Shocker: Obama’s Attorney General Pick Is A Gun-Grabber
During his campaign for the Presidency, Obama said “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” He was right. His pick for Attorney General tells us that he doesn’t intend to take away our guns. He just intends to make it so difficult for us to purchase and possess them that we won’t want them in the first place.
Back in 2000, when Eric Holder was a deputy AG under the Clinton administration, he answered a question about control with a rather long answer which details the fact that he has little to no respect for the 2nd amendment. Here’s a key excerpt (full answer here):
We know that there is not one simple answer, and we know that there is nothing we can do that will prevent every single crime or act of violence. But we also know that there are some common-sense things that we can do and that we must do. And so I want to add my voice to those who are calling on Congress to finally — to finally — pass these very common-sense gun measures:
* First, to require child safety locks for all handguns that are sold.
* Second, to ban violent juveniles from ever having the ability to own guns.
* Third, to pass the president’s handgun licensing proposal, which requires safety certification for all handgun purchasers.
* Fourth, to support research in smart gun technology which can limit a gun’s use to its authorized owner.
And finally, to close the gun show loophole by requiring a background check for all gun purchases at gun shows.
First, while keeping guns secure from children should be a priority for any gun owner, a law requiring child locks for handguns is both redundant and almost totally unenforceable. There is no really good way to ensure that such locks are being used short of random home searches which aren’t going to happen unless we suspend a few other constitutional amendments. And is there really a need to make such locks mandatory under laws? There are already legal consequences for those who are lax in securing their guns. People who do so will face them, and an additional charge for not having a lock on the gun is going to be almost meaningless when they do. Plus, there are other alternative to locks. Such as safes and such. Is the government going to require us to have a lock and a safe? I mean, why not just require that the guns be placed in a satellite orbiting the earth until they’re needed?
Second, the ban on gun ownership for violent juveniles seems draconian and excessive. I mean, what sort of violence are we talking about? High school fistfights? Do we really want to take away the right to bear arms from a citizen because of a few youthful indiscretions? There are already plenty of laws on the books preventing violent criminals from getting weapons. Another one isn’t going to make much of a difference.
Third, a safety certification requirement for gun ownership isn’t necessarily a bad idea but I think coming from gun-grabbers like Holder and Obama it’d be structured in such a way as to make buying a gun a really arduous process. Which sort of plays into Holder’s final point about requiring background checks even for guns sold at gun shows. The anti-gun rights crowd has realized for a long time now that they’ll never be able to outright ban guns, so they’ve settled for throwing as many obstacles in the way of purchasing/owning a gun as they can in the hope that they’ll make it such a depressing bureaucratic nightmare that people will give up and go without their 2nd amendment right. It seems to me that we have plenty of laws on the books now pertaining to gun safety and background checks. More of the same, again, isn’t going to change much.
Finally, smart gun technology? Seems to me that technology that can disable our guns despite the gun owner’s wishes sort of defeats the purpose of the founders having included the second amendment in the Constitution in the first place. What good is an electorate of armed citizens ready to fertilize the “tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (as Jefferson put it) if the government can disable those guns?
“The only good bureaucrat is one with pistol to his head. Put it in his hand and it’s “Goodbye” to the Bill of Rights” H.L. Mencken.
I think this is a case of a bureaucrat with the biggest gun of all – The power of the government to use deadly force.
Where is all this “change” Barri screeched about for 2 years? I just ain’t seeing it.
Probably not, if the owner ever intends to use the gun for it’s intended purpose.
The last thing I would want in a life or death situation, is one more piece of technology that could fail or malfunction and prevent my firearm (or that of a policeman) from firing.
Sure, my next of kin could sue the manufacturer ( a win-win for the gun grabbers), but personally I’d rather they not have the money!
K.I.S.S.
I’m an avid multiple gun owner/collector/shooter/hunter of some 55 years. These activities have brought my family and me inumerable hours of pleasure and many fond memories. I might add that I’ve never even seen a bad incident with a gun.
Incredibly, I find myself in partial agreement with Mr. Holder on a single point. I think that mandatory safety and operational instruction with testing should be a prerequisite for firearms ownership. I believe that this would go a long way toward restricting legal gun ownership to responsible,law abiding citizens. Such a training program must of course be available, afordable, and no more intensive than the firearms instruction that police trainees receive. This would mean that blanket violation of 2nd amendment rights in places like Chicago and DC could no longer be justified, since urban idiot thug, Obama voter types would be unlikely to take and complete such a course.
The rest of Mr. Holder’s ideas on the subject seem like crap to me.
Wood, that kind of training is called Basic Training. Instituting a government run “program” for all citizens would lead directly to gun confiscation. It is the responsibility of each individual citizen to make themselves properly trained and equipped member of The Militia. Passing the buck on that to USG bureaucrats is the surest way to lose your right to keep and bear.
I have long been puzzled by people’s complete lack of knowledge about firearms handling and safety. I was raised around guns, was always taught proper handling and instilled with a healthy respect for any weapon. What the hell happened to Americans? How did they become so woefully ignorant of such a simple and easily learned subject? And yes, I am being facetious. I know exactly how this has happened, been watching it and working against it my entire life.
Funny, how did Eric pass the test? He has said repeatedly that he owns several guns, it is his typical response to anyone who mentions his anti-gun Jihad.
Or a dead or corroded battery. (But that never happens!)
He has also spoken on the misguided and dangerous Heller v DC ruling. And on prostitution enforcement in the District 2 years ago.
Fingerprint scanners on guns would easily be rendered garbage with a nice little EMP blast.
Change we can believe in. Seems that fears gun owners had about NOBAMA were legit.
Also, the AG will have sole discretion on determining which semiautomatic rifles can be banned for not having a “sporting purpose”.
The fact that the AR-15 is the most popular competition rifle in the country will mean nothing.
Buy ‘em now. And, if you live in a free state, trade ‘em with your friends to get them “off the grid”.
How about safety locks for cars? Drugs? Violent homosexuals? (see recent Youtubes).
No, will not happen, politically “incorrect”. The good, honest, law-abiding citizens will have their labors stolen by lawbreakers just as in certain African countries recently. It is far easier to steal wealth than work for it honestly. Shame on these immoral people.
The first two are redundant. . .the third? eh. But the fourth. . .Did anyone see “shoot ‘em up”? The owner of the gun puts this fingerprint reading device on the back of the gun and only the owner can fire it. It’s so the owner never gets shot with his or her own gun. Sounds like something the OWNER might want installed. Not like something the government would impose. Of course if the government DID impose them, and a gun became an electronic device instead of a mechanical one, then I’m sure they’d develop the technology to STOP civilians from being able to USE those guns whenever they want.
I wonder if Santa will bring me a gun for christmas?
Uncle Mikes (the holster company) came out with a fingerprint retention holster a few years back. My department tested them, they sucked, the didn’t read half the time, the batteries died quickly (necessitating a key to open the holster) all and all they were dangerous. We sent ours back. Never did hear of them going mainstream, but you can bet your butt I’m not putting a fingerprint reader or any other such nonsense on my guns!
When FP technology becomes mandatory I’m going to open up a FIREARM THROWING RANGE and ACADEMY, and franchise it!
Well if the owner wants it the owner should be able to get it. It shouldn’t be something the government mandates.
A little law and order for ya.