Jimmy Carter on AW ban

Mr. Carter makes several references to Congress and the White House cowering to the NRA. In reality it is the People that the elected are afraid of right now. As they should be.

Jimmy Carter can go pound sand up his arse.

And, again, just what do he and idiots like him propose to do with all the semi-auto rifles in private hands NOW? Especially considering the news bit about Americans buying all those arms in the last three months of '08.

So far I have seen two responses to Jimmy Carter's op-ed from Letalis Maximus. One here and the other over at Alphecca.

I wholeheartedly agree with and endorse both.

Mr. Carter's op-ed contains startlingly flawed reasoning and much that is non sequitur.

"The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case."

Sorry, there Jimmy, ol' boy, but the burden of proof remains with you, and thus far, I remain unconvinced of the correctness of your assertion.

Mr. Carter should go back to what he was doing before 1994 - building houses for Habitat for Humanity - and stay out of trying to make policy. He did that very poorly as President and he is not any better at it now.

I'm sure he wishes he had one in that boat with him...

derp

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/jimmy_carter_killed_his_sister_in_laws_cat/

"[T]he White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult."

Strange, I seem to remember that Carter's White House punted on an anti-gun law (WRT handguns?) because they realized it would be politically unwise.

Jimmy Carter is a useless pustule. Has anyone done more damage to this country than the man with lust in his heart? Well, for now anyway?

If "assault weapons" only kill cops and school children, why on Earth should it be OK for cops to possess them?

Jimmy Carter wrote:

We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.

If "assault weapons" are designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend, then what do police officers purchase them for? To kill other officers and innocent people? A semi-auto rifle (or select fire if you can get it) is the best all around defense weapon if you can only have one. Though a concealable handgun might be better in some circumstances. It seems very unlikely we'll need a cop killing campaign any time in the next few decades, but Carter seems to be forgetting the whole revolutionary war thing that partly inspired the 2nd Amendment.

And Carter ought not to call it "political blackmail" when organizations "threaten" to recommend their members vote against politicians who have policies they don't like.

An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons

Does he really? Is this right only for hunters? Because I'd say an unimportant pastime is hardly a justification by itself for permitting possession of deadly weapons that supposedly kill tens of thousands of humans every year. But maybe to Carter that makes sense. If he really supported the right to self-defense and defense of country, then I would think he would recognize that semi-auto rifles are one of the best choices for such defense.

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons.

A majority of Americans don't even know what an "Assault Weapon" is. I'm sure Carter realizes this and takes advantage of the confusing name. An "assault weapon" is not significantly different than a regular semi-auto hunting rifle, except that it LOOKS like a military weapon. Hardly any military in the world uses semi-auto rifles as a general weapon for assaults if it can afford not to.

N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families.

This is a result of governments like Washington DC, New York, and Chicago doing exactly that, and many lawmakers trying to do everything they can get away with to destroy gun ownership. Of course Carter also tries to pull the "we won't take your guns away" scam while wanting to prohibit anyone who doesn't have one already from getting one.

Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty.

The NRA obviously isn't defending criminals' access to guns. The NRA is fighting against gun registration in its various forms. Registration only makes it slightly more difficult for criminals to get guns, but it makes it much more tempting for the government to try to take guns away from law abiding citizens. And it's very likely that those hunting rifles which Carter claims the right to own can easily penetrate bullet proof vests and are much more powerful than the "assault weapons" he wants to ban.

Closing the "gun show loophole" will only be a small obstacle to criminals, but it will serve to get more guns effectively registered and thus increase the temptation for the government to ban and confiscate weapons.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people?

Guns are really not usually designed to kill people. They're usually designed to save lives by deterring or stopping criminals. The large majority of the time, criminals flee at the sight of a gun. Thus the victim's life is saved and often even the criminal's life is saved. It's not uncommon for a police officer to go a whole career without even firing his weapon. The engineers of such guns think of them as a deterrent, and if necessary, a way to save the lives of innocent people by stopping a criminal.

In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms...In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

But most of those are suicides that would occur even in the absence of guns. And twisted anti-gun statistics about children often include 19 year old gang members getting themselves killed in drug wars. But the biggest problem with statistics like these is that they don't count how many children and others were saved by guns in the hands of innocent people protecting themselves. Thinking only about the negative consequences without factoring in the positive consequences is a major logical error.

And if Carter really respected the right to arms and only wants semi-auto rifles banned, then why is he bringing up 30 thousand gun deaths which would only be slightly reduced, if at all, by gun registration or a ban on semi-auto rifles? Semi-auto rifles are only used in a tiny portion of murders, and almost all such murders would probably be completed with other weapons if semi-autos were banned.

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.

The Mexican drug cartels probably get most of their weapons stolen from the Mexican military and from cheaper sources in other countries. But the news media and others will happily report bogus statistics and barely mention any corrections.

I hereby place this comment in the public domain so you can post it elsewhere in whole or in part, with or without attribution.

Senility has such a magical way of granting one exemption from both reality and relevance.

Poor old fool.