Liberal Senator Kerry (Dem) pushes for more gun control

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
"Sen. Kerry makes push for tighter gun control

EL PASO — The United States does not need to send troops to the border in response to Mexico's drug war, nor is Mexico in danger of becoming a failed state, law enforcement officials told a congressional panel.

Witnesses testifying before members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in El Paso on Monday urged the lawmakers to bolster law enforcement in the region, increase aid to Mexico and push it to reform institutions whose weaknesses have been exposed by their struggle with drug-trafficking gangs.

Experts and members of Congress likewise said Mexico had not become a "failed state" despite corruption and intimidation that have weakened local control in some areas.

"Cartels are primarily interested in fighting each other," not in challenging for political control, Howard Campbell, an anthropologist at the University of Texas, El Paso, where the hearing was held, told the senators.

Monday's hearings, the committee's first along the border, came amid a flurry of activity in Washington focusing on Mexico's struggle with drug cartels. The Obama administration last week announced it would send more money and agents to the border, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. will visit soon. President Barack Obama will visit Mexico on April 16.

At Monday's hearing, committee Chairman Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said he had been shocked to see killings and beheadings "just a stone's throw across the Rio Grande from where we're sitting this morning."

Across the border, thousands of Mexican soldiers patrol Ciudad Juarez, which saw about 2,000 murders in 14 months.

Kerry called for a ban on the imports of assault rifles, such as the AK-47, into the United States. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., opposed the idea. "
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6350856.html
 
Ah yes I forgot that the 2nd Amendment said "... shall not be infringed, unless it is politically popular to do so".
 
Epicurus said:
Ah yes I forgot that the 2nd Amendment said "... shall not be infringed, unless it is politically popular to do so".
Click to expand...

If you want to get into a real debate about the 2nd amendment & its original intent, it doesn't mean half of the things that NRA'ers have claimed it does over the years.

It certainly doesn't guarantee the right to own an AK-47.
 
How is limiting the types of weapons, ammunitions, and accessories you can own, mandating where and how you must store them, as well as forbidding their possession in many areas of the country NOT an infringment?
 
First they came for our Ak-47s, and you know the rest.

Communism must first disarm it's citizens to be implemented. No kind of dissent allowed..
 
Onceler said:
If you want to get into a real debate about the 2nd amendment & its original intent, it doesn't mean half of the things that NRA'ers have claimed it does over the years.

It certainly doesn't guarantee the right to own an AK-47.
Click to expand...

Sure it does, do you even know why it came about? The 2nd amendment was advocated so that ordinary citizens would have always have a means of resisting a tyranical government should it get out of control.
Obviously militias and individuals would need to fight government on the same terms.
Gun control to Liberals seems to be interpreted to mean that people can have guns so long as government can have more powerful guns - which of course negates the primary point of the amendment.
 
Epicurus said:
How is limiting the types of weapons, ammunitions, and accessories you can own, mandating where and how you must store them, as well as forbidding their possession in many areas of the country NOT an infringment?
Click to expand...

That argument ultimately falls apart. By that logic, ANY restriction is an infringement on the 2nd amendment: licensing, background checks, waiting periods...measures which large majorities of Americans agree with to an extent.

Beyond that, would you really argue that there should not be certain weapons that are restricted? What is your take on grenades? How about Uzi's? It's ridiculous to assume that the 2nd amendment protects completely unrestricted access to virtually any kind of weapon. That is an abuse of its intent & language.
 
Onceler said:
That argument ultimately falls apart. By that logic, ANY restriction is an infringement on the 2nd amendment: licensing, background checks, waiting periods...measures which large majorities of Americans agree with to an extent.

Beyond that, would you really argue that there should not be certain weapons that are restricted? What is your take on grenades? How about Uzi's? It's ridiculous to assume that the 2nd amendment protects completely unrestricted access to virtually any kind of weapon. That is an abuse of its intent & language.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is not a popular interpretation, and I will concede that they were probably not considering machine guns and WMDs when they drafted the document. But they were aware of the rapidly increasing rate of technological progress, and Dano is correct that the original intent of the Amendment was to prevent the state from becoming disproportionately more powerful than its citizens.

I know that most Americans would prefer a more moderate interpretation, and I can't pretend to know whether the Founding Fathers would word the Amendment the same way seeing our technological progress. But we have the Amendment that we were given, unless it is changed and ratified. I do believe that the way the 2nd is currently worded, any infringment whatsoever could potentially be struck down as unconstitutional. It's a fringe position in American society, which is ironic to me considering it merely follows the letter and intent of the Constitution.
 
Onceler said:
That argument ultimately falls apart. By that logic, ANY restriction is an infringement on the 2nd amendment: licensing, background checks, waiting periods...measures which large majorities of Americans agree with to an extent.

Beyond that, would you really argue that there should not be certain weapons that are restricted? What is your take on grenades? How about Uzi's? It's ridiculous to assume that the 2nd amendment protects completely unrestricted access to virtually any kind of weapon. That is an abuse of its intent & language.
Click to expand...

Uzis were legal in the 80's, grenades existed at the time the 2nd amendment was written.
Again, your idea of gun control is prohibiting anything that makes you uncomfortable and that you can get away with based on what a pragmatic populace will allow. That list tends to grow.
You put emotional checks on an amendment that never would have allowed them.
 
Onceler said:
If you want to get into a real debate about the 2nd amendment & its original intent, it doesn't mean half of the things that NRA'ers have claimed it does over the years.

It certainly doesn't guarantee the right to own an AK-47.
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment meant absolutely the right to own an AK or M16, or even a barret .50 caliber.

They KNEW firsthand the terrible oppression that a standing military force could enact upon an unarmed populace and wanted to ensure that the civilian populace had equal firepower to any standing military.
 
Why do we all agree that freedom of speach can be infringed, but the right to bear arms cannot.
 
Jarod said:
Do you belive I have a right to go into crowede theaters and yell "fire"?
Click to expand...

you do, just be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions when people are trampled to death and there was no fire.

If you absolutely did not have a right to do that, they'd have to gag you first, right?
 
If you guys want to put having Uzi's & grenades for sale next to the gum rack at Stop & Shop, with no background checks, waiting periods or even someone showing an i.d., and then campaign on that, have at it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top