Bill Kristol: People Don't Have a Right to Assault Rifles

[kpete]

Source: Crooks And Liars

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on Sunday broke with fellow conservatives and backed restrictions the sales of "assault weapons" like the AR-15 that was allegedly used to kill at least 12 people and wound 58 others in Aurora, Colorado last week.

"People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles," Kristol told Fox News host Chris Wallace. "I don't think they have a right to semi-automatic, quasi-machine guns that can be used to shoot a hundred bullets at a time."

"And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they're being cowardly," he added. "I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control if they separated clearly from a desire to take away everyone's handguns or rifles."

"And you could put more pressure on moderate Republicans than people think. It's not as if Republicans from New York and Illinois and California couldn't -- that President Obama couldn't do what President Clinton did and put pressure on them [to pass an assault weapons ban]. President Obama on this one is just unwilling to take a strong stanc

Read more: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/bill-kristol-people-dont-have-right-assault-

[Edweird]

1. Here it comes - they are going to try to force Obama cut his own political throat

with the gun control issue. We're gonna find out how much he really wants to be re-elected....

[enough]

7. All anybody has to do is wait for 2 days, and none of this will be in play, one way or the other.

Let them all gyrate as they will.

[Edweird]

13. I dunno. I had my suspicions when Murdoch came out but now that Kristol is doing it

I bet they are going to push the issue. I have no doubt they remember what happened to Clinton because of the AWB and I believe this may be their attempt to get Obama to do the same thing OR they are just going to be hypocrites and hammer him for 'not caring'.

[TrollBuster9090]

12. Pretty much. Sadly, Billy is not "breaking with conservatives," he's just CONCERN TROLLING.

[frazzled]

16. No, most Americans would be in favor of this

You seem to think everybody loves 'em some assault rifles. They don't. People understand and are disgusted by it.

[Edweird]

18. Yeah, you might wanna check with some unbiased sources about that. Just sayin.

[RC]

78. You mean like the good unbiased people in the gungeon?

[samsingh]

30. Once we take the emotion out people understand that there

Should be controls on guns. After all anyone could have been in that theatre and lost the drop to the lunatic

[Scairp]

87. Who cares what he thinks?

What a tool. I had a dream that millions of Americans got up off the couch and marched for gun control because of what happened in Colorado. I saw signs and everything. It was so vivid for a brief moment I thought it really was happening. It was a great feeling.

[deldemocrat]

2. cling to thier guns

why should Obama say anything about guns? they almost killed him when he said americans cling to guns...as with nearly everything he was right

[A Simple Game]

22. Good point and welcome. n/t

[Hoyt]

59. I'm voting for him, but I liked him even more when he said things like that.

[yurbud]

94. I thought that was Howard Dean

[shraby]

3. I see he's making it out like it's all the Dems fault for not doing something. If they try, the hue

and cry from the republicans is so loud and vociferous that you'd think they were getting their toe nails pulled out.
When are the republicans going to step up to the plate and do something in the direction of sanity where guns are concerned? Maybe if they did, and were downright serious about it, they might find help from the left side of the aisle.
Until then, it will never happen because they like to call the Dems out on it, not help or actually lead on the problem.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. I might agree, but I think it is a trap.

The last thing we need is a gun control legislation during this election.

[samsingh]

28. True. Obama should not do that now.

[pipoman]

5. Because, afterall,

it worked out so well for President Clinton, eh?

The problem is that nobody has ever been able to define "assault rifle"...not even the head of the ATF..My 1958 Remington Woodsmaster deer rifle purchased new by my grand father, my dad used it until his passing in 2000, I shot my first deer with it in 1976...I have used it since 2000, my son shot his first deer with it in 2007. It will be his some day. It's mechanism is virtually the same as an AR15. When Bill Kristol defines what he is talking about we may have something to discuss.

Oh, and my rifle is chambered in 30-06, has tremendously more killing power than an AR15 (.223)..a .223 is too small and underpowered to be legal for deer in most states including my state.

[samsingh]

29. Clinton won both times

[pipoman]

34. He attributed his

1994 extreme loss to his gun legislation. Gore credited his loss in Tennessee to the gun legislation. And 10 years after it's enactment it was let to sunset and never re-enacted. It was a failure for Clinton and a bigger failure for the party.

[Selatius]

65. And he oversaw the loss of not one but both houses of Congress in 1994. nt

[samsingh]

69. it was the healthcare issue that cost him 1994

and people basically wanting to see a change in congress.

[boppers]

32. 'nobody has ever been able to define "assault rifle"'? Except when they did. Clearly.

It's not about the bolt, the grain, the caliber, it's about stupid crap that the mentally fragile attach to their weapons, in an effort to look "cool" or "dangerous" or "powerful".

It's not about the hardware, it's about the mindset indicated by employing the hardware.

My father, who is a gunsmith, took one of our traditional weapons down to metal, and:
1. Attached a folding stock with a recoil piston.
2. Attached a pistol grip.
3. Attached an off-arm hand grip.
4. Attached a top rail with a 10x scope.
5. Attached a bottom rail with both a laser, and a flashlight.
6. Attached a threaded barrel "compensator".
7. Added a 50 round banana magazine.
8. Added a large chambering knob.

...On a Ruger 10/22.

(Gun folks, I'm sorry if I just made you spew, it's just really that hilarious).

"Assault weapon" is easily defined, it's the difference between "what you need to have in a gun" and "I'm trying to look powerful by emulating other weapons".

[pipoman]

38. There is a great video of the

director of the BATFE testifying before congress saying after months of research, he could not define 'assault weapon' without having unintended consequences or being easily defeated.

[boppers]

46. It's like pornography.

If you don't want to have an "assault weapon", paint it with pink glitter.

[Igel]

43. Assault rifle, fairly easy.

Assault weapon? A bit harder.

Don't confuse them.

Remember them this way: If it's possible to pull the trigger and hold it and shoot 50 rounds, it's an assault rifle. Hunt a deer with an assault rifle and you may cut it in two.

If you pull the trigger and the most you can fire is one round, it's an assault weapon. Hunt a deer with an assault weapon and you just shoot it.

[boppers]

47. You are trying to re-define common terms.

Let me know how that works out for you,

[pipoman]

52. An "assault rifle" by definition

is an automatic weapon, a definition used for a long time. "Assault weapon" is a term made up by gun control advocates trying to create a boogeyman. It is a semi-automatic, that is all that I know....so is my 1958 Remington deer rifle.

[boppers]

54. Wrong.

[pipoman]

55. LOL..

[pipoman]

49. I have never confused them...

I am tired of explaining it to people who haven't studied the issue. Those of us who have studied the issue know that it is impossible to define assault weapon for the purposes of regulating them, without effecting my 1958 Remington deer rifle family heirloom...which will never fly and defeat anyone who tries.

[Bandit]

75. Did it take you 100 rounds to kill your deer?

It isn't really the mechanism of the rifle that is at issue, it is the ability to get off massive rounds in very short order. Why do you think it is necessary to have magazines that carry ten, twelve, thirty, or a hundred rounds? IMO if it takes you more than four shots to bag your deer you aren't much of a hunter. But even if you are that bad is it such an inconvenience to place another clip in the rifle, another four round clip? Outlaw all magazines that contain over twelve rounds..I can't understand even the need for twelve rounds but I am trying to be as fair about it as possible.. The entire reason for large capacity clips is to put out massive firepower and IMO that is only necessary in a military situation.. I can not understand any time a civilian would need such firepower..

[klook]

76. Admins, please relegate this post to the Common Sense Forum.

Oh, and btw, +1.

[pipoman]

80. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with deer

The 2nd is settled law in the establishment of the "in common use for lawful purposes" standard. There are millions of magazines in private hands which exceed 12 rounds..20 rounds..and 50 rounds. Considering the very few which are used unlawfully, it is reasonable to establish that the overwhelming majority (I would bet over 99%) are "in common use for lawful purposes".

[PavePusher]

84. Number of rounds for hunting is already delineated by state laws....

usually 3, 4 or 5, whether bolt action or semi-auto. To my knowledge it's not legal to hunt with a full-auto anywhere.

Oddly, California seems to have the least restrictive hunting magazine limits. All their semi-auto's are restricted to 10 rounds, but you can hunt with them in that configuration. Weird.

In short, hunting really doesn't have anything to do with this issue.

[Va Lefty]

6. Seriously, you can't have a rational debate with rightwingers over taxes

try talking to them about gun control

[Tejas]

8. Mr. Kristol, while we're posturing, let's also revisit the 1st Amendment.

[rks306]

9. I agree

As long as we do that lets do something about multi-clips. 2nd amendment allows guns to well regulated groups.

[pipoman]

14. Too bad so few

understand what "well regulated" means, they think they know, but alas, they haven't a clue because they haven't actually studied documents like the Federalist Papers.

[Igel]

53. Most people can't explain or understand the grammar in the 2nd amendment

If you can't follow the grammar, what's that saying about the content?

The first bit is a nominative absolute construction. With progressive verbs sometimes a purpose or motive, it's sometimes something that is occurring at the same time as the main clause. They're common when the subject's the same as the main clause: "Being impatient, John couldn't wait for the ball to hit the floor."

A bit rarer with different subjects:

"The ball being round, John expected it to roll instead of stop halfway down the slope."

Most people would say, "Because the ball was round, John expected it..."

The purpose is to provide backgrounded, less important or subsidiary information. They're common in the classical languages that the framers would have studied (ad nauseam, those absolute constructions in Greek and Latin). More common 200 years ago than now, but already fading fast then.

All that helps clarify the *grammar* of the 2nd amendment. A "since" or "because" to show backgrounding and subordination provides the same meaning. Let's do that.

"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." It feels about the same and means the same. The purpose close is backgrounded. Just as with the absolute, it's not clear if the "because" is the only purpose or just a conveniently closen purpose.

So "well-regulated" is an issue. It's obviously important. It could have been omitted and wasn't. Within it's clause got the lion's share of the stress, with additional stress on "necessary" and stress on "free" (as opposed to "subject", which wouldn't have a militia).

Does "well regulated" mean "properly supervised," "well equipped," or "well trained"? Those are three of the top contenders for the prize. Let's play the substitution game.

"Because a properly supervised militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." "Properly supervised" draws your attention and never passes it off. It's not related to the main clause: how does having an arms-bearing populace lead to a militia that is properly supervised? The sentence would be much better without "well regulated". It's like having a clown at a basketball game, but one that mostly does his tricks when a player is going for a free throw.

"Because a well equipped militia is necessary for for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." You know, the sentence works. Everything's in it's place. If the people can't bear arms, the grass roots militia will not be well equipped. The information that draws you attention in the absolutive construction passes it off smoothly to the main event.

"Because a well trained militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." That works, too. There's a bit of a gapbetween bearing arms and being well trained, but the causal connection is close and it's something a moderately educated reader would close with barely a thought. Training would be local, and if the people have their weapons then they could be trained.

Oddly, the two meaning that people reject works in terms of the meaning. You have to really fight the form of the absolutive as a backgrounding technique, and then overlook problems of coherence, to make it about having the state government issue rules and govern the militia (what's the sentence about? supervision of the militia or the right of the people?).

We'll overlook the calling forth of the militia, which can then be organized, as opposed to the drafting and recruiting of men in order to form a militia. It's grass roots with government help. If it's one thing politicians don't like, though, it's an armed grass roots organization. Gives them the willies.

[boppers]

33. The militia is well regulated.

Not the arms.

[PavePusher]

85. What the heck are "multi-clips"? n/t

[StateApparatus]

10. Ironically...

... if I find myself agreeing with Bill Kristol, it's enough to make me rethink my viewpoint. Maybe.

[The Second Stone]

11. The Supreme Court has made pretty clear that

the people have a right to small arms. It's the law of the land. Assault rifles certainly are small arms.

The price we pay for the right to bear arms in our culture is several thousand deaths a year. It is a very steep price. But it is a freedom people can choose to exercise.

[boppers]

48. "Assault rifles certainly are small arms."

Please show me where this is what they said.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Are you serious? The Supreme Court ruled that you have a right to whatever guns

the military uses in common parlance. In US vs. Miller they decided a guy didn't have access to a short barreled shotgun (sawed off) because it wasn't used by any militaries anywhere.

This is basic shit. (Though, Assault WEAPON is covered, Assault RIFLE is a different thing, and states have had their bans stand. I live in one such state. This is technical shit, and it helps to know what it is and why it works and what the courts have already ruled)

[boppers]

95. No, they did not rule that one has a *right* to such weapons.

They ruled that non-military useful weapons could be prohibited.

Not the same thing, at all.

[high density]

15. I dunno what is special about "assault rifles"

Would this tragedy be different if these people were killed by a handgun or hunting rifle instead?

[Monk06]

21. You can't fit a hunting rifle with a hundred round drum mag. Although you can fit a 60 round mag

to a Colt pistol. Either way Americans are fucked. You have too many guns, too easily available and the cultural inclination to use them for self defense, where shooting an unarmed person is considered self defense.

[Clames]

36. You want to bet?

I bet I can find somebody who could make a drum mag for a Remington Model 700 bolt rifle (read: very popular hunting rifle). They already make it with a pistol grip and collapsible stock. Fires a much more powerful cartridge and might even be slightly cheaper than what a standard AR-15 is going for right now too. Impractical though. AR's are already popular hunting rifles.

[Monk06]

37. A drum mag, or any mag for a bolt action rifle. That I gotta see.

[Clames]

39. Too easy.

It's only a decades old concept.

[Monk06]

40. But it's still bolt action. The time it takes to load a new round at least gives the victim a chance

I get you point though. Anyone determined to kill large numbers of unarmed people is going to find a work around. Hell I bet a high school metal shop could put out a sten gun without much effort.

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?182600-STEN-MKIII-kits-NOW-60-at-APEX-Gun-Parts

[Clames]

42. With enough practice and a little work it would be minimal difference at best.

And with a full power rifle cartridge vs. an intermediate power cartridge like what Holmes used the effects would be far more dramatic. I've also seen people with lever-action rifles fire every bit as fast as someone with a semi-auto rifle.

[Johnny Rico]

60. The Rifleman!

I've also seen people with lever-action rifles fire every bit as fast as someone with a semi-auto rifle.

[PavePusher]

86. We made (small) cannons in shop class. Sand-cast, then milled the barrels out.

Good times.

By the way, Google: Mad Minute

Fascinating stuff.

[Johnny Rico]

61. Mauser with a 25 round trench magazine. 95 year old design.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. That rifle IS used for hunting.

It's 'big brother' the AR-10 can be fitted so as well. Both are quite useful for hunting, because they are very accurate, and that translates into humane, clean kills.

When using them for hunting, most states restrict the size magazine you can install in them. (Normally five shots)

[NickB79]

89. Here in MN, and many other states, AR-15's are legal for deer

You can't legally HUNT while the gun is equipped with a 100-rd mag, but that's a simple matter of buying a 5-rd magazine for use while out in the field.

Semi-auto rifles are now the most popular form of hunting gun sold in the US, far outpacing lever-actions, bolt-actions or pumps.

[boppers]

51. Yes, it would, if 70+ people were killed/injured by a hunting rifle in minutes.

So sad for the NRA that they cannot make this claim.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. It is a hunting rifle. That's the problem. It's the most popular center-fire rifle in the nation.

Not legal for hunting deer in most states, because it isn't lethal enough to humanely kill a deer. Legal for hunting smaller game though.

[4th law of robotics]

82. An assault rifle wasn't even used.

Either an intentional lie on the reporters part or else just incredible ignorance and laziness.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

17. It is a trap. It is a losing wedge issue for Democratic candidates. But if the MSM pushes it,

and obsesses over it, it will be the issue that will help some Republicans in the upcoming election.

[limpyhobbler]

19. trap. don't trust him.

[A Simple Game]

25. Yup. Why don't you round up the Republicans first, Bill.

Then when we see how serious you are about it we will work on the Democrats.

[limpyhobbler]

26. fat chance. nt

[Monk06]

20. Obama said he would fight gun violence with existing law, which when you think of it

is all he can do.

The NRA and the rest of the Right Wing would just love for Obama to change the script 100 days before and election and make gun control the top issue.

Obama is not a stupid man.

Besides the horse left the barn on assault weapons a long time ago. America is swimming in auto and semi auto weapons and high capacity magazines. What has to happen is that both the Republicans and Democrats tell the NRA to fuck off and keep their lobby cash. Even then you could never restrict or round up the private arsenals that exist out there without hundreds of militia showdowns like Ruby Ridge.

It would be nice if every American had the 'right' to a single muzzle loader circa 1776 and nothing else but it is too late for that.

[permatex]

68. America is not swimming in auto weapons

those are very tightly controlled.

[nanabugg]

23. UH oh, Kristol has gone over to the "dark side."

[harun]

24. It's a trap and Obama knows it.

[Kalidurga]

27. "And you could put more pressure on moderate Republicans than people think...."

Well, you could if the moderate Republicans hadn't been chased out of the party. They are a very small minority in the party now. The GOP gave the keys to the loonatics and now they are in charge of the asylum. Rank and file moderates have just left the party and are going independent or Democrat. So, now there are some moderate Independents. And Moderate Democrats have moved left as the remaining RWers have become rabid and insane.

In any case blaming Democrats for Republicans not passing any useful legislation of any kind, let alone legislation on gun control is rather petty and stupid.

[samsingh]

31. Lets see if he can convince his repug friends to do something about it

[Dr_Scholl]

35. Trying to ban "assault weapons" is moronic at best.

Other than physical appearance, they're no different than other more politically correct looking semi-autos. More people are murdered with blunt objects like hammers and bats than with assault weapons.

BTW, I own two AR-15's and am not afraid to admit it.

[StateApparatus]

44. You're right...

...semi-autos should be banned, not just "tactical-looking" ones. You're wrong about the bats/knives etc... You don't see many bat-based massacres.

[Dr_Scholl]

56. Let's take a look at the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2010.

[url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls[/url]

Rifles were used in 358 homicides that year. That's all rifles, not just scary looking assault weapons. Meanwhile, knives killed 1,704 and blunt objects were used to kill 540 people. Hell, 745 people were killed with hands, feet and fists.

[boppers]

50. So, other than significant attributes, they aren't different?

A mental experiment:

Two cars are mechanically identical. One is a "deathcar 3000", one is a "mommyvan 100". Both have the same basic mechanics.

What car do the violent and mentally ill buy?

[RC]

79. It is the psychical appearance that is the main problem.

"assault weapons&quot your term) look much more macho than the standard hunting equivalent. That fact attracts the swaggering, Rambo, Dirty Harry types, where the standard hunting rifle just won't do, do to it's boring, non-adrenalin causing looks.

[Dr_Scholl]

81. And yet they're still one of the least misused guns in crime.

That says a lot considering the AR-15, for example, is the most popular centerfire rifle in America.

[sofa king]

41. Or pensions, or privacy, or social security, or health care.

[Odin2005]

45. It's a trap.

Gun control is political suicide, it's why we lost Congress in 1994.

[Nye Bevan]

57. "The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally 'storm rifle')"

An assault rifle is an automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

.......

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position&quot . The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] to describe the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently renamed Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle


Based on this definition, I would have to agree with Kristol.

[hack89]

71. "It must be capable of selective fire" = fully automatic weapon

that's why it was the Assault Weapon Ban and not the Assault Rifle Ban - they had to make up a term because assault rifles were already tightly regulated.

[Nye Bevan]

72. I know nothing about guns, except what I just read on Wikipedia

but I am getting the impression that this "assault weapons ban" (as opposed to "assault rifle ban&quot is typically meaningless and useless political pandering nonsense.

[hack89]

73. The AWB was a cynical ploy to placate gun control advocates.

it turned out to be the biggest gift the NRA ever got.

[4th law of robotics]

83. Assault rifles are already heavily regulated and nearly impossible to get

also used in virtually no crimes and were not used in the CO shooting.

/perhaps responding SWAT teams had them but the shooter did not.

[NickB79]

90. Based on that definition, they've been regulated since 1934

Select-fire weapons, ie machine guns, have been heavily regulated for 70+ years now.

And based on his definition, the 1994 AWB did NOT apply to true assault rifles, since AR-15's aren't select-fire. Go figure.

[Nye Bevan]

91. It's becoming plainer and plainer that this "assault weapons ban" stuff is designed to bamboozle

people like me who don't really understand guns.

An "assault weapons ban" superficially sounds appealing but I now realize it is essentially meaningless.

[JVS]

58. He's inviting democrats to have a nice refreshing piss on the third rail.

[SecularMotion]

66. Clean your own house first, Billy.

This is just an excuse for Billy to portray Democrats as "foolish" and "cowardly".

If you really mean it, call for the Republicans to refuse money from the NRA.

[tanyev]

67. So which elected Democrats are trying to take away everyone's handguns and rifles, Bill?

Name one.

[lunatica]

70. Yeah sure. Bill Krystal really fucking cares about the victims

I'm looking to buy a bridge too.

[hack89]

74. Right wingers have always loved gun control. nt

[samsingh]

77. get your repug friends on board with this bill

[Zyzafyx]

88. Did Biil Kristol just say something sensible?

BRACE FOR ASTEROID IMPACT!

[wordpix]

93. I know, I know, I'm stupefied!

[wordpix]

92. well, he's right except it's the repukes who have always fought gun control

he forgot to add that.