it's still around, with a scope on it, as a sniper rifle. Or as designated marksman's rifle, as the USMC puts it.
2nd Admentment
April 1, 2009 - 07:59 ET by sargex1Here are some of my observations and beliefs regarding the 2nd admendment and life in general.
The second admendment is not about rights granted by the government to the people. It is about god given rights to man kind.
My gun has not killed as many people as Ted Kennedy's car.
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.
Don't tread on me.
There are a lot of people out there that need killin.