Sometimes the chance juxtaposition of two news articles sends its own message.
It occurred this morning as I read my morning Washington Post at the breakfast table. I had just finished the article on Mexican President Calderon's address to a Joint Session of Congress yesterday, in which he urged American lawmakers to "consider reinstating" the assault weapons ban that had expired in 2004. I then turned to the next page, where my eye was caught by a brief article about two Arkansas police officers, who were fatally wounded by gunmen with AK-47s, after their van was pulled over along Interstate 40. Ninety minutes later the gunmen died in a shootout with police at a local Wal-mart, in which two more officers were wounded, one critically.
If President Calderon is wondering why so many in Congress responded to his call for action on guns by sitting on their hands, the Arkansas police shooting gives him his answer. Too many in Congress are unwilling to stand up to the gun lobby bullies to help President Calderon protect the lives of brave Mexican police officers because they don't even have the courage to do the same to protect brave American police officers. The trafficking of assault weapons and other guns out of American gun shops supplies the illegal market, not just in Mexico, but in our own cities and towns as well. Drug criminals armed with assault weapons kill American police, as well as Mexican police.
In his extraordinary speech, President Calderon told Congress that Mexico has seized 75,000 assault weapons and other guns and over 80% of those traced originated with American gun shops. He said the escalation in Mexican drug violence "coincides with the lifting of the assault weapons ban in 2004," powerful support for the impact of gun laws in reducing the supply of guns to violent criminals.
Unlike many of our own political leaders, President Calderon understands that the American people have as much at stake on this issue as the Mexican people. He told Congress: "Today, these weapons are aimed by the criminals not only at rival gangs but also at Mexican civilians and authorities. And with all due respect, if you do not regulate the sale of these weapons in the right way, nothing guarantees that criminals here in the United States with access to the same power of weapons will not decide to challenge the American authorities and civilians."
The Mexican President was being diplomatic. Criminals with assault weapons challenging American police and civilians represent not a future prospect, but today's continuing and tragic reality. As Congress listened to Calderon's words, two Arkansas police officers lay fatally wounded. What more justification for action does Congress need?
And then there is President Obama. He should be profoundly embarrassed that it took the President of another country to call on Congress to take action on guns, while he and his Administration cower in fear of the gun lobby. If our President ever summons the courage to ask Congress to do the right thing on guns, he need look no further than the words of President Calderon: "I admire the American Constitution, and I understand that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee good American citizens the ability to defend themselves and their Nation. But believe me, many of these guns are not going to honest American hands."
President Calderon understands that it does no damage to the Second Amendment to protect police officers from assault weapons. Thank you, Mr. President, for speaking for our people, as well as your own.
Are you listening, President Obama?
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009).
"I think it's more likely in the short term we're going to see administrative enforcement," Rand said. "They can tighten up the import rules, they can tighten up oversight of gun dealers, and they can tighten up oversight of manufacturers. I think over time the Mexican call for an assault weapons ban could lead to some kind of legislation against assault weapons or gun show loopholes, but not in the short term."
The gun-grabbers are sinking fast. I think I'll sit back enjoying some Starbucks coffee and watch the spectacle.
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/28/BradyCampaignMembershipNumbers.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/user/JustSayNoToGuns
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BradyCampaign&view=friends
A year goes by and President Calderon comes back and says the same thing all over again. The problem is that since 2004 Americans can buy AR-15's and AK's that have folding stocks (but are otherwise identical to the pre-2004 AR's and AK's). The addition of those folding stocks is resulting in widespread mayhem and murder in Mexico.
Surely, to whatever extent President Calderon **actually** thought the problem was the ability to incorporate a folding stock, during the intervening year someone must have told him that, actually, AR-15s with non-folding stocks are just as lethal as AR-15s with folding stocks.
So what's going on?
In the recent Heller II case the DC district court concluded that the District's ban on so-called "assault weapons" -- drawn as a "California-style" ban, rather than on the more permissive terms of the 1994-2004 federal/Clinton ban -- was an acceptable infringement.
The real question is what standard of review governs challenges to gun laws. If it is a standard drawn on "reasonable" or "rational" relationships, then we lose. If the DC Council "reasonably" determines (e.g. gives token consideration to both sides) that semi-automatics defined by "evil features" are "assault weapons" and "dangerous and unusual" within the meaning of Heller, then it is Game Over under rational basis review.
The anti's understand this. The amicus brief that the Brady Campaign submitted in McDonald did not even bother arguing incorporation or that the 2A doesn't cover handgun possession. Instead, their sole argument was that the Court should take the opportunity to declare that a rational-basis standard applies to gun-law challenges. Under that standard, anti-gun zealots like Richard Daley could simply reenact their gun bans by drafting a half-page of supposed legislative findings and concluding that it is "reasonable" to enact a whole new smorgasboard of laws and regulations that would make it effectively impossible to own guns. Let's call it Jim Crow in the Cities.
The Second Amendment also offers the clarification that citizens have the right to bear arms for the purposes of defending their homes in the form of a militia. How many gun owners do you think are members of any formal or informal militia or defense group?
I'm fine with the idea of people being given the tools to defend their homes, but who needs an assault weapon to do that? A handgun works just as well against nearly any criminal as would a larger automatic weapon. I won't even mention hunters - the idea of hunting animals with an automatic weapon is pretty ludicrous.
And where does the 2nd Amendment mention hunting?
I may be misunderstanding something - what is the difference between an assault weapon and an automatic weapon? I was told that an AK-47 is considered an assault weapon, and I know that it is also fully automatic, which is why I made that connection - apologies if I was misinformed.
I mentioned hunting because it's one "practical" use for guns, and I've heard many anti-gun-control folks use hunting as an argument against strict gun control. You're right that it's certainly not mentioned in the Second Amendment.
Hmmmm.....
You might enjoy reading the Militia Acts of 1792.
Nice.
Gowder, who said his mother had always been in favor of gun control, has now changed her mind.
"My mother, who is in 60s, now feels she needs to have a gun and she needs to take lessons so that she will be qualified in case somebody kicks in her door," said Gowder.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2010/05/handgun-ban-support-collapsing.html
Hint: they shoot them.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126906809
Mexico and corruption are synonyms.
They've told so many lies over the years that it is impossible for them to say anything without directly contradicting their previous statements.
Aside from these groups the drug lords would have no suppliers....well, except for international arms dealers.
Yeah Calderon!!! You tell them!!!
If it wasn't for American rifles the drug lords would only have Mexican Army weapons, Mexican Police weapons and military arms from around the globe to fight your government with.
I never knew that our civilian semi automatic rifles were so dangerous. Perhaps we should get Bob's Gun Shop and Bubba's Guns Emporium to start arming our men and women in Afghanistan.
By the way, how do Mexican criminals fight the Mexican Army to a standstill using American semi automatic "Assault Weapons?" Are the drug lords buying belt fed machineguns, grenade launchers, tanks, armored personel carriers, land mines and helicopters from El Paso gun shops too?
Mr. Obama lives by the famous and sage advice of Russell Ziskey:
"When I was a kid, my father told me, 'Never hit anyone in anger, unless you’re absolutely sure you can get away with it.' "
your posts about lawful sales between governments is a commerce clause matter...
you might have better luck with the argument that although we have a right to own a gun there exists no mechanism in the 2nd amendment which allows the individual to purchase one...
as i pointed out to the person who tried to make this argument with me...if you apply that logic across the board then the individual has no mechanism to purchase pen and paper...or a royal typewriter....