CNN Leans Towards Gun Control and Its Supporters
CNN indicated its sympathy for gun control on Tuesday with two segments on The Situation Room where sound bites from gun control supporters outnumbered gun rights supporters by a three-to-one margin. During the first report, correspondent Dana Bash stated that Senator Patrick Leahy "supports gun rights," even though the Democrat actually has the opposite record on the issue.
The previous evening, during the 9 pm Eastern hour of Monday's Anderson Cooper 360, the network's senior political analyst, David Gergen, indicated that he supported stricter gun control, in the wake of the attempted assassination on Representative Gabrielle Giffords, during a segment with Tea Party activist Dana Loesch.
GERGEN: ...How is it possible that someone who is this unhinged, when so many people understood that he was in mental deterioration, that he could still walk into a gun store and buy- you know, 9 mm semiautomatic Glock handgun, and also, then carry it concealed? I mean that's- if there's some cultural insanity here, it is the fact that we haven't put a stop to the capacity of these deranged young people to buy guns and then spray at people. It's just unbelievable.
Loesch retorted, "It's not the gun law. It's the fact that he was refused from the military. He made a death threat before, and he had problems and was removed from community college. None of this was reported....The fact that if his behavior had been reported, he would not have been able to purchase a firearm- end of story."
Twenty hours later, 39 minutes into the 5 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday's Situation Room, Bash reported on the efforts in Congress to reinstate the ban on high-capacity magazines for guns. The CNN correspondent played three clips from three staunch advocates of gun control: Senator Frank Lautenberg, former Vice President Al Gore, and Paul Helmke of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The only gun rights supporter she featured was Republican Congressman Mike Rogers. Bash also made her reference to Senator Leahy's supposed position on the issue and played a sound bite from the Vermont Democrat:
BASH (voice-over): Accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner opened fire with a gun using a magazine holding up to 30 bullets before he was tackled while trying to reload. Some Democrats in Congress argue such high-capacity magazines should not be legal and are pushing for a ban.
SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBERG: That enabled him to do the kind of damage that he did. So there is no earthly reason for these weapons to have that kind of bullet capacity.
BASH: In 1994, President Clinton signed an assault weapons ban that did make high-capacity magazines, like the one Loughner allegedly used, illegal. But the ban lapsed in 2004 without much of a fight. Senior Democrats, who had been front and center on gun control, concluded it was bad politics.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: We believe it is time for some common-sense gun safety measures.
BASH: Democratic strategists believe Al Gore and other Democrats lost critical votes in rural America by pushing for stricter gun laws, and are still weary of the issue. Liberal Senator Patrick Leahy supports gun rights.
SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY: Gun control is probably not a winning issue.
BASH: Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is a gun rights supporter, too. In fact, even before Republicans took control of the House, pro-gun forces had gained ground, passing measures like allowing firearms in national parks and in luggage on Amtrak. Still, in the wake of another tragedy, the 2007 shooting spree at Virginia Tech, Congress did act to strengthen reporting requirements for gun background checks. Gun control advocates want to seize the moment again.
PAUL HELMKE, BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: It has directly involved a member of Congress. It involved a congressional staffer who's now dead. It involved a federal judge who's now dead- the 9-year-old who's dead. I think when it hits that close to home, hopefully, the folks on the Hill will wake up.
BASH: But opponents argue high-capacity magazines are already out there, and say banning them is pointless.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS: Bad guys are going to get guns. They're going to get clips. They're going to do bad things, if that's what their intention is. We should not divert our attention from what the real problem was here. We had an individual who has expressed violent intent, who clearly had some mental instability along the way.
According to Project Vote Smart, gun rights groups have consistently given Leahy poor ratings, while pro-gun control groups have given him mediocre ratings over the past decade. As for Senator Reid, a July 3, 2010 report by Manu Raju and Jonathan Allen of The Politico stated that the Nevada Democrat "has a mixed record on guns: His marks from the NRA have ranged from A+ to F over the years, according to Project Vote Smart, and the Gun Owners of America frequently gives him an “F” rating despite his 100 percent score from the group in 2006."
Just before the bottom of the 6 pm Eastern hour, Allan Chernoff's report, which focused on Representative Carolyn McCarthy's proposal to reinstate the ban on high-capacity magazines, bore the same three-to-one ratio between gun control supporters versus gun rights advocates, with all three clips coming from McCarthy, as opposed to only one from Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America:
CHERNOFF (voice-over): As the Tucson tragedy unfolded, New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy flashed back to a shooting on the Long Island Railroad, when a gunman killed her husband, Dennis, and wounded her son Kevin 17 years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN MCCARTHY: When you hear about it, it hits at home and you go back to where you don't want to go.
CHERNOFF: In spite of her pain, McCarthy has no plan to call for a limit on gun sales. Instead, she is proposing a ban on the sale to civilians of so-called extended magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, the type of gun magazine that Jared Loughner allegedly used in Tucson.
CHERNOFF (on-camera): In this particular tragedy, would this have made a difference, the proposal you have?
MCCARTHY: Oh, absolutely. Look at how many bullets he got off, and the majority of those bullets found a way to either kill someone or injure someone.
CHERNOFF (voice-over): Only when Loughner had spent his ammunition and tried to reload were bystanders able to tackle him. But the Gun Owners of America argue, a limit on ammunition a limit on their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
LARRY PRATT, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA: People need large-capacity magazines if they have the misfortune of being in a situation where there is more than one attacker.
CHERNOFF: The National Rifle Association refused to address the issue directly, saying only, 'At this time, anything other than prayers for the victims and their families would be inappropriate.'
McCarthy, aware of the gun lobby's power, expects a huge challenge in getting her limited legislation through Congress, even after the latest horrific tragedy.
CHERNOFF (on-camera): So, you are not confident that this proposal will actually become law?
MCCARTHY: I would say that I'm going to have a battle.
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
What is the purpose
Submitted by One on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:26pm.
Of high capacity magazines? Well, I guess the obvious answer is that they hold more ammo.
My question to gun rights advocates, Do you think any restrictions should be laid upon firearms in our country? Or is a gun a gun a gun?
Shall not be infringed. The
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:22pm.
Shall not be infringed.
The line is drawn, quite simply and logically, where the rights themselves stop. When it comes to owning and carrying, the only true and just barrier exists in the private property arena. That is to say, you have the full capability to refuse to submit to me exercising my right on your property - for that very reason, it is your property. However, there is no Constitutional standing to support you or government stopping me from doing so on my own property or in the public right of way or on property where that is appropriate by permission of the owner of that property. It really is this simple, where you are free to speak, where you are free to pray, where you are free to remain silent, where you are to be free from unjust searches, so too are you free to own and to carry arms.
Remember, the First Amendment is no different than the Second. Rights are rights and we must accept that premise despite the indoctrination that has taken place to the contrary.
Use is a bit more complicated, I concede. Some uses are a right and some are not, this depends on circumstance. A particular use may or may not be a right.
Example: It is my right to shoot you where you stand, but that is not true in all circumstances. It is only true if I am taking that drastic action in order to defend against aggression coming from you. Absent that aggression, such a use is no use at all. Indeed, it would be an abuse of you yourself and the rights which belong to you. It is an abuse that I should no doubt be punished harshly for.
Speaking to you as someone who has been legislatively disarmed as part of a disarmed collective, the state of Illinois, the only people gun control laws affect negatively absent action are lawful people who wouldn't hurt anyone outside self defense in the first place. The only serve as a vehicle to create charges that are pled away anway by those who do commit crims against others.
The preemptive nature of gun control laws may be well intentioned in many cases and they may even originate from an honorable desire to see violence reduced. But like so many other things that look good on paper, kinda like Communism, it presents an epic fail when put into practice.
Proper regulation from government exists in what is a right based use and what is not. It is my experience, and it is my solemn contention, that gun control advocates will be quite surprised by the support they meet from gun rights advocates when the legislative focus is put squarely on this target.
Criminals will always come up with tools to harm people if that is what they intend to do. Gun control laws only serve to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms belonging to those who would never hurt anyone unjustly in the firt place. Laws and their punishments simply must target the people and their actions, not inanimate objects. Only then will they be just and only then will they be successful toward a goal I think so very few would oppose.
What's the purpose
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:19pm.
What's the purpose of 50 round boxes of ammo that you find for sale in gun shops? Well, I guess the obvious answer is that they can sell more ammo.
"Do you think any restrictions should be laid upon firearms in our country?"
No, a gun is like any other tool. It's only as dangerous as the person who uses it. Would you have restriction on, say, hammers? If not, then why? People have killed each other with hammers too, you know.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Tell me what you, One, as a liberal---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:31pm.
think about firearms restrictions, first. That will tell me whether or not a "discussion" with you would be worthwhile, or pointless. MDYou know what I hear, MD?
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:06pm.
Crickets from the recently activated sleeper account, just crickets. If truth be told, One wants all guns confiscated and melted, cuz it's worked out so well in Britain and Australia.
Not to mention, a Sgt in the Toronto PD was killed by a snow plow this morning, Perhaps it's time to confiscate snow plows? At the very least, register them immediately. Oops, never mind, they're already registered, and yet he was killed by one.
Dang
Submitted by One on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:28pm.
You just nailed it!
We're gun owners in my family. But I wonder, did the right to bear arms allow for Americans to possess cannons? Because these days, many legal firearms can inflict destruction that trumps what a big iron ball could do 220 years ago.
And, the referee throws
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:48pm.
the BS flag at One's flagrant illegal procedure. Name the guns, ammo they shoot in grains and calibers, please, ASAP. Don't google firearms, guns, weapons, just let us know what kinds of guns you use.
If the founders had wanted the people to have cannons, they'd probably have said so. They did recognize that an armed citizenry was the protection that the citizens, and Republic needed. Or, in modern times, Jefferson, Washington, Paine and the others would have recognized that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:59pm.
Duh One appears to be a poseur when it comes to weaponry. MDYeah, MD,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:31pm.
apparently, he couldn't even figure out how to enter the required phrases in a google or bing search. Or, horror of horrors, he's a liar.
I own
Submitted by One on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 5:15pm.
6 Super Soakers, 2 cap guns (one rifle, one pistol) from DisneyWorld, and a Red Ryder.
I know it's a bit extreme, but I do feel safer at night knowing I have a full arsenal to protect my family.
Feeling your oats in the new account now are you?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 12:51am.
Let's get the light funny banter going and people will start to get comfortable calling you by the new account name. Distract from the LIE you just told.
1. We're gun owners in my family. --- Upnorth called him out. Admits he lied.
Too bad I couldn't finish your list of lies from before.
Still not getting the Subject line right.
Lied about what?
Submitted by One on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:37am.
Come knocking on my door past 10 pm and see for sure.
We are talking rights here.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:05pm.
We are talking rights -- not relative comparisons. By your logic, the internet and radio would have to be regulated as unfree speech because they have a much greater communicative capacity than a locally-distributed pamphlet. Please stop with the stupid.
Visions and Principles blog
A familiar tone
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:11pm.
One, people own and build cannons even today.
But I will offer you this tidbit to see if it addresses what it is you seek.
"But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." His Honor Antonin Scalia from the Majority decision in the D.C. Versus Heller case.
I take issue directly with your errant use of the word "allow". Government is not allowing us to keep and bear arms. It is not even empowered to do so. Government does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, nor does our having it even depend on the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This enumerated recognition is exactly that, a recognition of something that already exists as part of each and every one of us due to our humanity.
Try framing it this way and see if it makes sense to you. Does government "allow" you to speak or pray? No? Of course not. What these parts of the Constitution do is express plainly that government has no authoriity here, that the will of the majority has no authority here. Please understand, we are not Subjects to be ruled over and allowed. We are Citizens, Freemen, with rights to exercise, or not, as we each see fit based upon our own free will to decide.
Many don't realize that gun ownership made us free.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:40pm.
Those weapons Americans used in our Revolutionary War were equivalent to or better than what the British military had and basically were the personal firearms of those who fought..
We survived by the "gun." We needed weapons to kill for food and to protect our families.
The right to bear and keep arms was a "revolutionary" concept because the weapons of the common man for at least 100 years after the country's founding could be used to overthrow the new government if needed. They were equivalent to what the military had. And during the Civil War the government was in danger of being overthrown.
Times have changed. Basically now firearms are used for protection, but people still hunt and to some families still a deer provides a lot of free meats.
But it is still important to allow for a people to rise up if need be against a tyrannical government.
If you want to possess a cannon go right ahead. Shoot it off during the 4th of July.
Sorry, I Disagree
Submitted by JustAl on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:27am.
The framers of the Constitution lived through the revolution. And they knew full well that a military armed with canon, grenades and perhaps most importantly at that time the bayonet had a huge advantage in the field. If each guy has one shot, and after firing one has a five and half foot club while the other has a five and a half foot club with a two foot knife on the end it isn't an even match.
The Americans had superior tactics, not weapons (until later in the conflict).
And, pointedly, the framers chose not to forbid the citizens from owning canons, grenades or bayonets, nor did they make any case that government could determine what type of arms people "need" anymore than how much free speech the people might "need", nor did they make reference to self defense or hunting as these were universally recognized necessities. It's also interesting to note that they also didn't mention abortion, homosexuality, gambling, drinking, or drugs despite the fact all of these things existed at the time.
The number one reason the 2nd amendment is important is that it gives at least some teeth to the tenth amendment.
Yes, it did.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:46pm.
"We're gun owners in my family. But I wonder, did the right to bear arms allow for Americans to possess cannons?"
Yes, it did. It's just that most individuals couldn't afford a cannon, let alone the power and ammo needed to operate one. (how many people today could afford a modern field artillery gun? They're several million dollars apiece.) They were just too expensive to purchase, maintain, and use by the average citizen. That's why they were usually purchased by towns and cities and not individuals. But, yes, it was allowed.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Those big iron balls 220
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 12:29pm.
Those big iron balls 220 years ago, exploded. They, (meaning some), were packed with black powder.
So no, your premise is incorrect.
The founders intended for the people to be armed as well as the goverment troops were armed. With an armed populus, they intended for it to be a deturrant to goverment intrusion on ones life and business.
What part of "...Shall not be infringed." do you not understand?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Where to start?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:42pm.
1. David Gergen is amazed the shooter could carry the weapon concealed.
Ah, David the guy was on his way to kill people. No law will prevent a law breaker from carrying concealed.
2. David Gergen seems to think that a semi-automatic "sprays" bullets like a can of bug spray, sprays.
Ah, David. One trigger pull, one shot. If you read eyewitness testimony the shooter calmly and deliberately aimed at each victim a shot once directly at them..
3. Regarding Carolyn McCarthy. If other people were allowed to carry concealed on the train car her husband was riding in he might be alive today.
4. It's all Bush's fault. During his administration a ban on high capacity magazines was allowed to expire. Bush's fault. Bush's fault. Geez.....
And they just keep babbling on...
For all you people so concerned about clip sizes and all this other stuff, if the shooter could not get a weapon he could have blown a car or two up in the parking lot. Or drove a car into the crowd. Or become the first suicide belt bomber in the U.S.
What led to those killings was hate and or mental illness. That's what you need to look into fixing.
On the "it's all Bush's fault" thingie
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:16am.
Can we now ,not only expect but DEMAND, the Republicans to parrot the phrase;
"We inherited this mess from the democrats"?
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Excellent
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 9:01am.
Q: Speaker Boehner, why haven't the Republicans done something about this and that?
A: Well, as you know we inherited this mess from the Democrats....
No restrictions
Submitted by Jackrv on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:39pm.
No restriction on guns or magazines.
Someone could have tackled him...
Submitted by gvik on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:54pm.
...while he was reloading. That's only assuming someone would have been brave enough to actually do it. Whether or not he's reloading, most people around are going to be understandably scared half to death, and most likely running for cover. This is real life, not a movie. The hero can die, and they stay that way in real life.
But as we all know, this is just another step they'll try to climb on the way to removing the right to own altogether. Once again, they'll use a complete tragedy to meet their ends. Just amazing.
And that's what happened
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:55pm.
He was tackled while reloading.
And, one of the guys that tackled him was armed.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:03pm.
Betcha won't hear about that in the MSM. He chose brute force instead of using his weapon
"Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073921275131528.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
→ Absolutely
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:08pm.
He recognized the danger of using his own weapon in such crowded quarters.
God bless him, please.
This disconnect is disgusting.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:04pm.
There is now way to rationalize the potential schizophrenia of the prime suspect, if indeed that is his diagnosis. We have only a group of observations from which to draw, but I reiterate: THERE IS NO WAY TO RATIONALIZE SCHIZOPHRENIA. The mainsteam media not only does not recognize this fact. Even after three decades of clinical practice, the level of violence possible from schizophrenics is so staggering that it is one reason that I chose to practice more on the neurology side and less in psychiatry.
Adolescent schizophrenics, particularly males in the late second decade to early third decade, are unpredictable even with aggressive treatment.
It is disgusting to the point of wondering just how much lower the media will stoop to pin this act on anything but the possible detached hallucinations of a lone psychotic.
This is a new ebb.
30 to 40 years ago would schizophrenics be institutionalized?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:24pm.
Until someone decided that would be a bad idea.
Remeber the past
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:34pm.
Its interesting, in the regards to the recent calls for gun restrictions, to remember that, in the not too distant past, most "prominent" citizens carried swords, both for personal defense and as a, well, fashion statement I guess. People used to get into sword fights at the slightest provocation, usually "defending one's honor," and this lead to a lot of deaths and injuries. Yet, despite that history, one that existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, no one called for restricting the right to carry a sword. I guess they understood that personal defense is a right and that right needs to be protected. Even in "modern" times, it was legal for someone in, say New York, to carry a sword, even a concealed sword.
Of course, the sword wielder still had to justify the use of that weapon and would usually face the death penalty if he or she used in in an act of murder as opposed to an act of defense, but the weapon itself was never controversial, just the use of that weapon was. Why is it that the gun, which is just another weapon that can be used for defense or offense, can be used to murder or prevent oneself from being murdered (or raped, or robbed, or attacked), is so controversial these days? It can't be because the gun is more dangerous than a sword, for a sword can kill a LOT of people in a short time in crowded areas, just like a gun, and you don't need to reload it.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan, If they relent to
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:43pm.
CobraMan,
If they relent to the debate being about use, then they will have to admit to the fact that self defense is not only appropriate, but indeed, an inalienable right not subject to the will of the majority.
This is the very thing they want to eliminate, for without the right, and the means, to defend yourself, tyranny is far more easily accomplished. Control is what they seek and any ability to defend against being controlled they aim to destroy.
I wish them luck
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:02pm.
If that is their goal, then I wish them luck (but not good luck.) It doesn't take much to turn saws in swords, hammers in pummels, rakes into pikes. All it takes is the will, the desire, to do so.
The "modern" weapons they wish to reserve for themselves won't help them much in hand to hand combat situations, which is what most combat would be in the city streets here in America. If it comes to Us versus Them, I can guarantee you that they will lose.
Just look at the large riots that have occurred from time to time here in America as an example of what would happen. Who actually "wins" those? How are most riots ended? Is it the well armed police forces who ends those riots with the threat, or application, of force against unarmed yet highly destructive citizens? No, it the rioters themselves who just get tired and go home.
Now, expand that riot to most large cities and arm those rioting citizens with axes, saws, and hammers, and you tell me, who's going to win? Who will be the victor? Will it be the well-armed police and military units who number in the tens of thousands (if they're lucky) per large city, or MILLIONS of well-armed and extremely angry citizens who are rioting in each large city?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Hi-Cap Mags and Assult Weapon Ban BS
Submitted by tomato can on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 4:29am.
The so called Assault Weapon ban DID NOT ban Hi-Cap mags. Only the manufacture and sale to the public of NEW ones were banned. There might have been restrictions on the mags in some parts of the US but out here in the Wild, Wild West, the ones already in circulation were never outlawed. They did become expensive and hard to find as people coveted them. I remember that Bubba Clinton just had to have this law and after congress passed it, he went on vacation for a week. During the time the law sat on his desk, unsigned, Hi-Cap mags where being manufactured by the millions.
The "Assault Weapon ban" did not actually ban many assault weapons either. The requirement was to remove the flash suppressor, bayonet lug, etc., and the same weapon, minus the cosmetic changes continued to be made and sold.
The dishonesty about the Assault Weapon Ban and its consequences are mind boggling.
As a boy (in the 1960s) my Boy Scout Explorer Post built and maintained a cannon and regularly fired it. We were a big hit on the 4th of July. I never went to high school with out a rifle AND a shotgun in the trunk of my can and I wasn't the only one. Funny how no one ever went on a rampage or shot anyone then.
I am a long time lurker at this site. The events of the last few days have motivated me to register and post.
I carry a gun in my pocket too
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:25am.
Mostly because I can always trust the gun to "do the right thing: when called into action.
The cop....? not necessarily the best choice of defensive weapons.....
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Of Course It Didn't
Submitted by JustAl on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:35am.
" The "Assault Weapon ban" did not actually ban many assault weapons either."
Because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". And it was never legal to own an Assautl Rifle without a class three FFL.
OOPS
Submitted by tomato can on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 4:31am.
I kept my fire power in the trunk of my CAR not my can. First post jitters, I guess
If CNN keeps showing how
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 4:38am.
If CNN keeps showing how COMMUNIST they have become then unfortunately, there are going to be a lot more psycho's snapping. Why? Because they are going to realize that their worst fears have come true: the Founding Fathers have lost, freedom has lost and America has lost its soul.
All them wars for nothing. Might has well live in China. That's enough to make anyone snap. Let's pray it never comes to that.
Any time there is a "gun violation" in court
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 7:28am.
The defense attorney needs to ask the DA and all law enforcement that testifies:
"Do you believe that legislated law ever supercedes CONSTITUTIONAL LAW?"
Preferably after requiring them to read aloud the Second Amendment in front of the Jury.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
CNN - WRONG as usual
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 10:16am.
Tomato Can beat me to a major point - the "assault" weapons ban did NOT ban high capacity magazines. It also didn’t ban “assault” weapons (mainly because there was no true definition of an “assault” weapon). It banned weapons that LOOKED mean and dangerous. Functionality had nothing to do with it. Most of the weapons banned were never or rarely used in the commission of a crime, and said weapons weren’t even really banned – they were banned from import or sale, not from ownership prior to the ban taking effect. Bash needs to get a clue. Another point is that HC mags are a convenience, nothing more. They don't increase the firepower of the weapon. And the most inept shooter can change magazines in about 3 seconds. Someone trained and experienced can do so literally in a fraction of a second. So HC mags are not, and never were, a factor.
As for Patrick Leahy supporting gun rights, he said it himself: “Gun control is probably not a winning issue”. He isn’t a gun rights supporter by any means. That’s the only reason dems haven’t been pushing their gun control schemes recently. They found out, painfully, that supporting gun control measures cost them politically. They haven’t changed their minds (for want of a better term). They just put the issue on the back burner, waiting for something like this tragedy in Tucson to happen. Then they come out of the woodwork as they consistently do after any such occurrence i.e. Virginia Tech, 100% backed by the media.
The problem here is what’s being ignored. There were numerous danger signs from this whacko, yet no one spoke to anyone else about their concerns. And the Sheriff’s department, and Dupnik in particular, should be on the carpet answering questions about why this guy was allowed to roam free, let alone purchase a firearm. Yet this Dupnik moron is, time after time, spouting his anti-gun talking points and blaming everyone else, while his department violates Arizona law by not releasing reports on Lougner’s antics, such as police responses and investigations on threats he’s made. In addition, the college either is or isn’t allowed/required to release information on the problems Lougner caused at school and their responses, depending on who is reading the law on release of such information.
Then of course, we have the Goracle himself spewing the (in his mind – again, for want of a better term) winning catch-phrase “common sense gun safety measures”. Or to put it more succinctly, GUN BANS. Gore, Lautenberg, Helmke, and all their ilk have never made any secret that their one and only aim is to ban all firearms from private ownership. Period. Non-negotiable. THAT’S their “common sense gun safety measures”. As it’s always been.
And now we have Carolyn McCarthy proposing reinstatement of the HC magazine ban. She says the HC mag is the reason he got off so many rounds, and that he was tackled while reloading. Or maybe perhaps, it took that long for the ARMED citizen who finally took him down (without using his own weapon BTW) to reach Lougner, and if Lougner had “normal” magazines, he would have been able to reload and fire as many rounds anyway before being stopped. I honestly feel for McCarthy’s loss of her husband and the wounding of her son, but can she explain how banning HC mags would’ve prevented her personal tragedy? Before any consideration is given to such a measure, Ms. McCarthy needs to provide answer to the following – How many crimes were stopped and how many people saved during the 10 years the 1994 ban was in effect? And the same questions posed to ANY proposed ban on firearms, magazines, ammunition, or accessories (i.e. bayonet lugs, attachable pistol stocks, hollow point ammo, large caliber ammo, flash suppressors, etc.). They need to explain, in detail, EXACTLY how their proposed legislation is going to help fight crime and not hurt law abiding citizens. Just like the entire 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban”. How did it help? What crimes did it prevent? Whose lives did it save? How was it, IN ANY WAY, effective?
Finally, there’s Lautenberg’s statement that there is no earthly reason for these weapons to have that kind of bullet capacity. Well Mr. Lautenberg, there’s no earthly reason to NOT have that capacity either. If there IS a valid reason, let’s hear it. Keep in mind, it was Frank Lautenberg who pushed through legislation concerning firearms possession and domestic violence. If someone is convicted of ANY KIND of domestic violence (covering a HUGE variety of actions), they can no longer even touch a gun FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. And this law affects police and military members as well as civilians. Such a conviction can be loud, harsh words between a husband and wife if the spouse presses charges. So Lautenberg has no credibility as far as I’m concerned pertaining to firearms. He has ruined the careers and livelihoods of untold numbers of people because he equates domestic disputes to criminal misuse of firearms. Or at least the potential misuse of firearms. And if this is a valid precept, then why is someone rabidly disruptive in college and who make threats against others not precluded from purchasing or handling a firearm? Wouldn't such actions be even more indicative of a predisposition to harm others than a guy yelling or shoving his wife?
"Gun control advocates want
Submitted by Hoosierboy on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:33am.
"Gun control advocates want to seize the moment again."
That just about says it all. Gun-grabbers will do whatever it takes to use the massacre in Tuscon for their political gain.
Why gun control wont work
Submitted by Sigman on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 12:21pm.
No normal well-intentioned person has any legitimate use for the Internet. Television, radio, books and face-to-face discussion are all a normal person needs. The Internet has allowed criminals and terrorists to organize, devise the means, and acquire the methods of inflicting large-scale crimes from miles away. They have the ability to trigger an attack almost anywhere at any time and with limitless scale, all by just using the Internet. This makes interception and defending against these types of crimes difficult. The WiFi loophole allows anonymous users to access the Internet, and even without this loophole often all that is required is an address and $20. This must be fixed by common sense laws restricting access.
Furthermore, there's no reason a normal citizen should need to carry a connection to the Internet around with them everywhere. This serves no purpose but to allow the carrier a feeling of importance and may be more dangerous to themselves than to others. Being distracted while driving, for instance, causes someone's Internet access device to be used against them, causing an accident that could take a life. If it saves just one life, doesn't it make sense to ban this terrible technology?
And, this close, constant access to the Internet provides someone with the ability to do the harm described anywhere, and might lead to violent outbursts because Internet users are known to have become disconnected from society and often display antisocial behavior. People exhibiting this need have been shown to take disagreements online too seriously, and should not be allowed to carry this catalyst of criminal and anti-social activity around with them. Something has to be done since nobody should have access to this power at any time.
One cannot go a day without hearing of some person becoming the victim of a crime committed by use of the Internet. With that in mind, it's not unreasonable to restrict Internet access in general, and to further limit and license access to individuals who have passed a thorough background check and have been properly trained in it's use. And of course, it should cost a reasonable amount to the user since it's a luxury and there is no real need for it. The amount collected should cover the costs of government administration of the licensing process and pay for law enforcement to police the Internet. The IPTF or Internet Police Taskforce should have total responsibility and be allowed to make arrests, even when based on anonymous tips.
If all this sounds silly when applied to the First Amendment, we need to remind everyone it's equally silly when applied to the Second.
Good Point
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 12:37pm.
And don't forget Sigman, the internet allows people to discuss issues between themselves, something that cannot be done by the use of TV or radio (which BTW, are ALSO unnecessary, since the government can snail-mail any information the public REALLY needs).
Unfortunately, your post isn't far from reality, since the Obamaites are actively trying to gain control of the internet and the public airwaves (re: Internet Neutrality and Fairness Doctrine). So don't go around talking too loudly about this concept (even in jest)...
Yeah,
Submitted by Sigman on Fri, 01/14/2011 - 9:41am.
I guess the last thing they need is instrutions for another bad idea.
glad you liked the my letter
Submitted by andy weaver on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:21pm.
glad you liked the my letter to the editor in the May/June 2009 issue of American Handgunner. the one in the magazine was trimmed down, if you search google I've posted a version that is longer/funner in a number of places.Aw gee.............
Submitted by Patriot II on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 12:49pm.
No.....really? Where the F has this airheaded bastard been?
Those opposed to Second Ammendment are out of touch with reality
Submitted by David K on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 8:26pm.
I wish I could live in the beautiful world you people live in, a world where people are governed by infallible human beings who are incapable of ruling against the will of the people, where Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union were fiction instead of recent history. I wish I lived in your world where evil men willing to maim or kill to take what you possess simply don’t exist. I wish I lived in your world where armed security guards stood on the wall between my family and all who would harm them. I wish I lived in your world where invisible police helicopters follow overhead at all times, ready to respond instantly to any threat against us and our families. I wish I lived in your world where everyone’s happy, safe and content without fear of any form of violence in your lives.
Instead, I live in a world where man, including our elected officials, are still capable of tyranny or other infringement of the rights of the people. I live in a world where evil men are willing to kill or maim to take what they want. I live in a world where that sound in the night is an evil man breaking into someone’s home to commit anything from theft to rape and murder. The question isn’t IF it’s going to happen, the question is when and where it’ll happen. Will it be my house? My mother’s? My Grandmothers? I live in a world where the thirty minutes it takes the police to arrive may mean the lives of my wife, my children and I.
No, in my world I’ve exercised the right to keep and bear arms my founding fathers bestowed us. This right serves as the fire extinguisher under the sink we hope we’ll never use but wouldn’t dare live without. In my world I’ve expanded on that right to protect my family and I. Had my parents not exercised that right when I was a child I wouldn’t be here today. Had I not exercised that right as an adult myself, my family and neighbors may not be alive today after firearms were used to subdue criminals intent on acts of violence.
Until you can build for the rest of us the same beautiful world you all live in please refrain from tampering with the gift of security our founding fathers gave us, the Second Amendment.
David K---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:14pm.
Well said. Welcome aboard. MD