Jimmy Carter on assault weapons

[Vahunter]

April 27, 2009
New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter.html
Op-Ed Contributor
What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons?
By JIMMY CARTER
Atlanta

THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.

When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, 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. 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.

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. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

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 gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. 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.


I think he should stick to growing peanuts

[OakRidgeStars]

Does anyone else think that Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama were separated at birth?

[VBshooter]

Hey ,, what else would a failure of a president support but a failed gun ban... Carters an AS&%HOLE! He should stick to building houses .

[Moccasin]

What a jackass. Makes me sick.

[zephyp]

This is one are where I strongly disagree with the Democrat/Liberal agenda. I won't openly state here what I own, but I will say that it would be quite difficult to carry out our 2nd amendment duties without the aid of some type of "assault" weapon. His statement about not wanting to kill cops or students is way off base.

[allingeneral]

Someone needs to take the time to write a well thought out rebuttal. Namecalling won't get the point across. Mr. Carter put quite a twist on several statements in there that, if backed up with facts would make a lot more sense to you and me. But he wasn't writing this piece for you and me. He was writing it to try to (continue to) persuade the public into thinking that assault weapons are used to kill cops and that ammunition is specifically designed to kill cops. He also attempts to persuade the public that the NRA is out to protect the rights of convicted felons to own a firearm. What NRA-backed legislation was that again?

A couple of specific points:

surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.

Where are these surveys? The survey line seems to be overused by the left to indicate that there is public backing for whatever they've dreamed up - yet they never actually show statistics..just "Surveys show that -insert liberal agenda item here-".

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons.

Another attempt to persuade using the "Everyone else thinks so" methodology. I want statistics.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, 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. 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.

This is just a flat-out LIE. If the gun control lobby had its way, then all firearms would be banned. I'm glad that we have the NRA in Washington to help counteract the liberals, because without them, we would certainly be defenseless today.

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. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions

Mr. Carter - wake up. The NRA is not defending the right of criminals (who have already had their rights diminished by the law). Do you seriously think that enacting gun control laws will keep hard-core criminals from getting weapons and using them against law-abiding citizens? Give up on the term "Assault weapon" already. If someone uses a knife to brutally stab someone to death, is that knife not then considered an "Assault Weapon"?

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.

I think we've been down this road and it's been determined that very few (I don't have statistics right now) of the weapons in Mexico can be traced back to the United States.

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.

The NRA is a powerful group because they have the backing of millions of citizens. Politicians work for the citizens and should therefore understand the impact that their voting record has on their career.

Rifles are not "designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend". I can't even rebutt that statement because it's so far out in left field that I can't even take it seriously.

[zephyp]

A quick note about lobbyist in general. They are like viruses. Kill the host and they can't reproduce. The gun lobby (along with many others) have a large voice but any lobby that gets their way "kills the host." That is, its mission accomplished and they have to look for other work. Any lobby attempts to milk their agenda for all its worth. Their strategy is to win some loose some so the cash continues to flow...indefinitely. Not trying to defend them, but they aren't the true enemy. It's the groups that put money in their (lobbyist) pockets.

[allingeneral]

A quick note about lobbyist in general. They are like viruses. Kill the host and they can't reproduce. The gun lobby (along with many others) have a large voice but any lobby that gets their way "kills the host." That is, its mission accomplished and they have to look for other work. Any lobby attempts to milk their agenda for all its worth. Their strategy is to win some loose some so the cash continues to flow...indefinitely. Not trying to defend them, but they aren't the true enemy. It's the groups that put money in their (lobbyist) pockets.

A very interesting post. Thank you for sharing that

[Bob]

Poor Jimmy, I liked his brother Billy better but his beer stunk. ( Billy Beer)

I remember Jimmy's presidency very well it was bad real bad, telling people to wear a sweater, long gas lines, etc.

You think an old guy from Georgia would be smarter than that, I have some good friends that live there and they hate him. What an ass he is, it looks like us gun owners are being attacked on all fronts now.

[gfost1]

Howdy, Y'all,

We'll see more pundits supporting the ban and the anti-gun agenda in general. Since the legislative branch indicated its reluctance to spearhead the effort, the administration will keep the issue in the collective consciousness by trotting out supporters who have no political capital to jeopardize. Expect to see some so-called conservative leaders chime in favoring the ban soon. I won't be surprised if some archivist manufactures a previously undiscovered position paper from the Reagan administration outlining an apparently draconian anti-gun agenda that was shelved because it was thought to be unrealistic at the time. When the time is right, (say, after the midterm elections) congress will acknowledge their "mistake" and the fight will shift into high gear.

I'm not as net savvy as I'd like to be. How can we use the new media to counter the threat posed by the alliance of the traditional media with the gun grabbers? By some accounts the O'bama campaign's skillful manipulation of the web tipped the scales in his favor. It's not enough to have truth on our side. Can we use the web to mass-market the pro-gun position and sway others to our side?

Regards,

George

[zephyp]

George,

The problem is getting the attention of those we wish to join our cause. The traditional media already has everyone's attention so they can air whatever stories however they want. As for our president, he didn't really manipulate the web. He saw an opportunity and had the attention of the people. He merely used the web as a tool for mass e-mailings once supporters had registered on his web site. Having said all that getting attention is also a problem. For every two people that pay attention, one will most likely be against our cause. The key is to watch for opportunities and then exploit them. The real problem is trying to determine what kind of opportunity would suffice. There are already many groups that publish regular articles in print and on the web. NRA's Armed Citizen is an example. It's sad that traditional media rarely airs an event where a gun owner saved the day. They seem to be on a run right now with the murder/suicide cases. I hate to say this, but I can think of only one good example that might bring a large public outcry against gun control. And that would be where a group of armed citizens put down an attempted terrorist attack here on our own soil.

[allingeneral]

I have sent a couple of emails to O'Reilly and Hannity at FOXNews in an attempt to get them to push the pro-gun agenda. I haven't heard anything back from either of them. I agree that it would be good to hear some of the stories like "Concealed Carry Gun Owner Stops Armed Robbery" or "Gun Owner Protects Family From Armed Intruder".

Thinking back to the Jimmy Carter Op-Ed piece... I'm going to try to start putting together a point paper to eventually send out to some of the mass media outlets in hopes of getting published. I don't know where I'm going to find time for that - but it would be a good effort to undertake. Anyone else here want to take it on? It doesn't have to be just a single point paper. A bunch of us could do it - or we could get a thread going and start dropping notes in there to get it started.

[zephyp]

I have sent a couple of emails to O'Reilly and Hannity at FOXNews in an attempt to get them to push the pro-gun agenda. I haven't heard anything back from either of them. I agree that it would be good to hear some of the stories like "Concealed Carry Gun Owner Stops Armed Robbery" or "Gun Owner Protects Family From Armed Intruder".

Thinking back to the Jimmy Carter Op-Ed piece... I'm going to try to start putting together a point paper to eventually send out to some of the mass media outlets in hopes of getting published. I don't know where I'm going to find time for that - but it would be a good effort to undertake. Anyone else here want to take it on? It doesn't have to be just a single point paper. A bunch of us could do it - or we could get a thread going and start dropping notes in there to get it started.

Great idea. I think if you started a thread and framed what you think it should say would be a good start. Then everyone else could drop in bullets. No pun intended. Could culminate into a cut and paste drill to make the op-ed.

[OakRidgeStars]

I'm not trying to throw the proverbial wet blanket on this idea, but I think we're just preaching to the choir on this issue. No major news outlet, including Fox News, is going to touch a gun issue right now. No matter if it's pro or con.

That leaves only the pro-gun organizations like the NRA, GOA, VCDL or others to publish your paper. Now, I belong to those organizations, and I would enjoy reading the paper, but I think we're already in agreement with all the points you be making. I wish I could offer a solution along with my observation, but the culture of this country has changed. And not for the better.

[Moccasin]

Perhaps Mr. Carter should dig a little deeper before making some of the statements he has made. Or quite possibly he is living in the past and does not realize that new research has been done recently, like this year.

May 05, 2009
Gallup boss: More Americans oppose gun control than ever
Amid a wave of publicity about school shootings and drug-related gun violence along the Mexican border, more Americans than ever oppose government efforts to regulate guns, Gallup's top pollster said today.
Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, told a breakfast meeting of reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor that "every bit of data is showing us that Americans are getting more conservative about gun control."
Newport cited polling conducted by Gallup, the Pew Research Center and CNN to back up his contention that "attitudes toward gun control have become more conservative -- not wanting more gun control."
The veteran pollster said the growing opposition to gun control is "counterintuitive" because of the heavy media focus on the use of assault weapons to kill police officers and school students, as well as the coverage of drug-cartel lawlessness in Mexico.
But he said that Americans are clearly saying that they want gun laws to "stay as they are" or become "less strict" rather than becoming "more strict."
"The NRA is in a pretty good position, public-opinion-wise," Newport said.
A CNN poll conducted in April found that 39 percent of Americans wanted stricter gun control laws, down from 50 percent in 2000. Another 46 percent said the gun laws should stay as they are, while 15 percent said they should be loosened--up from 9 percent in 2000.
When asked to identify the best way to reduce gun violence, 61 percent of Americans said stronger enforcement of existing laws, while 27 percent opted for stronger laws, according to an ABC News-Washington Post poll, also conducted in April.
Even an assault-weapon ban is not the political "sure thing" it once was. An Apr. 23-26 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal found that support for curbing the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles has dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today.
The shifting public mood on gun issues is the reason why the Obama administration is not trying to reinstate the assault-weapons ban that former President Bush allowed to expire in 2004. Obama and other administration officials said they have decided instead to adopt a strategy of enforcing existing laws.

This article can be accessed HERE

[Moccasin]

After a little time to research I've found recent polls that seem refute some of what Mr. Carter stated. I guess you can't really blame him though, he's just being a good liberal and doing what he's been taught/told to do.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives.

This statement is what got me the most. Does this mean that because I own an AR15 clone that I have the desire to kill policemen or to accumulate victims at school or work? Maybe since I have a clone and not the real thing I should have the desire to go after LEO clones (rent-a-cops).

An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.

What about the CNN poll referred to inTHIS article?

It indicates that " Since 2001, most Americans have favored stricter gun laws, though support has slightly dropped in recent years: 54 for percent favored stricter laws in 2001, compared to 50 percent in 2007, according to Gallup polling.

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop — only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws"

Support for stricter gun laws are lower than they have been for several years.

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons.

And what about THIS poll conducted by NBC news and The Wall Stree Journal?

The poll found that in April 2009 53% favor an Assault Weapon ban compared to 75% in May 1991. 53% may technically be a majority BUT the margin of error for this poll is 3.1%. It could very well be that 49.9%, less than a mojority, favor a ban.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

If you dig around in the CDC Database you will find that about 50% of that 30,000 were suicides, unfortunatly a gun was available and easier to use than other methods of suicide. I'm curious to hear an explanation of how stricter gun controls will reduce the number of suicides. The CDC doesn't classify what type of firearm but I'm willing to bet that few, if any, suicides were by "assault weapon."

[Bob]

You have some real good info there, Moccasin

[gfost1]

Howdy, all,

There was never any doubt that Mr. Carter's assertions are fabricated. The antis seldom let facts stand in the way of a good emotional argument, only using those that they first strip of logic and context. It is heartening to see evidence that public opinion appears to be turning against the antis, but it seems that we are not in a position to use it to our advantage. Most folks can't tell who to believe, and public opinion is fickle, at best.

I have no solutions to offer, either. It takes more imagination to create an alternative than it does to criticize the status quo, but we have come as far as we can with the approach we have been using. Obama has unintentionally done more for our side than any of us could have, but the fear factor obviously plays into our enemies hands as well. As DK noted, we need to generate attention, positive attention. We need to sell the pro-gun lifestyle to those who were not graced with a pro-gun heritage. We need to attract people to our side with some sort of positive marketing, yet bypassing print and broadcast news in doing so. The net will play a major part in such a campaign, but here my imagination fails me.

Regards,

George

[Moccasin]

Check out THIS site, download the version of your choice, and distribute widely. Some may have seen this site already. I found it at another forum and have spent the day looking over the facts.

[allingeneral]

Howdy, all,

There was never any doubt that Mr. Carter's assertions are fabricated. The antis seldom let facts stand in the way of a good emotional argument, only using those that they first strip of logic and context.

The "emotional argument" is the problem in a great many issues that confront us as a society right now. If people would remove some emotion from the equation and think rationally... Have you ever tried to make an important decision while your emotions are running high? Unfortunately, that's the only kind of decision that these folks know how to make. and in my humble opinion... it's taking us all down a road that I would rather not travel.[/quote]

I have no solutions to offer, either.

Just keep talking, George. You may not offer a specific solution here, but you certainly have me thinking.

We need to sell the pro-gun lifestyle to those who were not graced with a pro-gun heritage. We need to attract people to our side with some sort of positive marketing, yet bypassing print and broadcast news in doing so. The net will play a major part in such a campaign, but here my imagination fails me.

The first thing that really comes to mind is Facebook. Here, you can link up with people that you've known since way back. Every time you post something on your own facebook page, it is also displayed on all of your friends' facebook pages. They read it (sometimes) and others read it. If you put forth a good attitude and "re-friend" people that you haven't seen in many years, it gives an opportunity to toss in a few words about the 2nd amendment and the associated lifestyle.

Check out my facebook page at: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/profi ... =507919472

Also, check out the VGOF Facebook group at: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group ... 2093800415

Also, if you see a post on the forum that you like, click the "DIGG" link at the top of the post (right after the title). This helps get the word around. I would like to encourage everyone to Digg posts here and anywhere else that they see something worth sharing with others.

It's the social network. Tell it what you want it to see!