The Diane Rehm Show

mchaun, this is the best you have on the topic. I assert that there was NOT an intentional effort to allow straw purchased guns to cross the boarder hidden from the Mexican authority's until the Obama administration came into office. Eric Holder like it or not was planting evidence to advance the gun control agenda. No other explanation can possibly explain the chain of events and evidence already submitted by the DOJ and the DOJ is still stonewalling the investigation. WHY?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/new-documents-reveal-previo...

"However, a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a prominent Republican involved in the Fast and Furious probe, said this earlier case appeared different than the Obama-era program."

“In contrast to Operation Fast and Furious, where Mexican authorities were deliberately kept in the dark, this operation was conducted in coordination with Mexican authorities and when supervisors discovered problems that resulted in the loss of a dozen weapons they moved to shut down the effort,” Issa communications director Frederick Hill said. “The committee continues to press the Justice Department for information about this and other operations.”

That is the biggest problem with the Democrats’ strategy. Fast & Furious did not begin until 2009, months after the end of the Bush administration. Given that, one might think that even today’s Democrats would be unable with a straight face to lay this disaster at the feet of Obama’s predecessor. But then one wouldn’t know today’s Democrats.

The key to their strategy is conflating two very different programs: Operation Fast & Furious and a Bush era ATF initiative known as “Operation Wide Receiver.” In the questions from Judiciary Committee Democrats (principally, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer — there may have been others but, again, I didn’t see the entire hearing), it emerged that Wide Receiver began in 2006, when Alberto Gonzales was the Bush administration attorney general. Senator Schumer took pains to describe Wide Receiver as involving the “tracing” of firearms that crossed into Mexico. As we shall see, Wide Receiver’s notion of tracing was night-and-day different from the tracing involved in the reckless gun-walking approach employed by Fast & Furious. Obviously, however, Democrats hope that if they get enough help from their friends in the media, the public will miss the distinction.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282606/fast-furious-was-bushs-fault...

I want, first, to thank Diane Rehm for moderating some genuine and intelligent debate on 2nd Amendment rights issues.

I'll take a crack at the question of right to carry in the capitol buildings:

A large collection of US federal representatives is always a tempting target for violent reprisals. Because of this, it is only reasonable and prudent to maintain what amounts to a small but highly trained and well-vetted paramilitary force to provide security for everyone present. This, in a sense, is no different from a large church deciding that they need to hire a private security contractor. So long as the security detail for the federal representatives stands as a general security force for all present and does not hinder the general public's lawful access to their representatives or extend restrictions on arms beyond the area that they directly and fully control, I see no rationale for finding fault with such an arrangement.

There are many problems involved in the debate on the 2nd Amendment, but two stand out very starkly in my view. Firstly, opponants of the amendment generally fail to recognize the right as the founding fathers did -- a basic human right on par with that of speech and assembly. Secondly, second amendment supporters all too often seem to fail to understand that the right to arms is only one of a great many rights, checks, and balances that must all be well maintained and respected in order to produce the net effect of lasting national security and liberty.

Again, best regards to all who have taken the time to wade into this contentious argument,

Charlie DeArmond

We accept contraints on our liberties all the time for the better good of the country and society. No right or liberty is absolute. We are guaranteed the right of freedom of speech, but can't yell fire in a crowded theater. We can't walk down the street naked or urinate in public. Yet, we will have no abridgement of gun ownership, not no way, not no how. Democrats will no longer promote sensible gun restrictions because they know a target will be drawn on them by the NRA. So,
I have decided not to care about this any more, and I wish the media would stop covering it. Our great nation has become an idiotocracy, easily led; willfully ignorant and blatantly hypocritical.
We say we are a nation of peaceful people, yet tolerate carnage and blood in our streets beyond what any other country does, all in the name of the second amendment. Our hodge podge of state laws make it easy for people to drive across a state line and get all the weaponry they want, so strict state laws on gun ownership are essentiallly null and void. Okay, we get it! The next time some paranoid wack a doodle with enough firepower to hold off the army of a small nations goes up into a bell tower and starts picking off people coming out of the mall, the media can just ignore the hand wringing and teeth gnashing and "oh the humanity!" We have, as a society, made our decision. We value guns more than human life... Too bad for the people coming out of the mall.

@Patsy wrote:
"The Citizens United law by the SCOTUS guaranteed the American people will be victim of the extortion politics,and extortion economics,until this odorous law is repealed.
All the NRA needs to do is threaten a politician with millions in ads running against them,to force surrender,regardless of the common sense need."

I think that the Citizens United ruling has been misunderstood. Rather than giving an inanimate object rights, as many make it sound, it just means that people who get together to form a business do not lose their individual rights just because they start a corporation.
As a small business owner, my three partners and I employ thirteen other people. Our business is organized as a LLC. We own assets, own a building. However, if some agency decided to come in and demand our documents, financial records, etc would we not be protected from such an invasion of privacy? Most would argue we would be. On what basis or what grounds? Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches. Would my company be forced to subscribe to any one belief, could any government agency coerce us to advertising something unrelated to our business and contrary to our individual philosophies? No, the First Amendment protects us against this, yet the business is a not a "person."

Perhaps the biggest lie the NRA tells is that guns are useful for protecting your family. They won’t tell you that having a gun in the house drastically increases the odds of a family member being killed by guns. Why?
Gun accidents.
Crimes of passion, response to adultery or domestic violence.
Children playing with guns.
Mistaking a family member for an intruder, e.g. a daughter sneaking in late after a date.
In a confrontation with a criminal who shoots in what he considers self defence.
Attracting criminals, bent on theft, to homes known to contain guns.

Americans are in love a childish movie gun fantasy. They are willing to sacrifice their family members rather than give up their phallus surrogates. They are beneath contempt.

The handgun as a political tool became archaic as soon as the camera cellphone was made generally available.

By political tool I mean a threatening means of intimidation, terrorism by default.

The NRA is mostly funded by gun manufacturers and sellers.
Right wing quasi-terrorist groups are lesser funders.
If it had to depend on the public it would go broke.
Guns are used to amplify the voices of the socially backward.
Why is it the N R A and not the NHGA (national handgun association)?
I don't see many gunbullies carrying rifles in public.

I own a number of firearms that I keep at a gun club.
I shoot skeet for recreation.
Guns are boring without the competition and camaraderie we enjoy together.
Loners carrying guns is an ugly scenario about to happen.
Shooting and gun fantasizing in isolation is an addiction like alcoholism.
Suicide is a frequent outcome.
When the admonition is made to shoot responsibly this implies a wholesome group setting where safety and mutual respect are paramount.
No ad hoc right wing militia has any chance against our military and law enforcement agencies. Reactionary uprisings are suicide from Waco to Syria.
Political change is coming... by massive peaceful means, so no guns are needed.
The gun fetishism exhibited on this forum is perverted and delusional.
Gun as crutch is a poor adaptation. If you need a gun to be a man you need help urgently and immediately.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

Only 26% of people support banning handguns, which is why the long ago discredited Sarah Brady was forced to change her organization's name from "Handgun Control Inc" and why gun banners have had to stop calling openly for outright gun bans -- most of the people now pushing for "reasonable gun laws" share those views or openly stated them in the past two decades, but are far too scared to state them these days because of how few people share that view

53% (with only 43% favoring) of Americans are opposed to another so called "assault weapons" ban, which would be an even higher number if the people polled actually understood that these weapons aren't fully automatic -- as most of the gun banners either are too ignorant to understand or who choose to intentionally confuse citizens over since facts aren't on their side

Sorry, but the reason even Obama won't take the gun issue on directly -- his Fast and Furious disaster and subsequent Nixonian stonewalling and refusing to allow testimony of government employees aside -- is not because of some lobbying org in DC that collectivists want to blame, but because those views are not in the majority of the American people. The Big Brother advocates who keep pushing for gun bans are completely out of touch with the American public and cannot seem to comprehend that they have the minority view in the country now, and that it is not 1968 anymore.

Pancake Rankin wrote:" The NRA is mostly funded by gun manufacturers and sellers."

The NRA has more than 4 million dues paying members, what is your source for the above statement?

The last thing I want to address is this. How come usually neither side of the debate ever really discuss why crime is so high in the inner cities? Conservatives don't really address it other than wanting to lock everyone up, and liberals just like to blame guns. But a short trip back in history would provide the main reason: Prohibition.

What happened the last time our nation banned a substance? There was an explosion of organized crime fighting over government created black market massive profits. Gangs fought one another for territory and the rights to make big money, and since it was a black market, it wasn't exactly the nice ethical guys getting into business.

How is what is taking place now any different, other than the substances much easier to conceal than a liquid like alcohol? Most all of the crime is fighting over drug territory, and it is an uncomfortable reality that mayors and almost all politicians except for the rare Ron Paul types refuse to confront because it shows how powerless government really is. They all want to make it seem as though the war on drugs can be won, and that it just takes a little more effort and a more detailed plan by the police, and of course more money every year from the taxpayers.

We all have seen how effective the War on Drugs has been. The only people who benefit from the black market are those in the prison industry, politicians, police departments, and the drug dealers themselves. Everyone else has been completely screwed. For those who are serious about crime and violence, why is the Drug War and its obvious side effects on crime almost never discussed by either side?

@progunisthemajority

Thank you for stating clearly writing the many logical, rational arguments for gun ownership without the hyperbole and emotional, but illogocial, arguments often employed by anti-Second Amendment movement.

I am not currently a gun owner but may choose to become one in the future. I am a pediatrician who has worked in busy emergency departments in a large cities and as well as small rural towns and have seen the good and the bad that comes from guns. My brother is a NYC police officer and I certainly don't want to increase any risks to his life. With this backround info, I still agree that gun bans do not protect the citizenry as a whole. Prohibition and censorship merely restrict the rights of law abiding citizens not the law breakers.

Guns do not kill people or other animals, people kill people or other animals.

Since older, white males are the most likely group to die by firearm, maybe we should focus gun bans at seniors.

I believe suicide is still illegal in all 50 states.

Thank you, AnthonyC! I imagine if you were to investigate the cause, the vast majority of those gunshot victims you have seen in hospitals are a result of the Drug War.

I am glad you plan on possibly becoming a gun owner. I have found that even anti-gun types often change their mind once they experience firearms use.

Many NYPD police carry the Glock 19 as their primary, and chances are high that includes your brother. I would highly recommend that as a first pistol, and so do the top of the line trainers like Larry Vickers who law enforcement, military, and civilians pay big bucks to teach. Just make sure to stick to a generation 3, and avoid the newest generation 4 models with the backstraps. That is too new and is still working out its reliability issues.

How about that? A firearm recommendation on a far left discussion forum? That is symbolic of how badly liberals have done in the battle of ideas on this issue.