AG Backing Off Weapons Ban Under NRA Pressure

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Another reason why Republicrats or Conservadems as Rachel Maddow calls them, need to be purged from congress,

source: Newsweek

TERROR WATCH
A Self-Inflicted Gun Wound

Why is Attorney General Eric Holder backing away from an assault weapons ban?

After fierce resistance from the gun lobby and its allies in Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder has dialed back talk about reimposing a federal assault weapons ban to help curb the spiraling violence in Mexico.

As much as 90 percent of the assault weapons and other guns used by Mexican drug cartels are coming from the United States, fueling drug-related violence that is believed to have killed more than 7,000 people since January 2008, according to estimates by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement officials. But the political obstacles to addressing the U.S.-to-Mexico weapons flow are dramatically underscored by Holder's experience in just the last few weeks.

Speaking at a Feb. 25 news conference announcing a roundup of Mexican cartel members in the United States, Holder endorsed reinstituting the ban on assault weapons—a position that President Obama himself supported during last year's campaign. A federal ban on high-powered, semi-automatic assault weapons, originally passed by Congress in 1994, expired five years ago.

"There are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder said in response to a question from a Mexican reporter. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico at a minimum." Holder then ducked a follow-up question about whether he expected Congress to act on a renewed ban this year, saying, "I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be" on legislative issues that the Obama administration presses on Capitol Hill.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">But his comments roused the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association quickly sent out "action alerts" to its members. Sixty-five House Democrats signed a letter saying they would oppose any new ban—as did Montana's two Democratic senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester. "Senators to Attorney General Holder: Stay Away From Our Guns," read a press release sent out by Baucus's office. In addition, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both shot down the idea that Congress would take up any new assault weapons ban this year.</SPAN>
When Holder was asked about the assault weapons issue again at another press conference on March 25, he steered away from even mentioning a new weapons ban. "Well, I mean, I think what we're going to do is try to, obviously, enforce the laws that we have on the books," Holder said, adding that he planned to discuss the flow of illegal arms with "our Mexican counterparts" during an upcoming trip to Mexico.

Holder's about-face was no accident. White House officials instructed the attorney general to tone down any further talk about assault weapons in order not to complicate the president's legislative agenda on Capitol Hill, according to administration and congressional sources who, like others quoted in this story, asked not to be named talking about internal deliberations. (An assault weapons ban was also conspicuously off the table when the Obama administraton unveiled new proposals to combat Mexican cartel violence.) "We've been told to lay low," a Democratic congressional aide said he was told when he raised the issue of a new assault weapons ban with a Justice Department official.

A senior Justice Department official said that Holder was trying to signal that he wasn't expecting immediate congressional action when he sidestepped the question about timing at the original Feb. 25 news conference. But the NRA was only too happy to take credit for the attorney general's new tone.

After Holder made his first comments about a ban, the NRA started "getting out the word—this is going to be a battle, they're coming," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO of the NRA. As a result, LaPierre said, the attorney general "ran into a stonewall on Capitol Hill." It's no secret, moreover, that much of the opposition came from Democrats, including the party's leadership. During the early 1990s, congressional Democratic leaders aggressively pushed gun-control legislation—and suffered crushing setbacks in the polls starting with the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. "They've learned the history of what happened the last time," said LaPierre.

But that does leave an awkward situation for Holder and the White House. The attorney general flies to Mexico City on April 1 to talk about steps the United States can take to deal with cartel violence—and the Mexicans are adamant about reimposing a weapons ban. Meanwhile, the White House still lists a new assault weapons ban as one of the president's official positions on its Web site (scroll down to the "Urban Policy" section).

Given that Obama rarely talked about assault weapons during the campaign and has said not a word about the subject since becoming president, should it still be there? "There has been no change in position—the president supports the 2nd amendment, he respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes that we can take common sense steps to keep our streets safe," said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt.
 
Guns protect freedom! Guns are not the problem in Mexico, poverty is.

1214507617361.jpg
 
Now, I understand your argument; but what does it say for the dead innocents, right in our own communities ? ? ?

QueEx

2 different arguments QueEx, Drugs and extortion dominate the economy in Mexico. While it bad, and getting worse, its not that bad here.....yet! The media is hyping this story up so Holder has more ammunition to call for a gun-ban! It's that simple. The NRA will sell gunowners out every time, yeah, I said it!

The strategy is Problem, Reaction, Solution. I've seen it many times. They create the problem, use the media to manipulate public opinion, and the same people that caused the problem come through and give the solution, Always at the expenses of individual rights.

Mexico has the problem, not us. They need to handle that! We should have troops there to protect the border.
 
this is an old argument. the reason groups like the NRA exist is to help protect the constitutional rights of citizens (read: law-abiding taxpaying non-felons) to tote gats. CRIMINALS DONT CARE WHAT LAWS YOU PASS, THEY"RE NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO HAVE GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE. so the argument is whether you infringe upon the rights of citizens because of the actions of criminals. The answer is no. Especially when they use the tax dollars of these same people they are trying to take rights from, to enforce these unconstitutional laws.

Mexico is a whole other ball game. I heard yesterday that Obamas plannin on sending 700 million to Mexico to fund more cops and judges and fedarales. THE SAME COPS & JUDGES that have been corrupted into working with drug dealers and human traffikers in the first place, either out of fear or greed. this money will make it into the hands of corrupt individuals with the power to steer good mexican troops away from places where the drugs and illegals cross our border, they'll have more money to buy more guns to give to more crimnals and the problem will get even worse. Mexico doesnt want to fix this problem. Their president is afraid for his very life.

The answer for that border is no tolerance. pull some of those drones from iraq and send them up and down that thing crisscrossing each other day and night, armed with hellfires. tell the mexican army to stay 2 miles away from it or be fired upon. what are they gonna do about it, start a war? we have satellites and equipment that can FIND those tunnels fairly easy, its what the Israelis use to find tunnels, we gave it to them. when we find a hole, drop a bunker buster on it. Simple. We have plenty of guardsmen here that could use the extra work and training. send em down there and let em shoot people on sight who try to cross. I know it sounds harsh, but these aren't kids we're dealin with. so take the kid gloves off.

my 2 cents.
 
Now, I understand your argument; but what does it say for the dead innocents, right in our own communities ? ? ?

QueEx

do you thinking banning weapons would stop that?

The criminals will have access to weapons no matter if its a ban or not...
 
this is an old argument. the reason groups like the NRA exist is to help protect the constitutional rights of citizens (read: law-abiding taxpaying non-felons) to tote gats. CRIMINALS DONT CARE WHAT LAWS YOU PASS, THEY"RE NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO HAVE GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE. so the argument is whether you infringe upon the rights of citizens because of the actions of criminals. The answer is no. Especially when they use the tax dollars of these same people they are trying to take rights from, to enforce these unconstitutional laws.

Mexico is a whole other ball game. I heard yesterday that Obamas plannin on sending 700 million to Mexico to fund more cops and judges and fedarales. THE SAME COPS & JUDGES that have been corrupted into working with drug dealers and human traffikers in the first place, either out of fear or greed. this money will make it into the hands of corrupt individuals with the power to steer good mexican troops away from places where the drugs and illegals cross our border, they'll have more money to buy more guns to give to more crimnals and the problem will get even worse. Mexico doesnt want to fix this problem. Their president is afraid for his very life.

The answer for that border is no tolerance. pull some of those drones from iraq and send them up and down that thing crisscrossing each other day and night, armed with hellfires. tell the mexican army to stay 2 miles away from it or be fired upon. what are they gonna do about it, start a war? we have satellites and equipment that can FIND those tunnels fairly easy, its what the Israelis use to find tunnels, we gave it to them. when we find a hole, drop a bunker buster on it. Simple. We have plenty of guardsmen here that could use the extra work and training. send em down there and let em shoot people on sight who try to cross. I know it sounds harsh, but these aren't kids we're dealin with. so take the kid gloves off.

my 2 cents.

do you think we have to PULL drones?

----- we can make MORE drones!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
do you thinking banning weapons would stop that?

The criminals will have access to weapons no matter if its a ban or not...
I can't say that a ban would be "THE" answer. I also don't think that the typical defense, "THE CRIMINALS HAVE THEM" is worth anything either.

QueEx
 
I can't say that a ban would be "THE" answer. I also don't think that the typical defense, "THE CRIMINALS HAVE THEM" is worth anything either.

QueEx

Why the typical defense isn't worth anything TODAY, compared to the 90's/80's/70's? What makes today any different than past years?

pull em, the "Contigency Operation Overseas" aint makin us any safer. The sooner we get out, the better! I vote No Tolerance.

Dude DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY DRONES WE ACTUALLY HAVE IN WAREHOUSES? Not to mention, when the last time any terrorist attack has happened on OUR soil? Hell, if you didn't think 9-11 was real, think about all the attacks we had UNDER Clinton. Anti War will not make peace, it would make more bloodshed down the road. If we go by your logic, most of our wars *in your opinion* were unjustified.
 
3a said:
Why the typical defense isn't worth anything TODAY, compared to the 90's/80's/70's? What makes today any different than past years?
You said "today". "The criminals have guns" has never made sense to me, as a justification not to impose really tight restrictions, if not an outright ban, on guns. In fact, I call that a "Cop-Out" defense. Should we not try to find a cure for cancer, because your neighbor has it ??? And, do you want it, because your neighbor has it ???

QueEx
 
You said "today". "The criminals have guns" has never made sense to me, as a justification not to impose really tight restrictions, if not an outright ban, on guns. In fact, I call that a "Cop-Out" defense. Should we not try to find a cure for cancer, because your neighbor has it ??? And, do you want it, because your neighbor has it ???

QueEx

Think about this...

Who would react faster when someone break into your house, the police, or you with a gun?

The "criminals have guns* argument is basically saying that NO MATTER if you impose a ban, the criminals will be able to obtain guns. So, why punish the people who obey the law, and want a gun to protect their family/property?

You forgot the whole reason why criminals use guns in the first place. How many gun stores get robbed? Do anybody hold up a hunting gallery? How about holding up a police station? My point is this, no one holds up a place where majority of the people in that place are carrying weapons.
 
Back
Top