Cite?
Seems to me his stance on the AWB and his stance on gun control overall was well publicized. To wit (highlighting mine):
Well…the government sees this as a rather big deal. Note the opinion of Michael Hayden…former Director of the CIA and a Bush appointee…as he was leaving his position at the CIA (so no need to play nice with liberals as he was done there anyway):
I think if it is the second greatest national security threat to the US then it is worth taking action on but maybe that’s just me.
Well I didn’t glorify or support Bush’s pissing all over our rights. He was and is a bastard and his administration were all crooks and weasels. I believe in full freedom of speech, full gun rights, legalization of all drugs, complete separation of church and state, legal abortion, gay marriage, and the government OUT OF PEOPLE’S PERSONAL BUSINESS! Punk rock to the end, baby. I know you’re probably not referring to me as part of that group you mentioned, but just to clarify - I HATE THEM.
I just also hate the “Assault Weapons” ban because everything about it, warp and woof, top to bottom, side to side, is completely illogical, moronic, and unreasonable. It was devised by a woman motivated completely by emotion and who knows absolutely nothing about the guns she is trying to legislate away. It’s like if they banned motorcycles because some congresswoman’s idiot son couldn’t handle his CBR and smashed his head open. Screwing a huge segment of totally law abiding people, just because of one person’s stupid idea.
The grenades, armor piercing ammo, LAW rockets, dynamite, etc did not roll out of a gunshow here in the states. Mexico is its own worst enemy when it comes to outfitting its criminals. That stuff is military grade, meaning it came from a military base somewhere, and is not within the scope of the AW Ban. For Holder to link the two is disgraceful. For anyone else to link them shows willful ignorance.
Well, it depends partly on whether the issue in question is one I know anything about from other sources. Generally speaking, although I know that appeal to authority is not a logically impeccable argument, I’m willing to take the opinions of authorities into account when trying to fight my ignorance.
But I think my question here is more along the lines of “why should I allow my opinions on issues involving gun restrictions and public safety be shaped by anonymous ranters on a messageboard rather than by law enforcement professionals?”
I mean, everybody here is pointing out that just because somebody’s a cop doesn’t mean he understands guns. Okay, but just because somebody’s an anonymous bloke on a messageboard doesn’t mean he understands guns either.
No, I don’t want to be closed-minded, and I’m not accusing anybody here of being deceitful. But you’re all coming across as pretty contemptuous and hostile towards people who don’t agree with you on this issue. At the same time, you’re not really giving uninformed readers like me a factual, evidentiary basis for considering your positions more trustworthy than those of the people you’re dissing.
See, this is what I mean about the contempt and hostility, now extending to pre-emptively diss me and my naive inquiries as well as the pro-AWB side of the debate. I certainly would not think to characterize posters here as “gun crazed lunatics”. But you seem to be adopting the stance that if I don’t already agree with you, or immediately agree with you based on your categorical assertions that you know more about guns than cops do, then I must just be prejudiced against your positions and I won’t listen to anything you say anyway.
Oh. Okay then, it looks as though I won’t find the information I’m seeking in this thread, so I’ll look elsewhere. Sorry to take up your time, and thanks for the responses.
Okay.
And Whack-A-Mole, don’t you think the best solution to this problem of drug cartels and violence on the border is to, you know, guard the damn border, instead of not allowing me, in Indiana, to go to MC Sports and purchase an AR-15?
I fail to see how banning “assault weapons” in America is going to deter the Mexican cartels from obtaining them, any more than banning marijuana in America is going to deter me from obtaining it.
Yes. I think these drug cartels probably paid off some Mexican cops or military and got the weapons that way. Because I’ve heard, you know, that, like, the Mexican military and police are a maybe a teeny little bit corrupt.
By the way: the latest version of the proposed “Assault Weapons” ban includes the M1 Carbine. (For those of you who know the difference between an M1 Carbine and an M-16. I know there are a FEW of you here.)
The Civilian Marksmanship Program offers World War II surplus M1 Carbines for sale, most of them at pretty fair prices. I’d advise you to GET THEM NOW before you lose the chance to own this historic weapon, which is on the list of guns to be banned because it has an evil bayonet lug (to facilitate the drive-by bayonetings which have become increasingly problematic on the Mexican border.)
I am not so sure watching Mexico collapse is not a big deal to the US as long as we have guards on the border.
I am also not sure I can buy into the notion that since people can find “X” somewhere else anyway you may as well let them get “X” here. You do your part to plug the holes you can and deal with new ones as they crop up rather than tossing your hands in the air and ignore it.
(Note I am making no comment that the AWB is a useful measure in this case, just arguing about doing something in general.)
I’m not sure why you would consider educating yourself based on message board posts. The SDMB has taught me many things but on matters of public policy I would never take it as the final word.
I specifically avoided giving you much of a factual guide because if you’re really interested in being informed on something, and it is a politically contentious issue, you have to do the leg work yourself. We’ve all seen how these threads go, any cite I give you will be dismissed (if not by you then by someone) as “biased.” So I invite you to do your own research. I’m sure enough of my position that I think someone with an open mind will at least agree with me, after doing research, that semiautomatic weapons are not effective when “sprayed from the hip.”
I quite carefully said “you either are or you aren’t.”
No, you won’t. I’ve seen enough of your posts here to know that anytime someone tries to inform you of something it becomes an endless war of cites that you dissect and reject and/or counter with other cites. If you’re genuinely going at this as someone who wants to be informed–inform yourself. Separate it from the medium of a message board and it’s just intellectual curiosity and you do not have to acknowledge a poster whose political positions may be to your disliking.
I gave you exactly what you wanted in a post last night. A non partisan, pro gun, Cop group along with a piece that discredits, or at least calls to question the intent of the very orgs that you quoted. It further provided a time line and money trail which could further explain why these groups say the things that they do.
Is that not good enough? Did you even read it?
And here I was thinking that all the post-election panic buying was going to subside, and I’d finally be able to get an AR and maybe a FAL at a fair price in a few months, in time for the summer - HA! What a thought. Now all the prices are going to be gouged twice as much. For those of you who care about such things, you’ll see Bushmaster ARs and Century AKs (the bottom of the barrel) for two thousand dollars, and forget about ammo (every online vendor is ALREADY cleaned out of 7.62x39.) I’d say if you want to purchase an evil assault weapon in the next few years, your money is probably better spent bribing a politician in Switzerland and becoming a citizen there.
Then it’d be like saying that we should have an Assault Weapons Ban in America because of all of the violence in Zimbabwe.
Why should WE lose our rights because another country is incapable of policing itself properly?
I am absolutely livid about this.
That’s part of the problem: in my opinion, you shouldn’t need to justify government non-intervention, it should be the default position. The burden of proof should be on the government to prove that their restriction of people’s rights is required.
Once again, the one to make the link was the Mexican Attorney General and others of the Mexican government who are complaining “that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S”. Holder’s response was the equal of my being told in my teen-aged years that she’d really like to go out with me if it wasn’t that she was busy this week-end … and next week-end … and well who knows til when? Yeah, she coulda just told me that I wasn’t her type (her type being maybe a bit less short and nerdy), and Holder could have just said, yeah we got no help for you on that, but sometimes people try to parse things a bit y’know, even if we all know what is being said. Especially when dealing with other governments who have their own faces to save some.
We share a border with Mexico. That alone makes it a MUCH bigger deal to the US. If it was Zimbabwe where Mexico is I imagine we’d care a helluva lot more about Zimbabwe. We also do something like $350 billion of trade with Mexico. They are not insignificant to the US economy. In comparison our net trade with Zimbabwe is around $200 million annually.
And why livid? I noted above Obama stated he supported the AWB. Publicly. I am sure I can find more cites for you on that if you want. Not liking it fine but you are acting like this is some surprise back stab.
I’m not sure why this has to be pointed out, much less repeated ad infinitum. By their logic, the PATRIOT act was a good idea because it might maybe have helped someone somewhere.
Making it harder for me to get a $1000 precision rifle because Mexican cops are corrupt doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.
Pelosi tosses cold water on assault weapon ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.
Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it’s clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
The White House declined to comment on Holder’s remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment.
I know. My intent wasn’t to lump you in with those people, I was simply trying to explain how a significant proportion of the “gun community” (including many vocal elements) has alienated broader segments of the “rights community.” I’m on your side. I believe in the same things, at least the ones you have listed. I oppose the AWB, but think there are more important issues out there right now. If I had to pick (and there should be no reason to make the choice, of course) between federal recognition of gay marriage rights and the AWB, and no federal recognition and no AWB, I’d take the first…
Of course, rights aren’t a zero sum game in that way. And I am certainly not going to cut off my own nose by actively supporting the AWB, even though it doesn’t affect me. It might if it were to ban the M1, because I would like to own one of those some day; but I highly doubt that would pass muster, and might get the whole law struck down.
Holder’s response mentioned that the AW ban might be able to do Mexico some good. This is not true. It is deceitful. Were this to come from a flunky in the O administration, it could be excused as a bit player speaking out of turn. Instead, you have the AGOTUS who has a history of anti-gun, anti-gun owner sentiment under his belt, casually linking the two. Teenage analogies aside, this is not good form and I expect better.