Sadly, competence is not a requirement for the position of Attorney General, as Obama Attorney General Eric Holder proved
That someone can be so uninformed and hold the position he does boggles the mind.
According to ignorant people—and sadly, this includes our neophyte President and AG Holder—people can walk into a gun show and face an entirely different set of rules than they would elsewhere.
Whether at his storefront location or at a gun show, a gun dealer must follow the exact same federal laws, which include filling out a form 4473, checking for valid ID, and running a FBI background check.
As for assault weapons...
If one was, say, a Constitutional law professor—or even marginally literate—one would note that when the founders created the Bill of Rights and wrote the Second Amendment, they were concerned with making sure that citizens had the right to bear arms suitable for use in the militia. The Second Amendment was not about hunting, nor target shooting, except that those pursuits enhanced the militia's ability to field qualified riflemen for militia service.
Further, what the media and other anti-gun organizations have dubbed "assault weapons" are not actually assault weapons; true AWs are intermediate-caliber, selective-fire weapons, meaning they are capable of automatic fire or single-shots by the manipulation of a selector switch. Contrary to popular belief, automatic weapons, including real assault rifles, have never been illegal in the United States.
The firearms Barack Obama and Eric Holder and their anti-Constitutional friends would like to ban are semi-automatic firearms that look identical to commonly-issued military assault rifles, use the same magazines, and fire the same cartridges. The big difference is that these firearms can only fire one shot per trigger pull, just like every other firearm in America.
Being nearly identical to the M14 battle rifle, M16 assault rifle, and M4 carbines issued to our front-line troops, civilian "assault rifles" are precisely the kind of firearms best suited for militia duty. As such, it is only logical that our Founding Fathers would recognize these firearms as precisely those weapons they sought to protect by their function and utility.
The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to hunt doves or deer. It was not written to protect your right to shoot at paper targets.
The Second Amendment was written so that the militia—codified as all able-bodied men between 17-45—would have ready access to arms suitable for military duty. No firearm in America today fits the definition the Founders intended as well as what Eric Holder and Barack Obama would seek to make illegal.
I suspect, sadly, that they are well aware of this, and they will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of whatever it is that they desire.
1
The Second Amendment was written to protect our country from what nObama and his croneys are trying to do to us now!
Posted by: Rich in KC at February 26, 2009 12:21 PM (siQqy)
2
"I suspect, sadly, that they are well aware of this, and they will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of whatever it is that they desire."
You give them way too much credit.
They are absolutely clueless, or suffer from a mental disorder.
Either way, we're screwed if we don't fight this.
Posted by: EJ Smith at February 26, 2009 01:07 PM (AwOS7)
3
What do Democrats propose to achieve cooperation from criminals?
Posted by: Rick at February 26, 2009 01:41 PM (FWmwx)
4
The Obies are sick of the old rules, even the ones they don't know. Is there any topic, even abortion, that has a greater chance of overturning the Dem House majority than the 2nd Amm? And they are not just tinkering around the edges. They want EVERY Brady Campaign talking point transformed into federal law when possible or policy if not. The Dem legislative majorities rest on a Red to Blue mutation in many districts that is just four years old. Are they so stupid that they think they have been ordained rather than elected? It sure looks that way. These doofs need un-electing and pronto. Your allegedly moderate neighbors are key. They must know of these things. Tell them.
Posted by: megapotamus at February 26, 2009 01:50 PM (LF+qW)
5
"What do Democrats propose to achieve cooperation from criminals?"
expect? Criminals got them where they are today...
And when law abiding citizens are disarmed, criminals will have a field day. Of course criminals will support a ban on weapons, it will affect everyone except them.
Posted by: J.T. Wenting at February 26, 2009 02:33 PM (hrLyN)
6
It's more symbolism over substance. If they pass an unconstitutional law, and a court overturns it, then they can rally the troops to point out the need to get more liberals in the courts. Holder is simply pandering to their base.
Posted by: MrSpkr at February 27, 2009 03:30 PM (bkUsA)
7
I was speaking to someone that deals with HR and this was their response to holder's talk about Race thing- which just underlines his ignorance as an AG!
"And as to AG Holder - the biggest, GIANT thing that jumped out at me about what he said, in regard to "that we should all go into work today and have a frank discussion about race" was HOLY COW! Title 7 (which is actual legislation, something you would think that the AG would know about) specifically prohibits this kind of conversation to be initiated in the workplace, as contributing to a potentially hostile work environment. Although I think it would be interesting to have a frank discussion about race with my friends, I would never, ever broach this as a topic at work. It's illegal. Again, you'd think the AG would know this."
Posted by: Scott at February 27, 2009 06:05 PM (Lj0BN)
8
"Is Eric Holder Too Ignorant to Be Attorney General?"
I'll take that as sarcasm as I consider them to be very intelligent and smart in their political maneuverings. Your surmise that they don't care one wit if the Constitution stands between them and where they want to go is accurate. They'll push right on through, take routes to evade it, or change them, as they do with all the other laws, rules or regulations they don't like. After all, that's writing on paper and they know laws, rules and regulations can't fight back, only other people can.
Just say no.
Posted by: Dusty at February 28, 2009 08:08 AM (4sMx3)
9
May I add a bit of technical information? Words matter, thus have liberals become “progressives.” There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” The term is a cynical and deceptive invention of the gun banners whose internal documents long ago revealed their intention to play on the lack of technical knowledge of the general public by trying to turn every firearm that resembles a machinegun into a machinegun. The correct term is “assault rifle,” which describes a class of shoulder fired, gas operated, detachable box magazine fed rifles and carbines which fire an intermediate rifle cartridge, and which are capable of selective (semiautomatic and fully automatic) fire. Such firearms are not available to the general public, only semiautomatic look-alike versions. The media, never known for their knowledge of firearm technology, to say nothing of honesty where firearm issues are concerned, have gladly played along, often using video of machineguns firing to illustrates stories about semiautomatic firearms. Semiautomatic technology is more than a century old.
The M14, by the way, is part of a class or firearms properly termed battle rifles. These rifles fire a full power rifle cartridge. The first generation of true battle rifles, such as the Springfield, Mauser and Lee-Enfield were bolt action rifles, but those currently in use, such as the M14, FN-FAL or G3 are shoulder fired, semiautomatic, detachable box magazine fed rifles (not carbines). The M1 Garand was something of a transitional weapon between generations. It is the only widely available rifle that fires from a “clip,” the much misused term for “magazine” (pistols also fire from magazines, not “clips”). While a few of these rifles have been produced in fully automatic versions, the overwhelming majority of battle rifles produced and issued have been semiautomatic only because the cartridges are just too powerful, when fired in a standard weight rifle, to be controllable with fully automatic fire. The much larger and heavier guns developed from battle rifles are properly termed light machine guns.
There is also no such thing as “cop killer bullets.” When, more than two decades ago, the gun banners came up with the term (yes, they invented a term, once again, for something that doesn’t exist, just like the “gun show loophole”), their intention was to ban any cartridge capable of penetrating the body armor commonly worn by police officers. This would, of course, encompass virtually all rifle ammunition and some handgun rounds, as well as all truly armor piercing ammunition, which was never the true target of their banning dreams. To thwart them, the NRA worked with Congress to ban actual armor piercing rounds, which ban is still in effect. Only the military and law enforcement may legally possess such specialty ammunition.
It should also be noted the the gun banners did not do this out of respect or fondness for the police. Most police officers (most big city police executives excluded) hate gun banners, and the feeling is mutual. Why? Most cops actually support the Constitution, and when the Brady bunch and their pals invented the cop killer bullet controversy, practical, affordable body armor was becoming commonplace among the police, but that fact wasn’t widely known. By publicizing it, the gun banners informed criminals, who began shooting for the heads of cops. Since then, many officers have died from neck and head wounds. I was a cop back then. Many of my compatriots would have loved to have introduced the gun banners to some “cop killer bullets.” Since the ban of these rare rounds, the number of officers injured or killed by actual armor piercing ammunition remains virtually non-existent. Banning “cop killer bullets” is, and always was, a solution in search of a problem.
So we have an attorney general who is either a gun banner, and thus a liar, who knows nothing about firearm technology, or both. In either case, he, and many members of the Obama administration, seem blissfully willing to violate theirs oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Posted by: MIke at February 28, 2009 12:16 PM (tCJgQ)
10
Great post Mike. But one correction.
"The much larger and heavier guns developed from battle rifles are properly termed light machine guns."
A machine gun firing a "full powered" round would be a medium machine gun. A machine gun firing a round intermediate between "full powered" and pistol rounds would be a light machine gun.
Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2009 08:40 AM (rHW2R)
11
Dear Matt:
Thanks for the compliment on the post, but by light machinegun, I'm referring to weapons such as the BAR, which fires the same, full-sized 30.06 rifle cartridge as the Springfield and the Garand. Similar weapons have been based on the FN-FAL and variants of the Kalashnikov family. Not true general purpose machineguns such as the M-60, they are all attempts, successful to varying degrees, to provide fully automatic capability with full powered rifle cartridges such as the 30.06, .308, even .303 (the Bren Gun) by increasing the weight and general robustness of battle rifle designs to make the weapons reasonably controllable without the weight and bulk of a general purpose machinegun. MPMG's are the weapon class between light machineguns and heavy machineguns such as the venerable Browning M2. The most common American equivalent is the contemporary SAW, or Squad Automatic Weapon, which is one man portable and fires the .223/5.56mm M-16 family round from a belt, a 200 round battle pack or M-16 magazines. It is merely a continuation of development of light machineguns that use the predominant military rifle cartridge, though certainly not a full powered (battle) rifle cartridge.
Posted by: Mike at March 01, 2009 05:10 PM (tCJgQ)
12
The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to hunt doves or deer. It was not written to protect your right to shoot at paper targets.
The Second Amendment was written so that the militia—codified as all able-bodied men between 17-45—would have ready access to arms suitable for military duty.
Sounds as though you'd have no problem with bans on handguns, shotguns, and concealed carry laws which certainly have nothing at all to do with military duty. Sounds good to me.
I'm not as sold though on the idea that being an 17-45 male is the equivalent of being in a well trained militia but that may be an argument for another time.
Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 02:45 AM (jHMRy)
13
"I'm not as sold though on the idea that being an 17-45 male is the equivalent of being in a well trained militia but that may be an argument for another time."
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 178
Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army" to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the second amendment.
Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 12:18 PM (rHW2R)
14
You sorry rebish crackers.....you will never admit that a Black man is smarter than you......that is your problem. You are so ignorant about the truth...you post stupid stuff on these confed....%^())$## web sites. That only stupid people like you read.
An assault rifle is no weapon to be in any man's hand. Then you get upset when your kids are wiped out by one of your nutty brats that you raised with the notion that they are superior to everyone. Grow up....read a book....get understanding....stop being a bigot...white is not right!
Posted by: Auntflossie1 at March 02, 2009 01:41 PM (UYut9)
15
Auntflossie.
The only person I see spreading hate or ignorance on this thread is you.
Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 03:22 PM (rHW2R)
16
And for the record.
This is me. http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss57/Matt0921/Matt3004.jpg
Holy crap, a black man that doesn't agree with Nobama.
Oh and here is my wife.
http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss57/Matt0921/NATASHA.jpg
Yup, thats right. She is of middle eastern background.
Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 03:41 PM (rHW2R)
17
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 178
Thanks for the response and the quotes Matt, Founders intent is certainly key here. To be clear I don't believe either Mason or Lee is saying being an adult male means you are a militia. They are saying the well regulated militias
should include participation from every adult male. Turning 16 or 17 doesn't make one a trained defender of freedom, it makes you eligible.
The Court has been very clear on this, whether I agree or not, and they found an individual right to arms irrespective of the militia wording. I have no problem with that at all, the Court has the final say here and I'm agnostic on the issue.
I was really more curious about the argument that military weapons are the only ones that should be protected under the 2nd, and would love to here from the original author if he thinks pistols etc... lack 2nd amendment protection. It's something I had not heard from a gun supported before.
Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 06:29 PM (GStBc)
18
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tenche Coxe,
Did you miss the part about what they meant by well regulated?
Anyway. I must have read something wrong, because I do not believe anyone said that military type arms should be the only ones protected, because every type of arms can be used to defend yourself against a tyrannical government. Though some are better suited for it than others.
Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 06:41 PM (rHW2R)
19
Hey Matt the point about military arms in from the original post by Confederate Yankee, here is the part I'm referencing:
The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to hunt doves or deer. It was not written to protect your right to shoot at paper targets. The Second Amendment was written so that the militia—codified as all able-bodied men between 17-45—would have ready access to arms suitable for military duty. No firearm in America today fits the definition the Founders intended as well as what Eric Holder and Barack Obama would seek to make illegal.
When I read that it sounds as though he thinks the Founders would rather you and I had access to RPGs than a Glock. Maybe throw in an M1A2 as well.
Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 08:34 PM (GStBc)
20
What is the change promised by the annointed one - easy...a chang ein the constitution.
These people swear to uphold the constitution, they swear on a bible but lie through their teeth.
I see a massive tea party in the works!
Posted by: Patriot61 at March 02, 2009 08:40 PM (6VxJD)
21
Jim,
I didn't define what the Founders would prescribe because I can't get in their heads and wouldn't presume to talk for them, but let's go ahead and do that for fun since that is where you seem to want to take the conversation.
I suspect that if faced with the array of modern weapons systems and the factors of modern life, they would
probably be of a mind that small arms in the form of individual firearms (not crew-served weapons) would probably be the modern equivalent of what they envisioned for the militia.
That would mean either the battle rifles and assault rifles carried by the militia in relatively "pure" forms (which would include selective-fire rifles and what we now classify as SBRs), or the reasonably similar semi-automatic copies that are legal under our present laws. It would also cover most handguns and shotguns that might have practical military application, and certainly long-range rifles, including those chambered in .50 BMG.
I don't honestly know where they would stand on the idea of individually-portable light machine guns such as SAWs like the M249, and rather doubt they'd be huge fans of rocket-assisted anti-tank weapons and 20mm-25mm anti-material cannons.
As for the big stuff--armor, ships, aircraft, etc... clearly not what they had in mine for a militia, and yet a friend of mine legally owns his own Fletcher-class Destroyer (DD-574
John Rodgers), which they probably wouldn't have envisioned either.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2009 09:56 PM (Fe6uK)
22
a friend of mine legally owns his own Fletcher-class Destroyer (DD-574 John Rodgers), which they probably wouldn't have envisioned either.
Awesome, any chance he offers charters?
Thanks for your response, lot's to think about.
Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 10:14 PM (GStBc)
23
Sadly, I can't help you on the charters. It's presently stuck dockside across from a Mexican Naval Base on the Pacific.
And I've already called "dibs" on the next big ship he's going after as well. :-)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2009 10:17 PM (Fe6uK)
24
I can't remember who said it, and I can't seem to find a quote. But essentially one of the framers was asked what arms the people should own. They said those that were not dangerous or unusual. When asked to define dangerous or unusual the framer said something to the effect of. Any weapon a normal soldier would likely be trained to use.
As "normal soldiers" are trained in the use of everything from grenades, and medium and light machine guns, then it is likely that crew serves and what not would be viewed as acceptable.
Posted by: Matt at March 03, 2009 08:54 AM (rHW2R)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
