That extra trillion is money the Bush administration hid in their accounting. Obama exposed it, so now he gets the blame for it. Sad, but not unexpected.
I do wish he’d leave gun rights alone, though. It’s wheel-spinning and unnecessarily pisses a lot of people off. I’d rather he just focus directly on the economy.
The U.N. has always been extravagantly anti-gun (considering the strife in certain 3rd World Hell Holes, this is entirely understandable, to a certain degree) and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton (a Bush appointee) did effectively tell the U.N. to pound sand up its ass WRT U.S. Gun Control and the 2nd around the time the AWB was sunsetting.
Dragging other countries into the U.S. Gun Control debate may be the signal of a closer alliance between this Admin. and the U.N. on this issue.
Yup.
IIRC, I called those who didn’t think he’d go after guns “naïve”. The idea that he has better things to do still strikes me as the words of someone who doesn’t understand US politics. Or maybe just someone who isn’t a cynic.
Just being a police officer does not make someone a gun expert. In fact, the typical officer knows as much about firearms as your typical office worker knows about computers. They may know their specific piece, but they are by no means experts. This does not mean no police are gun experts; just that to assume because one wears a uniform, he is more informed on a situation than one who does not is erroneous.
While anecdote does not equal fact, I can provide a first-hand anecdote showing that being a policeman does not equal automatic gun proficiency. A few weeks ago, I attended a local gunshow. Security was provided by off-duty city and county officers. I took a revolver I was looking to sell or trade, and when I handed it to the couple of officers at the check-in table, they turned it around a few times, looking at it.
The one in charge of tying guns to disable them ran a zip tie through one of the cylinders and started to hand it back. I, and a few guys behind me, kind of smirked, but neither officer understood why. I said, “Um, if you’re supposed to make it unusable, that’s not going to work.” He responded, “It’s not?” “No, the cylinder can still cycle.”
He cut the zip tie off, then decided to go through the barrel. He pushed on the cylinder a few times, then I realized he was actually trying to open it. I showed him the release and dropped the cylinder.
As he handed the revolver back to me, he muttered something about, “If it’s not my glock, I don’t really know it.” and the other one nodded and grunted a “yup.”
Knowing that those two are out there makes me fairly confident there are others like them, so no, I’m not really that prone to let them make decisions about my gun ownership.
I get lost in all this. Gun advocates repeat this mantra over and over and seem to take a stance that a gun is a gun is a gun, a bullet is a bullet is a bullet. They are all dangerous and there is nothing particularly special about these “assault weapons” or “cop killer” bullets beyond them looking or sounding a little more scary.
Yet the evidence on the ground in Mexico is that these are highly sought after weapons and being used in drug-related crimes at a level that literally threatens Mexico’s national security AND is deemed to possibly be the United States’ second greatest national security threat just behind Al Qaeda (cite).
So, if a crummy little cheapo pistol is sufficient why bother going for these types of weapons? Why can’t the gun advocates here who are knowledgeable about guns devise meaningful and useful restrictions that make sense and are not just cosmetic?
Personally I cannot help but think the gun advocates stance on this is smoke and mirrors using their greater knowledge of weapons to shout down anyone else by nitpicking this or that regulation as “cosmetic” and makes a gun no more or less dangerous.
I dunno…maybe the drug cartels just want to look badass and have no regard for effectiveness. Somehow I doubt it though.
Nope. Holder is, as the op’s link shows, throwing the Mexican government a bone.
Press conference to announce arrests regarding these drug cartels.
Mexican government is pressing the US to do more on their side about the sophisticated weaponry coming over to Mexico from the US.
Holder’s response to that pressure: Well, like we’ve said,we’d like to do something about that, but y’know, we’ve got other stuff to do right now.
If you want to hear that repetition of established opinions in response to Mexican governmental pressure that the US do something about these weapons on our side as “news” and as a sign that the Obama administration is going to be so idiotic as to waste political capital on a losing battle that would specifically cost him where he is most trying to reach, then go ahead. I’ll stand by my belief that there will be no reintroduction of the AWB any time soon. Obama is no saint and he’s no conservative; but he also is not dumb.
These weapons are sought after because they are cheap. Plus these gangs are using RPGs and armor piercing ammunition from the Mexican military. These are the big ones and they are not getting them from the U.S. I’m sure a couple of pesos in the right hands get them the armaments that they need in house.
What restrictions would you propose? The basic design is: bullet goes in, gun goes bang. It is designed to be dangerous. How do you make it not so?
The drug cartels, from the article, had “150 grenades, 14 cartridges of dynamite, 98 fragmentation grenades” and a light anti tank rocket. Where did those come from? Not from a US gun store. A hint may be available in this quote about armor piercing ammo - “Not available for sale to the general public and are probably coming from the Mexican military”
If Mexico really believes this is a problem, a simple solution would be to cooperate and secure the border. But that’s another thread…
I said, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, that Obama was going to seek a new “Assault Weapons” ban. And you people said, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, that he would never do such a thing, that he has “more important things to worry about,” that gun control is “a losing issue for the Democrats and they’ve abandoned it” (I heard that one over and over again," and that I had absolutely nothing to worry about.
**
I TOLD YOU SO.
I TOLD YOU SO.
I TOLD YOU SO.**
So much for the new administration having “bigger fish to fry,” being “too busy fixing the economy,” et cetera. Those deceitful bastards didn’t waste any time going right after our guns. It hasn’t even been TWO MONTHS with him in office and his administration is already pushing for the new AWB. Christ, I thought they’d at least wait a year or so.
I TOLD YOU SO.
I TOLD YOU SO.
I TOLD YOU SO.
I’m not sure that a crummy little cheap pistol is sufficient, but there certainly exist semi-auto rifles which are not “assault weapons” per the 1994 law but are every bit as sufficient as such “assault weapons”
Ok, so why do Mexican gangsters prefer “assault weapons”? Well, I can think of two reasons.
First, the phrase “assault weapon” is ambiguous. It can mean actual select fire military weapons. It can also mean the weapons referred to in the 1994 law. It’s possible that the article was using the phrase “assault weapon” in the former sense and not the latter sense.
Second, it’s almost certain that Mexican gangsters – like gangsters everywhere – prefer guns which are black and scary looking.
Let’s go back to the car analogy. Consider the Subaru Legacy. It’s a quality sedan; not outrageously expensive; decent gas mileage; with standard four wheel drive. An excellent family car; the choice of many Americans; and perfectly good for use smuggling drugs or weapons.
So why do gangsters prefer to drive black SUV’s and BMWs? Most likely it’s the same reason anyone else chooses a car, because they think it’s prestigious and/or looks cool. I doubt anyone would seriously argue that a black SUV or a BMW inherently more dangerous than a Subaru in terms of smuggling contraband.
I can think of meaningful restrictions, but I’m not sure that they would be useful. For example, a ban on handguns would arguably be meaningful, since handguns are much more easily concealed than rifles or shotguns. Putting aside the fact that such a ban would probably be unconstitutional, I doubt it would be useful in the sense of significantly reducing crime.
The trouble is, Argent Towers, there are many of us who are pro-gun rights, but don’t really give a shit about the AWB. I know it’s a bad law, but I can’t get massively worked up about it. And part of the reason for that (totally irrational I know) is that many of the people who are screaming loudest against the AWB stood by and watched the rest of the Bill of Rights get pissed on for the last eight years and said nothing.
And I thought the Obama campaign always said there would be a new AWB. How does that make them “deceitful bastards”?
(Shakes head in disbelief)
Cop killer bullets? COP KILLER BULLETS? What the fuck is a cop killer bullet? A bullet that can go through body armor? A .30-06 is a cop killer bullet then. A .308, too. Are they going to ban two of the most popular deer hunting cartridges in the United States?
Deceitful, lying, back stabbing snakes.
Obama lied through his teeth saying that he was a friend of gun owners and that we had nothing to worry about with him coming into office. Right. And I have ocean-front property in Indiana that I’ll sell you. I knew this was going to happen…I knew it, I told you here that it was going to happen, and I was called a chicken-little, paranoid, et cetera…I was told that he’d have “bigger fish to fry” and that he’d be “too busy with the economy” and that “gun control is a loser issue and the Democrats won’t push for it after the '94 ‘lesson’ they learned, etc, etc.” and now just look.
ETA - they’re deceitful bastards because they removed the statement about the AWB from their website as soon as it became a talked-about issue.
To Kimstu, do you generally allow your opinions on issues to be shaped over the degree to which law enforcement agrees with it?
What is your opinion on drug legalization? I’ll say this, I do not recall a single time on these forums in which a liberal argued against drug legalization with the underpinning of their argument being “the police are against it.”
In any case, that’s not really the point, is it? Either an assault weapons ban is good policy or it isn’t. I wouldn’t expect someone to make that evaluation based on the opinion of pro-gun activists or the opinion of police officers. While I respect police officers their job is on the enforcement end, when it comes to making law they hold no greater weight with me than any ordinary citizen.
I can see them holding greater weight in areas in which their profession gives them unique expertise. But quite honestly statistical analysis of whether or not the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban aids law enforcement isn’t really something that is covered by a police officer or even a police chief’s job description. About crime and such on a statistical level I think I’d rather hear from a sociologist than a police officer, cops function on the individual level and they understand anecdote and the plural of anecdote, they aren’t statisticians.
However consider this: You’re either someone who is more or less predisposed towards opposition to gun ownership or you aren’t; if you are then you’ve probably not gone into this issue with an open mind and you have already mentally dismissed opposition to the assault weapons ban as the ravings of a bunch of gun crazed lunatics that lust after machine guns and bazookas. If you are genuinely someone with an open mind then at least have the common courtesy to read about the M16A2 or its civilian model the AR-15 and I think you will quickly realize that it is accepted fact that these weapons are not designed to be “sprayed from the hip.”
I was in the United States Army for twenty years, the M16 and later the M16A2 were the standard issue infantryman’s rifle for all of this time. Not once in my career was I ever presented with a soldier who thought it appropriate to fire this weapon from the hip. While the original M16 had fully automatic fire the Army learned in Vietnam that this was not desirable, the M16A2 (the current iteration in widest use by the United States Army) fires in three round bursts, it does not fire in full auto. The general philosophy in the United States military is to train riflemen who know how to aim and hit a target. The M16/AR-15 is a rifle, it is designed to be aimed at the enemy and fired with purpose and accuracy. It is ineffective if fired any other way. There are situations in which it is desirable to lay down a large volume of fire in a short period of time. The United States Army uses other weapons for that task, such as the M249 (a weapon that is purpose-designed to fire a high volume of rounds while also being portable, and a weapon that the assault weapons ban does not impact at all–these weapons were already regulated to a far greater degree.)
Prior to the doctrine of assigning high-volume weapons to an individual member of a squad we had to rely on the fully automatic mode of the M16 and assign specific members of the squad to attempt suppressive fire in this manner. The problem is this is a huge waste of ammo, it is inaccurate, and it is quite simply using the wrong tool for the job. Semiautomatic (essentially one trigger pull = one bullet fired) is the preferred method of engaging the enemy for a rifleman.
Do some honest research on the M16 and its variants (including the AR-15) and I think you will have to at least concede that any person who claims weapons of that nature are best designed for “hip-fire” are grossly misinformed. Further, keep in mind that the only type of firearm that I could ever see being effective when “sprayed” is a fully automatic firearm with the capability of sustaining that rate of fire over a long period of time. Note that such weapons are generally not very mobile and would not fit anyone’s definition of “assault weapon” (and I’ll echo an earlier poster who found this term ill defined), these are weapons that are belt-fed and usually operate from a fixed position–not very useful in an assault but definitely useful defensively and as a means of laying down suppressive fire.
The real world is not a video game and in general even fully automatic weapons, even actual honest-to-god machine guns (a type of weapon that has been regulated since the 1930s) are most effective when fired with some level of general accuracy. There aren’t really any weapons which are best used in a mindless spraying motion.
The “sprayed from the hip” shit is the brainchild (if you can legitimately call the originator of such a completely idiotic phrase a brain) of Carolyn McCarthy, who DOESN’T KNOW A GODDAMN THING ABOUT GUNS in any way shape or form. And they’re using that misinformation as the basis for legislation that is going to affect the whole country.
villa, it sounds to me as if you are exactly the same as those people that said nothing for the past 8 years. At least you recognize that you are irrational so I don’t have to read the new rules to find out if I can call you that.
But what about people like me who started stocking up when the Patriot fiasco was passed? Dubya screwed us for eight years and BO is going to screw us for at least four more. So that makes any of it ok?
Partisans who stand aside and cheer the destruction of our rights one time and complain about it another are a large part of the reason I spit on the Democrats and Republicans. If you’re seeking revenge for 8 years of Dubya by gleefully shooting your own foot off, well I’m pretty sure I’d get banned for expressing my opinion of that.
That’s a good point. It’s hard to imagine that any reasonable person could seriously believe that enacting gun controls in the US would have any impact whatsoever on the weapons available to drug gangs in Mexico.
Also, of all the possible rationales that I pondered the Obama administration coming up with to justify the AWB that I KNEW they were going to enact as soon as they were able to, this Mexico shit has got to be the stupidest possible one.
I thought maybe there was going to be more crime because of the shitty economy and they would use that as their justification. Or maybe there would be high profile mass-shooting at a college, as seems to be unfortunately more and more common nowadays, and they’d use THAT as the justification.
But MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS?
THAT is their reason why I cannot go to MC Sports in Indiana and purchase an AR-15?
I said this was going to happen (and nobody believed me.) But I never thought it would play out in such an unbelievably ridiculous way.
I don’t support the AWB, though I think it is probably constitutional, though misguided. I admitted the “fuck you” feeling was irrational. I think there are bigger fish to fry, and I think certain elements of the gun rights community has undermined any potential support there might be from other pro-rights elements.
As for exactly the same - not at all. While I am not going to take to the streets to oppose the AWB, I certainly oppose it. Unlike the people to whom I am refering, who actively supported and glorified in the desecration of other constitutionally protected rights.
OMG!
An Obama spokesman responded to a Mexican official asking the US to do something about weapons coming from the US by repeating Obama’s established positions on the subject and explicitly saying that we won’t be getting to it anytime soon cause we “obviously” got bigger fish to fry! That’s it! Guns are being collected by the Feds tomorrow! You knew it! YOU TOLD US SO!
SDMB does not contain enough rolleyes.
An AWB should not be motivated by the Mexico border. The border is a huge mess of weapons, drugs, kidnappings, and illegal immigrants. If we can’t secure that border, we have larger problems than assault weapons.