Dem Senator Mark Begich: I’m “not interested” in a new assault-weapons ban

posted at 7:31 pm on January 11, 2013 by Allahpundit

No surprise that a pol from Alaska won’t touch guns, but in case you’re one of three people left in America who still thinks there’s a chance a new AWB will pass this year, let a highly vulnerable red-state Democrat who’s up for reelection put your mind at ease.

Asked which gun control measures he would support, Begich said, “I’m not supporting anything at this point, and I want to see what those recommendations are.”

Begich continued, “We have to be very careful that we don’t jump to the clamor of emotion. … I don’t believe that we just need to pile on new laws and suddenly that solves all the problems.”…

Responding to another question about whether he would support a renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which outlawed the manufacture of several types of semiautomatic firearms for civilian use from 1994 to 2004, Begich said he is “not interested.”

Other red-state Democrats up for reelection: Mary Landrieu, Max Baucus, Tim Johnson, Kay Hagan, and Mark Pryor. Landrieu and Baucus voted no when the last AWB came up for renewal in 2004, and although Pryor voted yes, Arkansas wasn’t quite as red then as it is now. There’s no chance Reid will get to 60 in the Senate for a new ban; there’s a very slim chance that he won’t even get to 50. If you’re Pryor and you’re facing a tough campaign on unfavorable terrain, what’s your incentive for voting for a new AWB that hasn’t a prayer of passing?

And before you ask, no, the RINOs likely aren’t going to come to Obama’s rescue either. The other senator from Alaska sounds unsurprisingly chilly to new gun regulations too:

“I have a real hard time with this. We’re talking about the Second Amendment,” Murkowski continued. “A Second Amendment right in my view cannot be trumped, in my view, with an executive order so I’m not quite sure where the vice president’s coming from on this. I’ve suggested that — well, look, if what you’re talking about here is greater enforcement of existing laws, OK, let’s talk about that, but if through executive order you put a limitation or restriction through my executive rights or your executive rights, that’s wrong, we do not allow that to happen.”…

“As far as Sen. Feinstein’s proposal, again, we haven’t seen that actual legislative text,” Murkowki’s said. “I’ve heard enough of what she’s proposing to have very real concerns. The things that she is talking about would, in my view, demonize those of us who lawfully own, respect firearms without solving the problem.”

The NYT published a piece last night gently warning the congregation to lower its expectations for a new AWB. That also explains Biden’s conspicuous omission of the ban yesterday when rattling off gun-control measures on which he senses a consensus developing. (Even some Republicans have sounded their approval for more limited regulations, like a ban on high-capacity magazines.) Makes me wonder if Obama and Reid will dare disappoint their base by failing to even push for a Senate vote on Feinstein’s bill or whether they feel obliged to go forward in hopes of blaming everything on the GOP when it fails. That depends, I suppose, on whether they can convince Landrieu et al. to vote yes full in the knowledge that the ban won’t pass. If they can’t, then what’s to be gained from a tough floor vote in which the bill fails due to bipartisan opposition? It’ll damage the “GOP obstruction” talking point. Better to not offer the bill at all and have Obama and Reid issue statements that it’s pointless to proceed knowing that those damned Republicans would filibuster it and break America’s heart again. But I don’t know — maybe that wouldn’t be good enough to satisfy the left. If you believe Andrea Mitchell, O’s “absolutely committed” to pushing for a new AWB and it’ll definitely be in the Biden task force’s recommendations on Tuesday.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

The power of the telephone.

Not that it will matter, Bark will simply find a way to bypass Congress, make bullets impossible to get or something.

As Patton once said: “I’d trust a Nazi before I’d trust an American liberal.”

Bishop on January 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Executive Order(s).

Worked for all the other tyrants in recent history.

Sieg — Heil!

SD Tom on January 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM

(Even some Republicans have sounded their approval for more limited regulations, like a ban on high-capacity magazines.)

Translated=more regulations

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Any kind of statement these ‘fine’ people put out in the next few weeks is pure pandering.

Let’s see how he votes if something does come up..

BigWyo on January 11, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Not that it will matter, Bark will simply find a way to bypass Congress, make bullets impossible to get or something.

Bishop on January 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM

And watch as black-market bullet production in dark alleyways and in the Kentucky countryside goes through the roof.

Myron Falwell on January 11, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Of course Barry is committed to a new AWB. He is The Chosen One. He knows what’s best for all. He has a ‘mandate’ to cure all the ills of the nation. He IS the Obamassiah!

GarandFan on January 11, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Reid hasn’t brought up a budget in four years despite being constitutionally required to do so. Yet he’s willing to bring up legislation that violates the Bill of Rights. ..and he’s encouraging the executive to usurp legislative authority in the debt ceiling issue. What a turned around world we live in.

AZfederalist on January 11, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Any kind of statement these ‘fine’ people put out in the next few weeks is pure pandering.

Let’s see how he votes if something does come up..

BigWyo on January 11, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Yup.

Plus many of them will run for reelection under the guise that we are too stupid to tell the difference… or that the opposition puts forth candidates like Achin’ … or both.

Myron Falwell on January 11, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Makes me wonder if Obama and Reid will dare disappoint their base by failing to even push for a Senate vote on Feinstein’s bill or whether they feel obliged to go forward in hopes of blaming everything on the GOP when it fails.

LOL…tell ‘em they can blame me! Since I’ve got two testicles…I’m one up on entire GOP leadership.

I’ll be HAPPY to let all Americans know who protected their rights.

Tim_CA on January 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Of course Barry is committed to a new AWB. He is The Chosen One. He knows what’s best for all. He has a ‘mandate’ to cure all the ills of the nation. He IS the Obamassiah!

GarandFan on January 11, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Lest we forget Bloomberg the Baptist… or the Apostle Cuomo.

Myron Falwell on January 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM

I’m betting there’s at least an even chance of banning private gun sales this year, though it won’t make any difference to gun crime rates.

Socratease on January 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Legislation inspired by emotion–eff the facts–the Democratic way…

hillsoftx on January 11, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Even some Republicans have sounded their approval for more limited regulations, like a ban on high-capacity magazines.

Limited regulations? That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Sort of like being “slightly pregnant”.

Mo_mac on January 11, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Myron Falwell on January 11, 2013 at 7:43 PM

I got enough brass, powder, caps and bullets to reload about 5,000 rounds. Several pals who reload have about the same.

Heh. In a couple of years you can bring me your brass and I’ll fill em’ up for $15 a cartridge!

BacaDog on January 11, 2013 at 7:51 PM

If you believe Andrea Mitchell, O’s “absolutely committed” to pushing for a new AWB and it’ll definitely be in the Biden task force’s recommendations on Tuesday.

You’d think the stooge would wake up and realize he’s being played by the stooge-in-chief.

Tim_CA on January 11, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Dem Senator Mark Begich: I’m “not interested” in a new assault-weapons ban

We are not voting for health care if we do not resolve this language on public funding for abortion – no public funding for abortion. – Bart Stupak

federally subsidized health-care plans offered on state exchanges under Obamacare will not only be allowed to offer abortions, people who buy those plans will be specifically required to pay a fee to underwrite abortions specifically.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/stupak-no-regrets-obamacare-contraception-mandate-violates-freedom-religion

Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, said he has “no regrets” in casting what was effectively the decisive voted in enacting Obamacare in 2010.

He’s a Democrat and party comes before principles.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 7:52 PM

When I see such a down-turned mouth picture of Obama, I think of this “Il Douc#e” pic:
http://www.goldismoney2.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7840&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1305049305

Paul-Cincy on January 11, 2013 at 7:52 PM

well, look, if what you’re talking about here is greater enforcement of existing laws, OK, let’s talk about that, but if through executive order you put a limitation or restriction through my executive rights or your executive rights, that’s wrong, we do not allow that to happen.”…

So now we have “executive rights”? WTF?!??!??! Laura Munchowsky is a little bit confused methinks.

Lost in Jersey on January 11, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Begich has family roots on Minnesota’s Iron Range, a hunting and gun rights hotbed.

He’d be given designation as a “packsacker” (think carpetbagger, for ya’ll in Dixie) if he caved on this.

BTW, Sarah Palin has a Iron Range accent if i ever heard one…

Bruno Strozek on January 11, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Executive Order or something!

KOOLAID2 on January 11, 2013 at 7:53 PM

my 2 cents, i argue here in hot air and I came to the conclusion that the 2nd amendment is somewhat obsolete. I will explain:
1) the lethality of the weapons in 1776 was still somewhat low. there were hard to use muskets, pistols, cannons and maybe powder keg explosives mostly used in sieges.
2) I agree that the 2nd amendment intention is to have a civilian power in order to oppose possible tyranny.
3) technology has evolved. the fire power a single individual in a modern war can carry is now much greater. you have grenades, rpgs, machineguns, shoulder anti air and surface missiles, all kinds of light and devastating easy to carry explosives.
4) you cannot possible face the government without the weapons above + heavy weapons like artillery, planes, drones, etc. see example of libya. the fighters had automatic weapons, but without planes, artillery or tanks, they did not have a chance against the tyrant.
5) the only solution to fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow all this high lethality weaponry to be acquired by private individuals.
6) however, allowing high lethality weapons for every individual means that situations were they go berserk (and it happens quite often) it would have devastating consequences. no to mention the difficulties if criminals acquired such weapons.

conclusion: due technological progress in the lethality of weapons, the intent of the 2nd amendment cannot be fulfilled without extreme lethal consequences for our society. consequences that the large majority are not willing to bare.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

A popular Des Moines Barber shop had a new robotic barber installed.

A fellow came in for a haircut. As the robot
began to cut his hair it asked him, “What’s your IQ?” The man replied, “130.” So the robot proceeded to make conversation about physics, astronomy, investments, insurance, and so on. The man listened intently and said, “This is really cool.”

Later, another gent came in for a haircut and the robot asked him as it began the haircut, “What’s your IQ?” The man responded, “100.” So the robot started talking about football, baseball, and so on. The man thought to himself, Wow, this is really cool.”

Later on, a third guy came in to the barbershop. As with the others, the robot barber asked him, “What’s your IQ?” The man replied, “70.” The robot then said, “So, I understand you Democrats are really excited about Hillary running for president?”

davidk on January 11, 2013 at 7:58 PM

conclusion: due technological progress in the lethality of weapons, the intent of the 2nd amendment cannot be fulfilled without extreme lethal consequences for our society. consequences that the large majority are not willing to bare.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

I can understand how you would be concerned about the “lethality” of weapons, Target.

davidk on January 11, 2013 at 8:00 PM

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

You’re just lucky no one takes you seriously.

Chuck Schick on January 11, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Heh. In a couple of years you can bring me your brass and I’ll fill em’ up for $15 a cartridge!

BacaDog on January 11, 2013 at 7:51 PM

I’ve never reloaded a single cartridge in my life, but it doesn’t look like rocket science. Well, in a way it is. :)

I’ve been thinking along the same lines.

davidk on January 11, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Soc, where would the government get the authority to stop me from selling my property to someone who has a constitutional right to own that property? I am looking for grounds to impeach. This, after the GOP regains control of the Senate in 2014.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on January 11, 2013 at 8:04 PM

my 2 cents…

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

You’re overcharging.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:05 PM

I’m one up on entire GOP leadership.

I’ll be HAPPY to let all Americans know who protected their rights.

Tim_CA on January 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Sorry, Tim. That only gives you one.

davidk on January 11, 2013 at 8:06 PM

my 2 cents…

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

You’re overcharging.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Shut the damn thread!

Chuck Schick on January 11, 2013 at 8:06 PM

I can understand how you would be concerned about the “lethality” of weapons, Target.

davidk on January 11, 2013 at 8:00 PM

when someone goes beserk, with more weaponary, the targets that a madman could hit would be much larger. comercial airliners, trains, boats, grenades and high explosives in theathers and cinemas or just an rpg on the school bus.
of course, elected officials and certain goverment structures would be much more easy to hit.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:06 PM

I’m starting to think this was a false alarm, and that dems are not going to pass any serious laws. Maybe they learned their lesson in the first term about wildly unpopular legislation.

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 8:08 PM

You’re just lucky no one takes you seriously.

Chuck Schick on January 11, 2013 at 8:02 PM

thanks for the deep rebutal! show me where I go wrong!

You’re overcharging.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:05 PM

show me where I go wrong!

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:08 PM

He’s a Democrat and party comes before principles.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 7:52 PM

However, re-election trumps both. Dems saw what happened to Stupid Stupak

AZfederalist on January 11, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Hahahaha.

In other good news of the day, the NYT is laying of gobs of crappy liberals.
They probably don’t know why, since their rag claims Obama’s economy is just dandy and unemployment is overhyped.

LASue on January 11, 2013 at 8:10 PM

my 2 cents…

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

You’re overcharging.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:05 PM

A traveler wandering on an island inhabited entirely by cannibals comes upon a butcher shop. This shop specialized in human brains differentiated according to source. The sign in the shop read:

Philosophers’ Brains $12/oz
Scientists’ Brains $15/oz
Republicans’ Brains $19/oz
Democrats’ Brains $2,000/oz

Upon reading the sign, the traveler noted, “My those Democrats’ brains must be popular!” To which the butcher replied, “Are you kidding! Do you have any idea how many Democrats you have to kill to get a ounce of brains?!”

davidk on January 11, 2013 at 8:11 PM

show me where I go wrong!

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:08 PM

you cannot possible face the government without the weapons above

France lost in Algeria.
France lost in French Indo-china.
Soviets lost in Afghanistan.
Portugal lost in Angola.
Portugal lost in Mozambique.
Portugal lost in Portuguese Guinea.
US lost in Vietnam.
US is losing in Afghanistan.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:12 PM

show me where I go wrong!

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Well, yes, people have compromised on the second amendment. In the revolution, in fact, many of the artillery (cannons) were privately owned. If you think people should not have such modern day equivalent weapons, why not propose a constitutional amendment clarifying the second amendment?

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Dem Senator Mark Begich: I’m “not interested” in a new assault-weapons ban
===========

Maybe BrainWashing Will Work Better!!!

Flashback 1995: Eric Holder Launches Anti-Gun PR Blitz to Brainwash Public
****************

Published on May 22, 2012

Eric Holder’s skewed anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment ideology has been festering for years, not just raising its sickening head with Fast and Furious, as this 1995 video clip shows, where Holder put into motion a PR blitz to “brainwash” (his words) the public about “how carrying a gun is wrong” (again his words).

Obama refuses to fire Holder, so Congress should fire Holder (i.e., he should be impeached). After that, they can get around to firing (again impeaching) the Community-Organizer-in-Chief for his role in Fast and Furious (i.e., it is an open secret that everyone from Obama down, including Holder, Hillary Clinton, and Napalitano knew about Fast and Furious from Day One). We can’t wait until November, for with a President corrupt to the core, who knows what he is capable of, whether voter fraud, suspension of elections, collapsing of the economy, etc.

Produced by Obama Files http://web.me.com/kzvideo/OF/Obama_Files_Home.html
===========================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qktrWqq1e8

canopfor on January 11, 2013 at 8:12 PM

A traveler wandering on an island inhabited entirely by cannibals comes upon a butcher shop. This shop specialized in human brains differentiated according to source. The sign in the shop read:

Philosophers’ Brains $12/oz
Scientists’ Brains $15/oz
Republicans’ Brains $19/oz
Democrats’ Brains $2,000/oz

Upon reading the sign, the traveler noted, “My those Democrats’ brains must be popular!” To which the butcher replied, “Are you kidding! Do you have any idea how many Democrats you have to kill to get a ounce of brains?!”

davidk on January 11, 2013 at 8:11 PM

I really made a serious argument :(

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Even if they don’t get an AWB, that’s ok for them.

They’ll take a mag ban or criminalizing private sales or both. They’ll take the incrementalism.

And squish Republicans will go along with it, thinking they got a win when they in f act went all BOHICA.

catmman on January 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM

conclusion: due technological progress in the lethality of weapons, the intent of the 2nd amendment cannot be fulfilled without extreme lethal consequences for our society. consequences that the large majority are not willing to bare.

You were good up until this part. First of all, we have yet to see statistically significant evidence of these “extreme lethal consequences”. (“extreme lethal”? Is that like “slightly pregnant”?) I do not wish to minimize the tragedy of the families of the innocents who get killed by gun violence, but when you look at the broader picture, the stats simply do not support that argument.

Secondly, it’s pretty clear to me that a large majority *are* willing to bear the consequences of having an armed populace. Look, for example, at how little support the president is getting for his gun control efforts.

Mohonri on January 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM

show me where I go wrong!

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Nah, you’re doing fine. Explain how civilians needs ICBMs next.

Chuck Schick on January 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM

don’t need ICBMs, rather

Chuck Schick on January 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM

He’s a Democrat and party comes before principles.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 7:52 PM

But getting relected comes before anything else and Begich is already playing campaign ads on TV.

But Begich doesn’t stand a chance of getting re-elected. Begich as Mayor sold out to the unions to get elected and left Anchorage horribly in the red. Begich never would have won over Senator Stevens if not for Stevens being maliciously prosecuted by power-crazed DAs where Stevens was ultimately vindicated. Then with Uncle Ted dying in the plane crash, we Alaskans from Anchorage can’t wait to vote Begich’s ass out of office.

TeleL on January 11, 2013 at 8:14 PM

However, re-election trumps both. Dems saw what happened to Stupid Stupak

AZfederalist on January 11, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Bart Stupak wasn’t unaware of what the cost would be of his action.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:14 PM

show me where I go wrong!

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:08 PM

The intent of the framers of our constitution was that the citizens be as well armed, if not better armed, than their nation’s armies.

” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
– Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

I got my eye on a sweet little Warthog.

davidk on January 11, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Speaking of Idiot DemoRatTards!!

Democrat Ed Rendell: Good Thing About Newtown is That it Was So Horrific

Katie Pavlich
Jan 11, 2013 02:56 PM EST
*************************

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/11/democrat-ed-rendell-good-thing-about-newtown-is-that-it-was-so-horrific-n1487451

canopfor on January 11, 2013 at 8:17 PM

US lost in Vietnam.
US is losing in Afghanistan.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:12 PM

These are political loses in that the weapons at our disposal are not being used in fear of being ridiculed in the
court of Public Opinion. (as if the plicks liked America anyway)

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 8:18 PM

These are political loses in that the weapons at our disposal are not being used in fear of being ridiculed in the
court of Public Opinion. (as if the plicks liked America anyway)

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 8:18 PM

The Vietcong were eating lunch in Saigon at the end of the day and that is all that matters. Most defeats are political.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Well, yes, people have compromised on the second amendment. In the revolution, in fact, many of the artillery (cannons) were privately owned. If you think people should not have such modern day equivalent weapons, why not propose a constitutional amendment clarifying the second amendment?

Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 8:12 PM

I think high lethality weaponary is too much for society to bare to and without it, resistance against tyrannical government is quite handicapped. I think second ammendment should be scraped and have just a “the people can own guns(detailing the characteristics of the weapons allowed)” amendment.. or not…

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Nah, you’re doing fine. Explain how civilians needs ICBMs next.

Chuck Schick on January 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Chuck Schick:)

Um,just for clarification,is that with Conventional WarHeads,
or with Nuclear WarHeads!
(snark)

canopfor on January 11, 2013 at 8:19 PM

I seriously hope the Dems and RINO’s push for gun control. They would accomplish nothing and it would probably give the Senate to conservatives.

I hope gun control remains the front and center political issue throughout 2013. The conservative movement of 2009 combined with a pro Second Amendment movement is probably a good picture of what would happen. A perfect storm.

Washington State is an example of Progressive’s fear of gun control. Washington State politicians are almost silent in the current debate. It is well known in Washington that if you support any form of gun control your political future is over. Even in the liberal bastion of the I-5 corridor. Liberal and Progressive politicians do not speak publicly of gun control in Washington.

Rode Werk on January 11, 2013 at 8:20 PM

The intent of the framers of our constitution was that the citizens be as well armed, if not better armed, than their nation’s armies.

davidk on January 11, 2013 at 8:16 PM

agree, but do you think mere guns can help against planes, tanks, drones, and all kinds of high tech weaponary….

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Go ahead, punk. Sign an executive order repealing part of the Bill of Rights.

And invalidate your Presidency.

wildcat72 on January 11, 2013 at 8:23 PM

agree, but do you think mere guns can help against planes, tanks, drones, and all kinds of high tech weaponary….

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Tanks need fuel and ammunition which are carried by guys in trucks. Planes need to land at a runway, etc.

Insurgents attack where the enemy is weak, not where he is massing his most powerful formations.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:24 PM

I really made a serious argument :(

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:12 PM

*scratching my head*

davidk on January 11, 2013 at 8:24 PM

. Most defeats are political.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Very true,especially since the UN was considered to be a good idea and taken seriously.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 8:24 PM

agree, but do you think mere guns can help against planes, tanks, drones, and all kinds of high tech weaponary….

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:22 PM

I want a zeppelin filled with killer bees.

Chuck Schick on January 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

All it takes is one bullet at a time and don’t doubt for a second that our leaders don’t know it. You’re still not real bright and I want my money back.

CW on January 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM

conclusion: due technological progress in the lethality of weapons, the intent of the 2nd amendment cannot be fulfilled without extreme lethal consequences for our society. consequences that the large majority are not willing to bare.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Then we let our Government get more powerful then us..
We lost.

Lets just give up..

Obama for King

Electrongod on January 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM

You were good up until this part. First of all, we have yet to see statistically significant evidence of these “extreme lethal consequences”. (“extreme lethal”? Is that like “slightly pregnant”?) I do not wish to minimize the tragedy of the families of the innocents who get killed by gun violence, but when you look at the broader picture, the stats simply do not support that argument.

Secondly, it’s pretty clear to me that a large majority *are* willing to bear the consequences of having an armed populace. Look, for example, at how little support the president is getting for his gun control efforts.

Mohonri on January 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM

I think what the majority is willing to allow is right there on the limit. would the majority allow free sale of grenades, shoulder anti air missiles or rpgs?

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Old/busted:

and establish Peace through Strength.

kingsjester on October 1, 2012 at 1:12 PM

how did that work in iraq and Afghanistan? you really want more of that?

nathor on October 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM

New hotness:

4) you cannot possible face the government without the weapons above + heavy weapons like artillery, planes, drones, etc. see example of libya.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

rogerb on January 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM

I will give you a good, honest gun control law. State Departments of Corrections, through their Departments of Probation and Parole, MUST (through the use of ongoing search warrants through the end of the probation period) visit their probationers/parolees once per week and actively search their persons, homes, vehicles, etc. If anyone is or has been convicted of a violent crime, they MUST automatically be considered a risk and agree to be searched anytime, anywhere, 24/7/365. It is all for public safety reasons, ya know

skeeterbite on January 11, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Whatever you’re being charged for a reloaded shell in a few years, I’ll beat that rate by a buck, guaranteed.

Bishop on January 11, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Very true,especially since the UN was considered to be a good idea and taken seriously.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 8:24 PM

That and the constant demand for wars without tears. The public doesn’t want to see the brutality of war and the military is bending over backwards to accommodate regardless of the cost to effectiveness.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Then we let our Government get more powerful then us..
We lost.

Lets just give up..

Obama for King

Electrongod on January 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM

we lost decades ago, duh! however, we are not living in hard core tyranny yet…

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Evidently not, but your “large majority” is welcome to try to get 3/4ths of the House and Senate to approve of the language of a proposed constitutional amendment and then send it out to the states for ratification. If your “large majority” as large as majority or even a majority, as you claimed that it is, then it should be able to convince the people of 38 states to repeal their right to bear arms forthwith.

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM

agree, but do you think mere guns can help against planes, tanks, drones, and all kinds of high tech weaponary….

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:22 PM

No, but men of conviction trump anything, excluding nukes, which the Organizer in Chief hasn’t the nards to deploy.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 8:28 PM

we lost decades ago, duh! however, we are not living in hard core tyranny yet…

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Will you be able to notice hard core..
tyranny?
And if so…
What will you do?

Electrongod on January 11, 2013 at 8:29 PM

agree, but do you think mere guns can help against planes, tanks, drones, and all kinds of high tech weaponary….

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:22 PM

How long will Obama be able to field that without a tax base, an industrial base, or any base at all?

wildcat72 on January 11, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Other red-state Democrats up for reelection: Mary Landrieu, Max Baucus, Tim Johnson, Kay Hagan, and Mark Pryor. Landrieu and Baucus voted no when the last AWB came up for renewal in 2004, and although Pryor voted yes, Arkansas wasn’t quite as red then as it is now. There’s no chance Reid will get to 60 in the Senate for a new ban; there’s a very slim chance that he won’t even get to 50. If you’re Pryor and you’re facing a tough campaign on unfavorable terrain, what’s your incentive for voting for a new AWB that hasn’t a prayer of passing?

Yeah, this little dance has been quite interesting. You know they want to go big on sweeping gun control. They want to look good in front of their leftist supporters. But they know they don’t have the votes to pull it off. And if they try, they’ll look weak. It’s hard to get power when you look weak.

So they turn to the hope of executive orders, but there’s just not a lot of room there. All they can do is strictly small ball stuff, which again will make them look weak.

Not that they can’t come up with something. Control of federal agencies is no small deal. But ultimately, it’s hard to see where anything changes all that much. The whole gun-grabbing business may be best as a distraction from other issues.

Still, there may yet be a big Obama overreach. We’ll just have to see.

tom on January 11, 2013 at 8:29 PM

I think high lethality weaponary is too much for society to bare to and without it, resistance against tyrannical government is quite handicapped. I think second ammendment should be scraped and have just a “the people can own guns(detailing the characteristics of the weapons allowed)” amendment.. or not…

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:19 PM

If you really feel that way, go find a country with laws like that (Formerly Great Britain and Australia come to mind) and move your @$$ over there. If you can’t stand our freedoms, you don’t deserve them. Leave those of us who treasure those freedoms alone. There are lots of places that have the unarmed “security” you advocate but only one country that still assures the freedom to protect ourselves. Leave us alone and go to any other place that already has what you seek.

/sick and tired of statists trying to take away what we have

AZfederalist on January 11, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Whatever you’re being charged for a reloaded shell in a few years, I’ll beat that rate by a buck, guaranteed.

Bishop on January 11, 2013 at 8:26 PM

No you won’t. You won’t be accepting payment in dollars. No one will.

wildcat72 on January 11, 2013 at 8:31 PM

France lost in Algeria.
France lost in French Indo-china.
Soviets lost in Afghanistan.
Portugal lost in Angola.
Portugal lost in Mozambique.
Portugal lost in Portuguese Guinea.
US lost in Vietnam.
US is losing in Afghanistan.

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:12 PM

they are all colonial wars… where the population is in majority against the oppressor and the colonials can just go back to their home country if fighting the guerrila war is just not worth the price they pay. an insurrection against the US goverment would more closely resemble a civil war like syria or libya and heavy weapons are really needed, especially against the US Army.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:32 PM

agree, but do you think mere guns can help against planes, tanks, drones, and all kinds of high tech weaponary….

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Which is the longest war that the US has ever fought? Did/does the US have “planes, tanks, drones, and all kinds of high tech weaponary (sic)”? Did/does its foe(s) have “planes, tanks, drones, and all kinds of high tech weaponary (sic)”?

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Nah, you’re doing fine. Explain how civilians needs ICBMs next.

Chuck Schick on January 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM

they might need, its not impossible to imagine that nukes would be used against the insurrect population.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Those who advocate ANY further gun legislation have already given up. Do not join their ranks.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 8:34 PM

…. I think second ammendment should be scraped and have just a “the people can own guns(detailing the characteristics of the weapons allowed)” amendment.. or not…

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:19 PM

You’re a useful idiot.

CW on January 11, 2013 at 8:34 PM

they are all colonial wars… where the population is in majority against the oppressor and the colonials can just go back to their home country if fighting the guerrila war is just not worth the price they pay. an insurrection against the US goverment would more closely resemble a civil war like syria or libya and heavy weapons are really needed, especially against the US Army.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Obama’s colonials can go back to their home country too when they lose: New York, Chicago, Detroit, etc….

wildcat72 on January 11, 2013 at 8:35 PM

when someone goes beserk, with more weaponary, the targets that a madman could hit would be much larger. comercial airliners, trains, boats, grenades and high explosives in theathers and cinemas or just an rpg on the school bus.
of course, elected officials and certain goverment structures would be much more easy to hit.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:06 PM

are you more than 11 yrs old?
remember when some guys armed only with what amounted to pocket knives did exactly what your saying here?

Fred

jrsrigmvr on January 11, 2013 at 8:35 PM

they might need, its not impossible to imagine that nukes would be used against the insurrect population.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:33 PM

And dimmest of wits it is not impossible to imagine that the military would fracture with many siding with the populace and having access to “lethal” weapons. Damn you’re such a quitter and a loser.

CW on January 11, 2013 at 8:36 PM

show me where I go wrong!

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:08 PM

That would be in your first sentence.

Curtiss on January 11, 2013 at 8:36 PM

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM

You liberal targets can be quite amusing sometimes. Being ignorant is no way to go through life.
The heavy weapons and explosives you mention would be necessary if you were going up against a mechanized armored military force in a toe-to-toe slugfest.
If you think that’s how things would go you know nothing about warfare.
What we would be looking at is guerrilla warfare with precisely targeted assassinations. Oh, there would be a few fools who would commit suicide in a blaze of glory, as well as factional fighting for “turf” with petty tyrants setting up their own little fiefdoms who would be wiped out in the cleanup after the regime is replaced.
LEOs and GIs are patriots. Most would not support the regime.
There would also be so many LEOs and military personnel deserting with their arms and equipment that the tyrants wouldn’t stand a chance against a force of extremely pissed off and highly motivated professional warriors and citizens seeking revenge on those who raped their beloved republic.

single stack on January 11, 2013 at 8:36 PM

…. I think second ammendment should be scraped and have just a “the people can own guns(detailing the characteristics of the weapons allowed)” amendment.. or not…

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:19 PM

And how will you achieve that when it requires ratification by 3/4th of the States, which will never happen?

PS: marching armies of jackbooted Obamathugs (also known as his civilian defense “corpse”) into state legislatures and dictating ratification votes wouldn’t count…

wildcat72 on January 11, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Nah, you’re doing fine. Explain how civilians needs ICBMs next.

Chuck Schick on January 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM

they might need, its not impossible to imagine that nukes would be used against the insurrect population.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Much as nathor is a surrender-monkey, this isn’t beyond the realm of possibility. Most likely scenario is conveniently allowing a single state to become the big bastion of rebels, then flattening it.

This and the danger from long-range missiles would make a good case for privately-owned ‘interceptors’.

MelonCollie on January 11, 2013 at 8:37 PM

And dimmest of wits it is not impossible to imagine that the military would fracture with many siding with the populace and having access to “lethal” weapons. Damn you’re such a quitter and a loser.

CW on January 11, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Not only that but their weapons use the same ammunition the civilian AR-15 uses too…

wildcat72 on January 11, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Which is the longest war that the US has ever fought? Did/does the US have “planes, tanks, drones, and all kinds of high tech weaponary (sic)”? Did/does its foe(s) have “planes, tanks, drones, and all kinds of high tech weaponary (sic)”?

Resist We Much on January 11, 2013 at 8:32 PM

the longest war was vietnam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_of_U.S._participation_in_major_w
and yes, its foes did have planes, anti air missiles, some tanks and some infantry heavy weaponry like rpgs and mortars.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:38 PM

an insurrection against the US goverment would more closely resemble a civil war like syria or libya and heavy weapons are really needed, especially against the US Army.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:32 PM

You operate under the WOEFULLY MISTAKEN premise that all armed forces personel would side with Washington.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Begich is covering his butt. He’s up for re-election soon and he’s vulnerable. Several R’s have indicated they may run against him. Plus, we just elected an overwhelmingly R state legislature and we have an R as governor…all in a state that is heavily pro-gun rights.

8starsnorth on January 11, 2013 at 8:39 PM

they might need, its not impossible to imagine that nukes would be used against the insurrect population.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:33 PM

If Obama attempted to authorize a nuclear strike against Americans he’d be taken in the back by his own Secret Service detail.

wildcat72 on January 11, 2013 at 8:39 PM

an insurrection against the US goverment would more closely resemble a civil war like syria or libya and heavy weapons are really needed, especially against the US Army.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Russian revolution, French revolution, American revolution, English civil war, American civil war, Sudanese civil war, Chinese civil war, Cuban revolution, Rhodesian insurgency, Iranian revolution, etc.

I want that 2 cents back!

sharrukin on January 11, 2013 at 8:39 PM

You operate under the WOEFULLY MISTAKEN premise that all armed forces personel would side with Washington.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 8:38 PM

I concur…

So the government is gunning down our military’s families and our military act like drones..

Ain’t going to happen..

Electrongod on January 11, 2013 at 8:42 PM

And how will you achieve that when it requires ratification by 3/4th of the States, which will never happen?

PS: marching armies of jackbooted Obamathugs (also known as his civilian defense “corpse”) into state legislatures and dictating ratification votes wouldn’t count…

wildcat72 on January 11, 2013 at 8:37 PM

I agree!
i not saying that constitutional ammendments are possible in the current political climate.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:42 PM

they are all colonial wars… where the population is in majority against the oppressor and the colonials can just go back to their home country if fighting the guerrila war is just not worth the price they pay. an insurrection against the US goverment would more closely resemble a civil war like syria or libya and heavy weapons are really needed, especially against the US Army.

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:32 PM

You further make the mistake thinking that all of the armed forces would side with the government in usurping the Constitution, the over-arching law of the land.

AZfederalist on January 11, 2013 at 8:42 PM

You operate under the WOEFULLY MISTAKEN premise that all armed forces personel would side with Washington.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 8:38 PM

We would be incredibly fortunate if HALF the military joined the rebel side. That’s about how it went down in the 1860′s, and while the slave states initially got all the good generals, they had no infrastructure to back up their war machine. Early on they directly threatened Washington DC…but eventually their lack of manufacturing capacity for muskets and cannons began to take a toll. And the Federal blockade hit them HARD.

BTW, I would not at all be surprised for an exact repeat of this scenario.

MelonCollie on January 11, 2013 at 8:42 PM

You operate under the WOEFULLY MISTAKEN premise that all armed forces personel would side with Washington.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Which is why he wants to replace it with his personally loyal “civilian” defense “corpse” (to respect how our President pronounces “corps”) that is “as well funded” as the military.

If Obama started ruling by decree, started nullifying whole parts of the Constitution and declared himself “El Presidente For Life” half the military would desert and most of the other half wouldn’t show up.

What he had left wouldn’t be able to be trusted and would be lucky to be able to hold D.C. for him…

wildcat72 on January 11, 2013 at 8:42 PM

We would be incredibly fortunate if HALF the military joined the rebel side. That’s about how it went down in the 1860′s, and while the slave states initially got all the good generals, they had no infrastructure to back up their war machine. Early on they directly threatened Washington DC…but eventually their lack of manufacturing capacity for muskets and cannons began to take a toll. And the Federal blockade hit them HARD.

BTW, I would not at all be surprised for an exact repeat of this scenario.

MelonCollie on January 11, 2013 at 8:42 PM

The great irony is that most of what industry left in this country is now in the South isn’t it?

The Red States would have both the guns and the resources. All Obama would have is a lot of starving welfare recipients in the dying Blue State cities.

wildcat72 on January 11, 2013 at 8:44 PM

…. I think second ammendment should be scraped and have just a “the people can own guns(detailing the characteristics of the weapons allowed)” amendment.. or not…

nathor on January 11, 2013 at 8:19 PM

That’s the trouble, they have been ‘scraping’ it for years. I think it is time we ‘scrapped’ congress and started over alphabetically with the first 2 citizens from each state as senators, each to serve 2 years and relinquish their position to the next 2 and so on.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 11, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3