The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
From the polling firm McClatchy:
Nearly 65 percent say the 2005 law — which allows people who believe they are in grave danger to use deadly force to defend themselves
[…]
The 2005 law — which eliminates the so-called “duty to retreat†during a confrontation in a public place — remains popular in Florida, with only 18 percent saying it should be repealed.
We documented here that King Bloomberg is no fan of American Constitutional liberties, since they get in the way of his being able to run his kingdom as he sees fit. Now he’s suggesting that the New York Civil Liberties Union is as bad as the NRA:
One group views the Second Amendment in absolutist terms; the other group views the Fourth Amendment in absolutist terms. Both groups, I think, are dangerously wrong on the Constitution,†he added. “The right to bear arms and the right to privacy do not trump the right of citizens to walk down their own street, or walk down their own hallway, without getting blown away.
I must have missed that part in my pocket constitution, where there’s a constitutional right to be absolutely free of crime. The Bill of Rights absolutely trumps rights that King Bloomberg makes up. Whether he likes it or not, New York is still part of the United States, and we will be soon teaching him that lesson in federal court.
Heritage is really doing an excellent job of covering the proceedings, without a lot of hysteria. He speaks of potential dangers in the treaty, some of which I share:
Second, most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and parts and components chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market, reducing the ability of Americans to make effective use of their firearms rights.
[…]
Just because the ATT is not a “gun grab†treaty does not mean it raises no domestic concerns: “Gun grabs†are less plausible than “death by a thousand cuts.â€
Go read the whole thing. Extrano’s alley is pointing out that Graham and McCain are signaling weakness, and might need some encouragement. I suspect they just want to have specifics to base any opposition on, and we do not yet have a draft, but a friendly reminder to the Senators would probably help if you are one of their respective constituents.
Three men were murdered in Springfield Gardens Saturday morning in a drive-by shooting with an AK-47 assault rifle. At least 63 shots were fired, and questions are still looming over the incident, including why such a serious weapon was on the streets. The submachine gun was developed in Russia to be used as a military weapon. The 11-pound weapon can fire 600 rounds per minute, or 10 rounds per second.
The ignorance — it burns!
The Assault Weapons Ban, enacted by Bill Clinton during his presidency in 1994, banned automatic and some semiautomatic guns, including AK-47s.
This reporter has clearly been living in a hole when it comes to the gun issue, but yet is writing about it. Unfortunately for us, that hole is New York City. For those who think New Yorkers are these world sophisticated people, no. You will struggle to find people more provincial than you will find in New York City. Many people who live there have hardly ever left.
The ATF has issued a response to the public comments it received on their original 2011 guidance on the importability of shotguns. Their response is best summed up thusly:
The Arms Trade Treaty should not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense. Acting together, we can strengthen international peace and security and the rule of law by requiring universal establishment of responsible national standards for the arms trade.
[…]
Moreover, we must acknowledge and respect that this negotiation is not an attempt to intrude, either in principle or process, into states’ internal activities, laws, or practices concerning the domestic possession, use, or movement of arms. Rather, this treaty will regulate only the international arms trade. Any attempt to include provisions in the treaty that would interfere with each state’s sovereign control over the domestic use or movement of arms is clearly outside the scope of our mandate.
And interesting question will be, if the treaty draft does indeed come out to not affect civilian arms, and Obama gives the treaty his endorsement, how does that affect this as an election issue? The other issue is that once the treaty is established, the anti-gun NGOs will be pushing to expand the scope of the treaty.
Black women. The tears of our opponents are sweet and satisfying.
This is often a problem when we have unfriendly administrations in the White House. The ATF has maintained a sometimes cozy relationship with the anti-gun movement, which hasn’t exactly helped ATF achieve its mission. In order for ATF to be effective, they can’t be seen as working with the enemies of firearm freedom, and the fact that they often are, is what destroys their credibility with our community, and our cooperation is necessary for that mission to be fulfilled.
The heat in the kitchen must be getting rather high if Leland Yee is playing the race card. I have no doubt that Yee is getting some racist nastiness, because like any large and diverse group of people, some of us are assholes. But to represent all the opposition in this manner is as wrong and uncalled for as the people suggesting Senator Yee, who is as American as you or I, should “go back to Communist China.” It lowers the debate to the gutter and dismisses the legitimate concern many of us have for preserving the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional rights of all Americans, including Californians. We should aspire to more than the gutter, and so should Senator Yee. Even the Brady Campaign is turning on the legislation, suggesting this isn’t the proper way to go about things. They are pressuring the Attorney General to change the law through regulation, and are threatening a lawsuit over it.
I find the Brady Campaign’s position interesting, and I’m debating what their strategic thinking is, if they have any. If I had to theorize, they are largely out of the legislation business, since everything seems to be happening under the auspices of the Brady Center, the 501(c)(3), these days. Litigation is something they can fund, and a quick letter and a few meetings with a friendly Attorney General could accomplish the same goal as legislation without engaging in a knock-down drag out fight with our grassroots in a big legislative battle. California may have a very anti-gun legislature, but I think we can still cause headaches for them there, and they’d rather do this easily, and without risking their 501(c)(3) status.
I always love it when gun control advocates try to argue that even the most sensible pro-gun argument is rooted in conspiracy theories. I love it because it makes me laugh when I see these kinds of tweets from their backers:
The rich N war with the have not is that what the #NRA @GOP #KochBro planning?#think abt it!
— Carreramae (@carreramae) July 10, 2012
Yup, every single member of the National Rifle Association is clearly working with the Republican Party and the Koch brothers to wage war on the middle and lower classes. Because there are no poor gun owners. There are no middle class Republicans. There are no NRA card-toting Democrats. You know, such a black-and-white view of the world has to make for a very boring world.
Earlier in the day, the tweeter also ranted about how waiting periods of three months aren’t stopping the war against the “have nots.”
waiting period 2 buy a gun is 3months why @GOP #NRA need guns? War against the HAVE NOTS N THE END
— Carreramae (@carreramae) July 10, 2012
Anyone know where there’s a three month waiting period in place? I realize this is clearly a person who believes they are entitled to their own set of facts, but I’m trying to figure out if the tweeter is also exercising a right to his/her own reality.
I just had to respond and asked the tweeter just what evidence existed that NRA members were waging war on the “have nots” and how he/she explained the fact that NRA routinely supports Democrats in Congress if this conspiracy is actually being masterminded by the GOP. I did hear back, but it devolved into me being called “terrible” for acknowledging that minorities do, in fact, attend the NRA meetings and followed by claims that the NRA does want gun control if members are threatened by guns. Yeah, it didn’t make much sense to me, either.