BANG !

[nudgewink]

Nope, not I.

But I want them to have the tools and authority they need to protect me and my family, making it tough for scoundrels to get their hands on guns.

[ParkerLongbaugh]

Nope, not I.

But I want them to have the tools and authority they need to protect me and my family, making it tough for scoundrels to get their hands on guns.

I can tell you from years of personal experience that the ATF has absolutely zero interest in actually doing that, unfortunately. It's not about tools and authority- the ATF is a 100% political bureaucracy that has no connection to actually having an impact on illegal firearms activities.

As a specific example, I had a federal firearms license for over a decade. Every single would-be purchaser got the whole process of multiple IDs and then a background check ran on them. Once in a while, some moron with a record would try to buy a firearm in hopes that the background check would not catch it. Usually these were out-of-state offenses, but not always- and sometimes these people even had active warrants on them. The attempt to make this illegal purchase is a felony, and one of the things the ATF is tasked to enforce. Over the course of a dozen or maybe fifteen attempts, do you know how many times the ATF convicted these criminals for breaking our existing gun laws? Zero. How about how many prosecutions the ATF attempted to that end? Zero. How about how many phone calls to us or even conversations they had about these activities? Zero. Not once, not ever, not in any slight way did they ever do a single thing about known criminals attempting to illegally buy guns. I proactively called and tried to get them to do something on more than one occasion- and still got absolutely no action on their part.

Another example of the bureaucratic don't-care mentality of the agency was when a trace was being run on a recovered firearm once. ATF contacted me, and I pulled the purchase form for the firearm in question. I told them that I knew of the person in question, and knew for a fact that he no longer lived at the address on the form. In fact, I knew where he lived and started to give them the correct updated information. The agent stopped me, and said she did not care where he lived and that she simply needed the information on the form to say they completed the trace request. I told her that information was useless, and she said they were not interested in current information on the person but rather simply wanted to provide the old address to another agency. Can you think of a single example where the requesting agency would not likely be interested in both the old and the currnet information? I cannot.

As two examples of the mentality of the agency and their agents, here are a few more:

I attended training at Ft McClellan, Alabama where the ATF (at the time) was using the military ranges and facilities for their own SRT training. I was at sick call one morning dropping off an slightly injured soldier, and there were maybe 20 other soldiers in line. Some with minor training injuries, some pretty badly sick. An ATF agent comes in with a bruise and slight burn (not even first degree) and cuts off the soldiers in line, demanding to be seen immediately (by the military staff at this military facility). There were folks in line with the same or worse injuries, but that didn't matter. He was politely asked to wait his turn, as his injury was not an emergency, and responded that he would not and that he and his training was more important than anyone else there. Very professional.

And actually, I don't think I can give details of the second example that comes to mind without sharing details that some other folks involved might not appreciate. Suffice it to say that the ATF not only did not enforce the federal laws they were tasked with, but they contradicted them and ended up in court over it. They lost, but we still had to pay our lawyers, which I had an agent tell me was the entire point of the confrontation in the first place.

I don't have a single personal experience where the ATF did anything positive to protect you or your family, and their repeated actions over more than a decade back that up. If you really want that protection, call the Virginia State Police instead- they seem to care a lot more about firearm law violations than the federal agency that is supposed to do it.

[nudgewink]

That sounds pretty bad. Like the Keystone Kops.
Of course any organization can have its duds but you wonder if there are systemic problems, and if they are
- because of bad managers who happen to be at the top levels of ATF, or
- because the law and available resources shackle them against doing a good job.
I don't know. Do you?

[ParkerLongbaugh]

That sounds pretty bad. Like the Keystone Kops.
Of course any organization can have its duds but you wonder if there are systemic problems, and if they are
- because of bad managers who happen to be at the top levels of ATF, or
- because the law and available resources shackle them against doing a good job.
I don't know. Do you?

From the FY2010 federal budget:

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requests $1,120,772,000 for FY 2010, including $1,114,772,000 in Direct Salaries and Expenses and 5,025 full time equivalents (FTE) and $6,000,000 for construction of explosives ranges at the ATF National Center for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR). Specifically, ATF requests
$1,077,783,000 and 4,979 FTE for current services, $17,989,000 and 46 FTE for Southwest Border enforcement efforts, and $19,000,000 for operations and infrastructure costs associated with the NCETR."

Pretty hard to say they don't have the ability to do work when they are resourced with over one billion dollars of other people's taxes.

It's not about a lack of ability to enforce the law- they are simply more of a political bureaucracy than a law enforcement agency. The federal government could give less than half that amount to other agencies and get more accomplished in the end.

[crux]

Let the salivation over tragic circumstance begin...

Your list of "carnage" was not committed in the name "protection and gun-rights".

One should save their tears for the victims...

Don't use them as quotes around your political aims.

Regarding your "sensible balance" Sir, I'll vote no on your Utopia.

crux

[Wise One]

You are a strange bird, crux, seeing so much in ideological terms. I'm only a pragmatist with ethics. You can keep political pigeonholing to yourself – it's seldom useful.

Your list of "carnage" was not committed in the name "protection and gun-rights".

Nobody said it was. I don't really care in what name the atrocity was committed. It should not have happened and responsible people seek to prevent these perfectly predictable tragedies from happening over, and over, and over.

One should save their tears for the victims...

That's who gets my tears. Gun nuts cry only for their swagger and carry, damn the consequences.

Regarding your "sensible balance" Sir, I'll vote no on your Utopia.

I see no "Utopia" when we sensibly install guard rails on dangerous curves. Or require that one have a license to purchase explosives. Or refuse to sell Propofol to people other than physicians. If none of these sensible measure are foolproof, all drastically reduce the number of perfectly predictable deaths & injuries that would otherwise occur.

You may have your ideology ... I'm sick of it and its consequences. We need practical ways of ending the tragedies that will inevitably occur when you put an object of immense and disproportionate lethality into most households. I don't care what the object is ... when it's everywhere, is easy to use and is regulated ineffectively, it will kill many thousands. It's an imminent hazard to public health and only ideological maniacs refuse to acknowledge that reality.

[crux]

...at the very roots of this issue.

[crux]

The Second Amendment really...does not protect an individual right to own dangerous stuff (GUNS)...

Forgive me for condensing your words. Your position is quite clear.

I do not care for your idea of a "guardrail" regarding gun ownership and Liberty.

The very core of your "sensible balance" of freedom/safety is a failure to stand up for Personal Liberty, and Independence.

For The People to be Independent they must be able to exercise their ability of Self Defense and Self Reliance...

[Wise One]

The Second Amendment really...does not protect an individual right to own dangerous stuff (GUNS)...

Forgive me for condensing your words. Your position is quite clear.

You quoted my posting dated Dec 30, 2007 which predated the SCOTUS decision reversing 200 years of established law in this matter. My statement was true at the time I made it, but I acknowledge that it is no longer true – by decision of the present activist ultraconservative court making law from the bench. According to our system of government, that is no longer the law of the land.

I do not care for your idea of a "guardrail" regarding gun ownership and Liberty.

OK. I happily anticipate news of your work for the removal of guardrails so that all can exercise their liberty to drive in any direction they like.

The very core of your "sensible balance" of freedom/safety is a failure to stand up for Personal Liberty, and Independence. For The People to be Independent they must be able to exercise their ability of Self Defense and Self Reliance...

These are shallow slogans that are divorced from reality. Everything we do, and allow, is a compromise that lies somewhere between total freedom and total prohibition.

[crux]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You would have in 07 and if you could, would NOW, deny the people their individual right...

Don't feel bad or hide from it.

An effective self defense, being necessary to protect freedom, depends upon the people having the means.

Without individual rights, a free state of folks would not have an ability to organize for their collective protection...

Whatever...

"Activist Ultra Conservative"...sheesh.

On a 5-4 decision, YOUR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY was upheld (twice).

That was scary.

"Reversing 200 years of YADDA yadda..."

Scary...

[Neck-aint-red]

Hey Wise One. I just wanted to compliment your patience and give you a warning.
That guy is all bluster. You are pissing into the wind. Your arguments don't matter, he's not listening. He'll chant his contempt to the end

• Redundantly quoted 2nd amendment as if it weren't already in this thread.
• Put words in your mouth
• Quoted a slogan
• Demeaning "whatever"
• Demeaning "sheesh"
• Mentioned two 5/4 decisions. Who knows which ones?
• Demeaning "yada, yada"

I don't have your patience to talk to that guy. I think I'll stand a pound of rice grains on their ends instead. It's easier.

[Wise One]

Alas poor Neck, I fear you are too much the pessimist.

Hope springs eternal in my breast that reason, lucid and sharp argument, yes even a little humor/irony now and then, can sway the mind of even the most intransigent.

But thanks anyway!

[crux]

Hey Wise One. I just wanted to compliment your patience and give you a warning.
That guy is all bluster. You are pissing into the wind. Your arguments don't matter, he's not listening. He'll chant his contempt to the end

• Redundantly quoted 2nd amendment as if it weren't already in this thread.
• Put words in your mouth
• Quoted a slogan
• Demeaning "whatever"
• Demeaning "sheesh"
• Mentioned two 5/4 decisions. Who knows which ones?
• Demeaning "yada, yada"

I don't have your patience to talk to that guy. I think I'll stand a pound of rice grains on their ends instead. It's easier.

Put words in his mouth how? That is laughable.

His position then is no different than his Utopian ideal now.

That there would be no affirmation of an individuals right to keep and bear arms...

Just because it was affirmed twice, in Heller and in McDonald v. City of Chicago, doesn't mean that at his CORE, his SENSIBLE balance between FREEDOM and Safety would not begin, with the States Rights view.

I can only surmise his efforts would greatly restrict the access, and ability, of law abiding folks to exercise their Liberty.

(Pay attention big guy and stop stacking rice for a moment...)

TODAY, following a tragic shooting in Arizona, he said, "Carnage, in the name of "protection" and "gun rights", continues.

I found his statement to be silly, followed by a list of shootings, none of which, were in the name of gun rights.

OK...a little dramatic. But it is an interesting choice of words, as directed by his political cosmology, if you will.

I know what his point is. I disagree with it.

The ability of law abiding citizens to keep, and carry if they choose, is a personal Liberty protected under the 2nd Amendment.

I did not choose to address other outrageous statements like, "turning 200 years of settled law" etc. I just said SHEESH.

Whatever... DEMEANING??? Contempt?

I love the selective outrage by the way...you and your Trophy comment in the HealthCare thread.

Which slogan did I quote? The words were mine, in the context of, it has all been said before, much better than any of us...

"For The People to be Independent they must be able to exercise their ability of Self Defense and Self Reliance..."

Yes. This has surely been said by others, in several many different ways.

"An effective self defense, being necessary to protect freedom, depends upon the people having the means". AND...

"Without individual rights, a free state of folks would not have an ability to organize for their collective protection..."

These were my words and were surely said by the Framers in the 2nd Amendment.


You and the One can CALL these slogans, but they are hardly divorced from reality.

[crux]

Alas poor Neck, I fear you are too much the pessimist.

Hope springs eternal in my breast that reason, lucid and sharp argument, yes even a little humor/irony now and then, can sway the mind of even the most intransigent.

But thanks anyway!

I am sure by the way that perhaps we could agree on better mental health screening through the background check process, as an example.

Both this loon in Arizona, and Cho at Virginia Tech were nutty, and folks KNEW they were nutty...

Harris and Klebold of Columbine were nutty...

The parents, teachers, fellow students and neighbors knew they were nutty. The problem is, there are LOTS of NUTTY people who NEVER do what these TURDS did...

[Amy Probenski]

Yeah. I'm with you, brother Crux. Why restrict freedom and liberty by regulating guns?!?! And that's just the beginning.

Lots of drivers are perfectly good and have no accidents. How dumb is it to require seat belts and licensing for everybody? Only a tiny few are going to have accidents so those are the ones we should license and make wear seat belts. Otherwise we just rob the huge majority of perfectly good citizens of their rights and money.

Those big government idiots require sprinklers in all new buildings. What a stupid waste. Most buildings will never even have fires. Sprinklers should be required only in those buildings that are going to have fires.

Lots of people can drive their cars perfectly safely at 90 MPH. But, oh, no, those socialists make everybody drive a lower speed limit just because a few idiots don't know how to drive their cars.

I could go on and on about the liberal socialists that continuously rob us of our liberty, freedom and right to do as we please! We need to target the real problem, not put everybody under government's heavy thumb! All they want is power and to wage class warfare against ordinary people

The Tea Party rules!

Have you had your irony pill today?

[fangz1956]

David Weigel of Slate reminds us of some context in the gun control debate:

Last year, some Republican politicians used Second Amendment references (remember Sharron Angle and "second Amendment remedies" if Harry Reid didn't lose) and revolutionary talk to express how angry they were about the state of their country. They strongly and vehemently rejected the charge, from Democrats, that they were encouraging an atmosphere of violence -- especially in the week after the health care vote. When Giffords's opponent held a fundraiser and pitched it as "help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office, shoot a fully automatic M-16 with Jesse Kelly," Democrats saw the specter of violence, and Republicans saw political posturing.

Stephen Stromberg from the Washington Post invokes anarchy in his conclusions:

A friend and former Capitol Hill aide called me Saturday afternoon with fury in his voice as he described what every liberal -- and probably many others -- in America is currently thinking: This is the consequence of the right's sometimes martial anti-government rhetoric. This is the Second Amendment remedy.

This is all premature, and it demonstrates the capacity of instant news to imply conclusions in the absence of facts.

James Fallows of the Atlantic points out how violent rhetoric leads to violent actions:

We don't know why the Tucson killer did what he did. If he is like Sirhan, we'll never "understand." But we know that it has been a time of extreme, implicitly violent political rhetoric and imagery, including SarahPac's famous bulls-eye map of 20 Congressional targets to be removed -- including Rep. Giffords. It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be. At a minimum, it will be harder for anyone to talk -- on rallies, on cable TV, in ads -- about "eliminating" opponents, or to bring rifles to political meetings, or to say "don't retreat, reload."

Paul Krugman of the New York Times urges politicians to take a stand against hate:

You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.

Hate breeds hate and violence breeds violence. Weapons in the hands of hate-mongers never comes to a good end.

A couple of interesting reads:

Reform Movement Pained

Constitutional Whitewash

[crux]

I well know the difference between an unrestrained anarchistic "freedom", and Liberty.

Others wild extrapolations read as pure disjointed self entertainment.

A few of points:

1. Regarding the 2nd amendment. The protection of the individual's right to "keep and bear arms" is historic. For over 200 years folks in this country have owned, maintained, and carried guns for their protection. The firearms industry is historic. For 200+ years we as a people through private enterprise have manufactured, sold and repaired firearms.

2. At the time of the Heller Case, some 35 of 50 States had "shall issue" laws, permitting law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons for their protection. In D.C. the restriction was so great that it effectively WAS a ban on the possession of a weapon for self defense, and was overturned by the US Supreme Court.

3. In the McDonald case in Illinois, which is still one of the @10 states which have no permit to carry, the Court ruled against the Chicago gun BAN, as a violation of the 2nd Amendment... We have a historic RIGHT to self defense, both within Federal and State lands, and our homes.

4. There is an ABUNDANCE of gun laws on the books. Federal, State and Local gun laws cover a wide range of restrictions to our Freedom and place "guardrails" around our personal Liberty, have NO doubt.

5. Guns are are used everyday in this country by folks to protect their own life and their loved one's.

6. Do a little reading on the Dark Side, if you are "anti gun"... http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg

I hope you would be PRO choice about gun-ownership as a starting point...and protect our right of effective self defense.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Trying to pin violent rhetoric, imagery, or violence itself upon the Right side of the political spectrum exclusively, or ON BALANCE, is Selective Moral Outrage, blame shifting, and desperate politics.

Recently we have seen the Left immediately speculate upon the Dark-Right-Side Character or Connections of the Times Square Bomber, the Discovery Channel Hostage Taker, the Panama City School Board Shooter, and the Shooter in Arizona a couple of days ago. Remember also the speculation about the IRS suicide flier and The D.C. sniper.

Be honest enough at least to acknowledge this, and it's illegitimacy.

The above mentioned turds were NOT "right wingers". Hardly... Quite something OTHER.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Right from the beginning the Left JUMPED at the political opportunity the tragic circumstances in Arizona, "presented".

The salivating began right away...

They couldn't wait to make connections that didn't exist.

It was Predictable, and Pathetic.


crux

[Amy Probenski]

For whatever reasons, neither the public nor the politicians seem to really care how many Americans are murdered — unless it’s in a terror attack by foreigners. The two most common responses to violence in the U.S. are to ignore it or be entertained by it. The horror prompted by the attack in Tucson on Saturday will pass. The outrage will fade. The murders will continue.

[crux]

Constitutional Whitewash

I read this and agree. We should not read an abridged version. We should understand where we have come from, in all it's glory, and through even, it's mucky slog... A quote from the article:

""Even those parts of the Constitution that are superseded by amendments are still the Constitution, and they are still there for a reason. When the states (with a handful of exceptions) amend their constitutions, they delete and rewrite them. When we amend a statute we delete it and start again. The U.S. Constitution is never "rewritten" though. It is amended. In his wonderful book The Invisible Constitution, Prof. Laurence Tribe explains why the Constitution is written "only in a forward-moving manner that never backspaces to erase a word that went before." To this day, Tribe notes, the document still contains the language about the three-fifths compromise. Why do we preserve the language of the Constitution, even after we've amended or repealed it? "By keeping even textually superseded language (like that of the 18th Amendment) intact and fully visible in each circulated copy of official text, we undermine efforts to sanitize or otherwise rewrite our troubled history as those in power throughout the world are wont to do with theirs.""

crux

[crux]

For whatever reasons, neither the public nor the politicians seem to really care how many Americans are murdered — unless it’s in a terror attack by foreigners. The two most common responses to violence in the U.S. are to ignore it or be entertained by it. The horror prompted by the attack in Tucson on Saturday will pass. The outrage will fade. The murders will continue.

(I wish I could have pulled it up, but I do not LOG IN if required to read)

I read the above quoted excerpt as too truly cynical, and, "terror attacks by foreigners" is a different animal...

Anyway:

Bob certainly leaves out the the Media...the Pundits. I am struck by this.

See if you can pull this up.

I found this to be a short kind of "third way" observation of what Bob leaves out of his lament above.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... nship.html


crux