OK, maybe that’s not the most felicitous way of putting it. I got this release last evening:
Graham, Cruz Request Judiciary Committee Work to Allow Firearms for Education, Display and Discussion Purposes at Gun Control Hearings
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today wrote Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy requesting the Judiciary Committee work with local and federal law enforcement to ensure that at future hearings Senators can request, and law enforcement will provide, various firearms for education, display, and discussion purposes.
“In anticipation of tomorrow’s hearing on gun control, we instructed our staff to work to ensure various unloaded firearms, under law enforcement supervision, could be brought into the hearing,” wrote Graham and Cruz, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Our offices worked with various officials in local and federal law enforcement, as well as the Senate Sergeant at Arms, but it appears that the requirements to secure the weapons at the hearing are so impractical as to be unworkable.”
“Our goal is simple — to educate fellow Senators and members of the public how and why firearms are used by millions of law-abiding Americans for self-defense, hunting, and sporting purposes,” said Graham and Cruz. “We also want to shatter the mistaken belief that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a danger to society. It is every bit as important we make that distinction as it is to note that one gun in the hand of mentally-deranged individual is one too many.”
####
Makes sense to me. Of course, I’m sure it will freak out a few people. But now that I think about it, if “one gun in the hand of mentally-deranged individual is one too many,” are we sure we want to make them this accessible to members of Congress?
Related Posts
They need their props for the theatrical shows they want to put on. I’m sure Lindsey’s got his Rambo costume already picked out.
If they’re for display/explanation (eg. why an AK-47 isn’t a “rapid fire” weapon, and whether it can quickly and easily be turned into one), I see no problem. But I have a hard time understanding how having them there will change anyone’s mind as to how safe they are. How about a few independent studies of reports–like how frequently having a gun in the home leads to someone being shot by it? How many guns are actually stolen each year. thereby putting them on the criminal market? Oh, don’t have those stats because the gun lobby made it impossible to get them? Could we at least do something about the insane laws that prohibit gathering information about gun crimes? Or is Senator Lindsay and the rest of the pro-gun lobby afraid of what that information might show?
What other purpose would they be for other than “display/presentation”? The fact is that vast majority of the strident gun-banners are completely ignorant about guns. They know nothing at all about the actual item they want banned other than it’s scary and bad.
It would probably be helpful to show the silliness of an AWB by showing a gun that would be banned and a gun that would not be banned – and they would be functionally almost identical.
So they have figured out that guns are weapons? Wow.
The problem with the idea that guns should be carried everywhere by “law abiding” citizens is that people may be law-abiding, until they are not. And then they are armed – and dangerous.
Of course guns have useful purposes, they are tools after all. But their craft is killing. So they need restrictions. There is no myth to shatter.
“The problem with the idea that guns should be carried everywhere by “law abiding” citizens is that people may be law-abiding, until they are not. And then they are armed – and dangerous.” -Mark
Future law-breaker Mark is right. We’re all future law-breakers who cannot be trusted.
“It would probably be helpful to show the silliness of an AWB by showing a gun that would be banned and a gun that would not be banned – and they would be functionally almost identical.”
It might be useful to compare similar weapons to ensure that all they wish to ban are covered by the language of the ban. So far the closest I’ve come to seeing a ban on guns is the suggestion that they ban large capacity clips. Ensuring universal background checks, and standardizing the way that’s done, is only sane, unless you assume that only the pure in heart and mind, who have no need to circumvent a background check buy guns at gun shows or privately. It would also be useful if we could collect information about crimes committed with guns. A comparison of how many times people have successfully defended his/her home against attack by using a gun, vs. how many people have been killed by the guns that were in their houses might be interesting.
Bryan,
I am not in favor of banning semi-automatic “assault” weapons. All weapons are assault weapons, really. Handguns most of all, in my opinion.
However, I am absolutely in favor of strengthening – or raising – the level of responsibility among gun owners. I don’t think anyone would argue that this steadily eroded over the last 50 years and has generally gone from conception of guns as tools to toys (“self-defense” idiations included).
This isn’t the way it’s meant in the current debate, but I tend to think of “assault weapon” as referring to a fully-automatic weapon light enough for an infantryman to use while moving forward.
I’m a little embarrassed to admit that, but this idea in my mind is reinforced by the time I’ve spent playing “Call of Duty: World at War.” When firing from behind cover, I’ll use a weapon that more clearly fits our picture of a “rifle,” such as an M1 or a Springfield with scope. But when running at the enemy in the open (something that the game forces you to do; a LOT — if you stay behind cover you never get through the level), I’ll use something in the submachine-gun line. A Thompson, or if available a German Schmeisser, or a Japanese Type 100. Hence “assault weapon.”
The way the game is programmed, the BAR is sort of in-between — not as accurate as an M1, and nowhere near the rapid spray of bullets that a Thompson can send out to cover your advance. And the clip doesn’t last long enough. So when the game gives me a BAR, I ditch it for something else at first opportunity…
News flash!
Sen. Lindsay Graham, Inbred-SC, announced that he has requested tactical nuclear weapons be displayed at future meetings of the Judiciary Committee.
“Our goal is simple — to educate fellow Senators and members of the public how and why tactical nuclear weapons are used by millions of law-abiding Americans for (national) self-defense,” said Graham and Cruz. “We also want to shatter the mistaken belief that tactical nuclear weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a danger to society. It is every bit as important we make that distinction as it is to note that one tactical nuclear weapon in the hand(S) of mentally-deranged individual is one too many.”
Maybe Lindsey can ask to get invited to Obama’s next skeet shooting outing. According to Dear Leader he does it all the time at Camp David, even though Dear Leader’s Press Secretary has never seen or heard of him doing it. Jay Carney might be looking for a new job next week.
Going by this photo, Graham has been having to make do with mere pictures of guns…
Why not? Let’s bring in assault weapons and high capacity magazines into the Capitol for this “Dog and Pony Show”.
REVOLUTION!
That probably the best way to get a new slate of legislators in Congress since incumbency is difficult to defeat.