Gun Control a National Security Issue

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BarryLee

New member
Peter Bergen a National security Analyst for CNN is making the case that gun violence is a national security issue and thus gun control is needed. He spends a lot of time in the article attacking semi-auto handguns and rifles. Bergen uses some very “impartial” sources like Mother Jones Magazine. He also makes the statement that semi-auto weapons are no better for self defense than an ordinary weapon and not good for hunting. The article would be laughable if it were not so scary.

Also, CNN is running one of those dubious on-line polls where 66% of responders or 16000+ readers agree.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinion/bergen-guns-national-security/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
 
Bergen is using a very old and cheap debate tactic. Move it off-topic and into your area of expertise. He knows it's not a national security issue.
 
Jeebus!

So homicides are the 15th leading cause of deaths in the U.S. -- and that includes a significant number of homicides NOT involving "gun violence." Also, how many of those homicides were justified homicides, either police shootings or legitimate cases of self defense?

His statistic sounds impressive -- until you look at it for a half a nanosecond and realize "Hey! There are FOURTEEN causes of people dying in this country that should be addressed before we even begin on this "gun violence" thing."
 
semi-auto weapons are no better for self defense than an ordinary weapon
Click to expand...

What exactly is an "ordinary weapon" to him I would like to know. I always thought semi-autos were common enough in this country to count as "ordinary"

Glocks, ARs, and AKs are hardly a rare sight.
 
he's right it is a nat. security issue. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto told the japanese emperor "You cannot invade the main land United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" When he was told to submit plans/strategies to do exactly that by an emboldened emperor.
 
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " -Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787

My view is, that in the interests of national security, the time has come to tell a certain group of elites, who obviously wish to disarm us, no.

When they ask for concession, compromise, reasonableness, etc, and especially if and when they ask for obedience, we should simply say, no.

Let Mayor Bloomberg lead by example and do away with his 24/7 Security Detail. Prove to us how firearms for protection are unnecessary. Let the Secret Service guard President Obama with nothing but Model 10 Smith and Wessons, after all they aren't in Iraq and Afghanistan and don't 'need' military type weapons.

I'm certain some who have just read the above thought my ideas for Bloomberg and Obama were silly and ridiculous. Now you know exactly how I feel about their proposals for the citizenry.

You know, on second thought, now that I think about it, there are some people President Obama should have kept high capacity 'assault' weapons away from...the Mexican Drug Cartels that the ATF let purchase them.
 
Bergen needs to add "IMO" to the part about the 2nd amen pertaining to the military, as the Supreme Court already ruled it is indeed an individual and not a collective right.
 
Reading the CNN discussion board the other day, most people seem to be oblivious to the two Supreme Court rulings on the second amendment. The courts opinion leaves no room for interpretation, really cut and dried. The militia part is clearly separate from the "people" part. It even defines "keep" and "bear"
 
Bergen needs to add "IMO" to the part about the 2nd amen pertaining to the military, as the Supreme Court already ruled it is indeed an individual and not a collective right.
Click to expand...

The current opinion is only a couple of old justices away from being over turned. Never trust that supreme court rulings are set in stone.
 
The current opinion is only a couple of old justices away from being over turned. Never trust that supreme court rulings are set in stone.
Click to expand...

While certainly possible, it's not a sure thing. The Supreme Court doesn't like to reverse it's rulings, especially in such a short period of time, and especially just because a couple of new justices joined. It kinda casts their whole "Supreme" legitimacy into doubt.
 
Yes, it is a national security issue.

Can you imagine the joy of the Mexican drug cartels if repeating firearms were outlawed? Not to mention several other groups right here within our own borders?
 
He is right. It is a national security issue. When you out law civilian firearms sales your gun manufactorers go out of business and you dont have the ability to make weapons when you need it the most. We would have been done for innsome previous wars without our manufacturing capacity.
 
Given an anti-RKBA majority on the Supreme Court, they will certainly reverse themselves, and with a smirk on their faces. The administration put them there for just that reason.
 
That is one of my big concerns...a couple justices retire. Our dear leader appoints new ones that will rubber stamp any executive orders. Congress? Who needs Congress!
 
At this point in time I'm just happy that the second amendment reads,

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Instead of:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear muskets, shall not be infringed."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top