Bill Kristol says people don’t have “a right to semi-automatic, quasi-machine guns”

This is one of the few areas of agreement I have with conservative commentator and Weekly Standard editor, Bill Kristol. Sunday on Fox News Kristol said, “People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles.” OK, nothing spectacular about that statement. Then Kristol said, “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.” Whoa there Billy, you’ve gone off the conservative, pro-guns, pro-NRA reservation. Let’s get this conversation back on course. Kristol followed with, “And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they’re being cowardly…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.”

Say what? Well at least he still found a way to bash Democrats, but he’s doing it in way that other Democrats and liberals usually bash their own! Oh, and I couldn’t agree more! Democrats are cowards when it comes to gun control. We have one party, the Republican Party, that takes an almost absolutist approach to gun rights. They think the right to bear arms means any arms they can dream up and gun companies can manufacture. Then we have the Democratic Party which used to be for sensible gun restrictions, but since they are more worried about their jobs then protecting Americans, they do nothing. A brief history lesson, it’s accepted as fact that Democrats got spanked in the 1994 mid-term election because of the assault rifle ban that was passed that same year (and since expired in 2004). So yes, Democrats were once champions of gun control and showed some spine, but now they are cowards.

Bill Kristol continued his somewhat surprising gun control diatribe with, “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. President Obama on this one is just unwilling to take a strong stance.” Again, I find myself in complete agreement with Kristol. I don’t expect this to happen too often, so I guess I will enjoy this brief tryst of bipartisanship.

photo by Gage Skidmore

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestShare on TumblrDigg thisShare on StumbleUponShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Human InterestSensible Gun Safety

#assault weapons#Bill Kristol#Clinton#conservative#Democratic#Fox News#gun control#gun rights#nra#Obama#pro-gun#Republican#Weekly Standard

  • Krys

    Perhaps I’m an outlier of the democratic party or perhaps this is Kristol’s conservative spin (or I’m just plain ignorant of the party platform), but I was unaware of a drive to take away everyone’s handguns and rifles. I’ve had this discussion with my parents a number of times and they were surprised to learn that I would not support a wholesale ban on weapons and that I support the second amendment’s right to bear arms. I just have a different opinion on how you define those arms.

    • answer: Fox News

      • albaby2

        Typical Low information MSNBC watcher reply

    • albaby2

      Then you never heard of the Brady campaign or Handgun Control Inc.?

  • geckcgt

    “People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles. 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.”
    “People have a right to hunting rifles, I don’t think they have a right to sniper rifles that fire bullets bigger than what the military issues.”
    “People have a right to hunt, I don’t think they have a right to rifles when game can be taken with bows.”

    See that slippery slope there?

    • Actually no, because I think a slippery slope argument is a weak stand-in for a cogent argument based on the facts at hand. If we pass a piece of legislation that bans certain types of assault weapons and then years later someone wants to argue that we should ban rifles, then that’s a debate we can have at that time. But since rifles have existed the entire time the second amendment has existed I think I know how that debate would end.

      We don’t forgo progress on sensible legislation in the fear of what someone might propose down the road. We deal with the facts and the issues as they stand at this moment and if the game changes in the future, then we debate again. Slippery slope arguments lack a sound foundation.

      • Steve

        Really nicely said!

        • albaby2

          You mean his admission that he can’t define an assault weapon even though he is against them? LOL

      • albaby2

        define “assault weapon”.

        • I don’t need to define assault weapon for you. But thanks for playing.

          • albaby2

            Because you can’t. You just parrot what your handlers in the Brady Campaign or Bloomberg tell you. Now define an assault weapon, you know, the ones you have in your minds picture-if you have a mind of your own.

          • Keep pretending you know me, because it’s amusing. I couldn’t repeat anything from either of those groups/people. I’ve changed my position on a number of issues over my adult life, so I’m hardly parroting anything. If there is a monolithic mindset in this country, it would be the single-issue gun “rights” voters.

          • albaby2

            If not wanting to see the restrictions placed on government by our Constitution and my rights as provided in that document eroded, then I proudly identify myself as a monolith.
            What is really monolithic is those anti gun rights people who will not relent, even when embarrassed by facts contrary to their agenda.

            Now C’mon.tell me your definition of an assault weapon and how if differs from a defense weapon. Surely you can do that.

          • The constitution doesn’t specifically grant you the right to any weapon that can be invented by man. Having said that, all rights not specifically granted in the constitution are assumed to be rights. But the question is whether we are really talking about a human right when it comes to a material possession. But that’s where the courts come into play, since the constitution is FAR from clear on this matter, regardless of the monolithic group who thinks it is. And even the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia has said jurisdictions have the right to pass certain gun restrictions. Of course, even while they have ruled that way, every case that has come before them lately has gone in favor of people whom you’d likely support. But this could just as easily start going the other way if the court had a different political makeup. And this is when we realize that nothing is carved in stone. Our laws reflect our values at any given time in history. I think the country will eventually come to its senses, but it will be a long slog. And no, I’m not talking about banning guns, I’m just talking about adding some logic and reason into the equation instead of absolutism.

            Assault weapon is a shorthand for anything that is above and beyond the intended (as ruled by the Supreme Court) purpose of the Second Amendment. And the reason for using such a rhetorical shorthand is because it would get incredibly redundant and overwrought to spell it out every time the topic is discussed. And what I would define as beyond the Second Amendment is anything that surpasses it’s intent, again, as ruled by the Supreme Court. That pretty much means anything semi-automatic, which now accounts for half of all firearms sold (right from the NRA).

            As for people embarrassed by the facts, that should be your contingent, but obviously facts hardly embarrass those who reject them. But the facts are firmly on the side of more regulation, not less. Just ask every other first-world democracy with a fraction of the gun violence. And there is not a relaxed causality here. Countries like Australia have had more relaxed laws, had massacres, then passed incredibly restrictive laws (including confiscation, which nobody in America is proposing) and amazingly, no more massacres. And most notably, the suicide rate plummeted. Seems when people are depressed and don’t have easy access to a gun, they instead continue to live, maybe get some help, before making a fateful decision with a firearm in hand. Crazy how shit works sometimes.

          • albaby2

            So what you are saying is that the majority of the SCOTUS is biased and is not basing it’s decisions on the intent of the Second Amendment, but the minority is? Where has the court ruled against semi-automatic rifles? Have you noticed that those parts of our nation, especially those ruled by liberals and have the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest crime rates? Have you noticed that as gun ownership has increased, crime rates have gone down? Do you think that law abiding citizens should have only those rights as the actions of the lawless allow them to have? Look at the FBI stats and get back to me. Also try and realize the demographics od Australia and the U.S. are different. The guns or their type are not responsible for deaths. The lawless are. I have to ask. Why are you alarmed by the prospect of law abiding citizens bearing arms? You should be more alarmed if only the police and government were allowed to have them. I haven’t spoken to a cop yet that was against law abiding citizens being armed. Now Police Chiefs -that’s a different story. They are political appointees and answer to their masters.

          • You are certainly being selective in your data analysis. It may be true that big northern cities have a lot of crime, but when you expand the scope by state, southern states have overall worse crime statistics. That cannot be explained entirely by their overall loose regulation mentality, because poverty plays a big role as well, but it also cannot be ignored. And as long as neighboring states have loose laws then we really cannot gather much from the data anyway since there’s nothing stopping guns from traveling across state borders.

            Your statistics are coincidental at best. You haven’t proven causality. The same could be said of my Australia example, but then there is also the matter of common sense, especially when it comes to the drop in suicide rate.

            Every time I have a conversation with a gun “rights” person it is always assumed that I’m calling for a blanket ban on guns, when the reality is that I’m more for attitude change than anything. Having said that, there are guns that have no business being sold if the purpose is sport and self-defense. And speaking of self-defense, it’s an illusion, because if you pay attention to all statistics, not just statistics that support your cause, you would know that owning a gun makes you more susceptible to gun violence, not less. Life isn’t a Hollywood movie, and we can’t all be John McClane.

          • albaby2

            I know. You just want to put the head in, right? Gun owners are not part of your parties constituency of low information voters. Now did your research show that a minority of our populations is responsible for more violent crime than their percentage of the population would suggest. Isn’t it true that most of those people live on, and crimes are committed on, Democrat Plantations such as Washington D.C., Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans etc?

          • albaby2

            Do you have ANY original thoughts? “And speaking of self-defense, it’s an illusion, because if you pay attention to all statistics, not just statistics that support your cause, you would know that owning a gun makes you more susceptible to gun violence, not less. ” Tell me, if you were to attack me, how would me having a gun make me more susceptible to gun violence? Give a link to a reputable source that backs up your statement.

          • albaby2

            Pretty much? How much is pretty much? What is the intent of the Second Amendment?

      • albaby2

        Define “sensible legislation”.

        • Anything that matches the types of firearms available to the stated purpose of the Second Amendment. Okay, maybe that still seems ambiguous and subjective to you. So be it.

          • albaby2

            Again, you skirt the question. I asked you to define sensible legislation. You surely have an idea of what you would like to accomplish. Share with me.

          • I’m good with small incremental change. So start with universal background checks. Not convenient for some types of purchases? Oh well. Small price to pay.

          • albaby2

            Background checks are required for all firearm purchases thru dealers. Tell me what” inconvenient” types of purchases you are referring to and how many deaths etc. can be traced to them.

      • albaby2

        We won’t let the camel get his nose under the tent. Speaking of solid foundations. Tell me more about those countries that denied or deny their citizens the RKBA. Liberals regard armed law abiding citizens as an occupational hazard.

        • I love this idea that people have, that they are going to have an armed rebellion against a tyrannical government. Good luck with that. Was this necessary in the past? Sure. But as society has advanced (on the whole, because obviously some have not), we have moved beyond this, at least in advanced democracies, and especially the U.S. If you truly believe in the constitution and the United States of America, then you know we have moved beyond the need for such means. We have a system of government that has worked pretty well, and if things go astray, we fix them with words and votes, not bullets.

          What I love about your reasoning is it assumes all these armed citizens are in agreement with each other. This is the result of monolithic “us vs. them” kind of thinking when in reality there is no us or them, there’s just individuals. So I ask, who is leading the rebellion? Who gets to decide there should be a rebellion in the first place? And what if you disagree with him or her?

          • albaby2

            Did you just find the word “monolithic’ on “word for the day”? The rebellion will come when the time is right. If you think our soldiers are committed to following the orders of the Presidency, look at the soldiers oath and see in which order their obligations fall.

            “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

            The side with arms will win. Those who turn their arms into plowshares will do the plowing for those that didn’t.

          • albaby2

            You calling the Obama administration part of an “advanced society”?

          • albaby2

            There’s just individuals? Why do you think this is called the United States, except for Obama, who is the emperor of us all and does his own thing without regard to the separation of powers part of the Constitution.

  • Hsialin

    Oh dont let ppl have those scary named guns………gimme a break.

  • albaby2

    Bill Kristol is ignorant as to how a semi-automatic weapon functions. It fires one bullet for each pull of the trigger, not a “hundred at a time”.