« First legislation to ban assault weapons and limit access to all guns will pass today | Main | Setting up the impeachment »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference President prepares to go it alone on gun restrictions:


Hubert H. Humphrey

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Hubert H. Humphrey


Funny about tyranny. We were remarkably complacent during the years following the writing of the Constitution about the tyranny over black people in the South, about tyranny and women, about the tyranny of rape, about the tyranny of intruding in another's privacy, about official tyranny and Gitmo.. Now, somehow, we rail against "tyranny" because some suggest restricting the ownership of military hardware.

Not so funny now is declaration that gun owners'rights outweigh others' safety. Decreasingly funny is the belief coming from the two most recent generations of Americans that rights are absolute and don't even have to meet the requirement of good judgment -- like what kind of gun. "Me want all kinds of guns because Me has rights. Me wants huge magazines and stuff that makes Me feel powerful."

Do I believe that you, Humph, could win against your fictional army at your front door just because you own an AK-47? Nope, I don't. No more than I believe you're Hubert Humphrey. I believe that you've come across a real quote from Humphrey in a 1960 gun magazine, the kind of quote politicians have been putting together (or was put together by a staffie) to stroke a constituency that gets to vote. I bet Humphrey also assured Wisconsin dairy farmers that he loved cheese.

If I were you, I'd hold out for chemical and biological weapons. Now that would keep you from having to worry about a tyrannical government! I'm told you can get some from that famous libertarian and all-round great guy, Bashar-al-Assad.


"Now, somehow, we rail against 'tyranny' because some suggest restricting the ownership of military hardware."

What military hardware are you talking about? Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated for nearly 80 years. Semi-automatic weapons are in no way the same as automatic weapons. You can't get live grenades, live missiles, used artillery pieces, used tanks, used fighters and bombers, or used warships on E-Bay or Amazon.

"Not so funny now is declaration that gun owners' rights outweigh others' safety."

What about the gun owners' safety and property rights? How far do you take the safety of these "others" before you'll declare things have gone too far?

"The realist insists that, yes, Biden will present some really useful findings from his task force's intense research about gun control to the President. These will be much admired, will be put "on the table," and will be found there much later -- scrunched up and by-passed. Republicans will do anything and everything, from the merely obstructive to the openly obscene, to prevent any attempt to make America safer and saner."

Republicans aren't going to prevent anything. Harry Reid won't dare bring up a vote on any "assault weapons" ban or other useless restrictions in order to protect Democrat Senators who are soon to be up for re-election. One of those is one of my Senators, Mark Pryor, who is already in hot water with Arkansas voters for his yes votes on Porkulus, Dodd-Frank, and Obamacare, just as Blanche Lincoln was (and who was voted out of office). It will be Democrat Harry Reid who will be the obstructionist, not Republicans.


Automatic, semi-automatic, available on eBay, not available on eBay, the problem remains. We buy and sell the kinds of weapons that go way beyond what a hunter needs or what a person who feels believes s/he may be threatened needs. The whole point is that the ownership of weapons that can kill dozens in a few seconds should not be considered a legitimate need of Americans. If a civilian has those needs, it could be argued, I think, that s/he suffers from mental illness. Which brings us back to square one.


Newtown, CT hadn't had a murder in years, Connecticut had a "scary 'assault' weapons" ban, and signs indicating the Sandy Hook school was a gun-free zone. Then there were 26 murders. The ban was pointless since the AR-15 used didn't qualify as a "scary 'assault' weapon", and the gun-free zone was an ad for maniacs on the hunt for unprotected human prey. It's a good bet Newtown won't have to deal with another murder, let alone a spree killing, for many more years.

Chicago, IL, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S., had no such killings. Yet there were over 500 murders last year, including dozens of children, where the killer used a gun, mostly illegal handguns. This is an increase from the year before; Chicago has had hundreds of these kinds of murders for many, many years, including scores of children.

In case you hadn't noticed, these kinds of incidents in schools don't occur where there are armed guards or it is known that school employees with CCW licenses are allowed to bring their weapons to school. It's quite obvious the Democrat method of dealing with guns doesn't work, as shown by Newtown and Chicago. In fact, it could be argued that politicians trying to repeatedly implement a failed policy shows, it could be argued, that those politicians suffer from mental illness.


I don't think your arguments work, Steve -- to be honest.


To be honest, I don't think you're listening. You talk about civilians legally owning "military hardware" when they can't, and try to tie them with "scary weapons" you know nothing about. You're a gun grabber, and you don't have any interest in a discussion.


Steve, I've been up close to cholera but I haven't experienced it and hope I never will. In the same way, we've all been closer to AK-47's than we'd like to be though not as close as Adam Lanza, the children -- and perhaps you have been. But inexperience in handling the weapon doesn't disqualify us from deciding whether we think our American community should have ready access to such weapons based only on the supposition that the government is out to get us. To be honest, I'm as worried about that cult as I am about the outlandish weaponry they see as entitlements.

The AK-47 is an "assault" weapon, developed in the USSR for use by the military. Not for the psychologically unstable, the sociopath, or members of a cult of paranoia that's gleefully egged by gun profiteers and their lobbyists.


"In the same way, we've all been closer to AK-47's than we'd like to be though not as close as Adam Lanza, the children -- and perhaps you have been."

Neither Adam Lanza nor the children and adults he murdered were anywhere near an AK-47 or any of its variants in either an automatic or semi-automatic form. Because Lanza didn't use an AK-47 to commit his murders. Which is something you probably already knew, but want to add in more hyperbolic "scary weapons" rhetoric to make your dishonest point. Additionally, the automatic version of the AK-47, by law, hasn't been available to civilians for decades.

Where you will find an illegal AK-47 used to commit murder, the likely place would be an inner-city area by the member of a gang in a neighborhood and/or district run by Democrats. It is also likely the gang is used in a "community organizing" and political re-election role by the Democrats running the neighborhood/district (see here: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/ ).

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

The Scribe

Under the hood

  • BlogBurst.com
Blog powered by Typepad