Carter Urges Assault Weapons Ban
Monday, April 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Jimmy Carter is an avid hunter and gun owner who also happens to have once been president of the United States. The combination makes him well-placed in the current debate (or rather non-debate) over whether Americans should retain the right to own semi-automatic assault weapons. And he isn’t buying the “slippery-slope” argument that banning military-style guns like Uzis and AK-47s is somehow a threat to Second Amendment rights.
From an op-ed in The New York Times Sunday:
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.
And it’s not just the gun lobby Carter goes after, but the “acquiescent” lawmakers who are swayed by it as well.
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.
But Carter might not want to hold his breath for Congress to act. As we wrote here recently, there’s not much appetite in Washington to take up gun reforms this year — least of all an assault weapons ban.
“You can feel your toes wiggling on the slippery slope,” Doug Pennington, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said of the assault weapons ban a few weeks ago. “[The NRA] will say it’s the first step to eliminating handguns from the universe.”
23 Comments
Comment posted April 27, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Good for Jimmy Carter.
What he won't tell you is that this whole issue is being predicated upon disinformation and public misunderstanding. The “assault weapons” he wants to ban are not the machine guns everyone seems to think they are (and appear to be so scared of). They are just single-shot guns … one shot per full of the trigger … just like any other guns that we have a right to own and carry.
President Carter would ration our right to arms on the basis of cosmetics.
The kind but misguided man should go back to Habitat for Humanity.
Comment posted April 27, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Thank you Pres. Carter for supporting an “Assault Weapons Ban”!! If this bit of advice is anywhere near the caliber of your presidency it will die a death just as ignoble. Let's face it there is a reason why the Left NEVER brags about the accomplishments of Pres. Carter, he was an embarrassment then and he remains one to this very day.
I had the singular honor of living through Carter's manmade gas lines, outrageous “stagflation” and national “malaise”. This guy is a world-class crackpot who lost his shirt to Ronald Reagan after one term in office, and deservedly so. He was a poor leader who expressed poor opinions and lousy values. Now that he supports a ban on assault weapons (as if any weapons aren't assault weapons) those on the proverbial fence can rest assured that this matter has been settled once an for all! Thanks to Pres. Carter the anti-gun movement has lost even the smallest patina of cachet.
Thank you Pres. Carter!
Comment posted April 27, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
About those pols “who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time”. The NRA isn't voting. Like minded citizens are. Maybe the fact that the assault weapons ban isn't coming back is a result of the democratic process, not NRA arm twisting. People feel like this issue is important enough to throw a congresscritter out on their keister over. It appears that our representatives are doing their job now; i.e. representing the will of the electorate.
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 4:05 am
The older he gets the dumber he sounds; no wonder he was a 1 term president!
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 4:39 am
Jimmy Carter was an incompetent fool as president and has only enhanced that reputation since he got his butt handed to him by Ronald Reagan. He has not improved with age.
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 7:16 am
What the article also said: “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.”
Notice the words “MANDATORY REGISTRATION”. We all know the next step after mandatory registration: confiscation. Mandatory registration is not “modest restraints. It is pure government control over law abiding people. Does this stupid man believe that criminals will be subjected to background checks when they obtain guns, or they will register their illegal guns? Bottom line: who cares what Jimmy Carter thinks or believes?
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 7:49 am
Thanks to Jimmy Carter for reminding us that failures of the democrat party never seem to go away,they just become 'failures emeritus',elder statesmen of the freak left.As always,the (thank goodness) former one-termer would rather speak to people who don't know that what he's calling assault weapons are only cosmetically similar to the automatic weapons that the uninformed think they're talking about.How about Carter looking into how very seldom these 'assault weapons' have been used in crime as compared to,for instance,baseball bats or kitchen knives?What we really need is a re-assessment of the dangers of gun control,and the interesting statistics regarding innocent deaths that occur in 'gun free' zones.It doesn't take a dimbulb Somali pirate to know that the best hunting for victims is where the victims are disarmed.
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 7:59 am
My hunting rifle is safe from confiscation just as long as my battle rifle protects it.
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 8:53 am
I respect Jimmy Carter for his volunteer and humanitarian work but he is dead wrong when he calls for another AWB. We have already surrendered far too many of our freedoms in the name of safety and the “war on terror”. He says in the editorial that he does not own an assault rifle because he doesn't want to kill police and school children. This is an overt insult to the vast majority of people who own these guns. He also gives statistics on gun deaths without mentioning that the vast majority of these deaths involve guns that would not be affected by a new AWB.
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 9:59 am
Excuse me. Jimmy Carter is not “qualified” for anything.
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Jimmah knows as much about “assault weapons” as he does fighting off killer rabbits. Read this and you'll know more in five minutes than he's learned in a lifetime…
http://hubpages.com/hub/Assault-Weapons-Evil-Bl…
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
CAN WE PUT A BAN ON JIMMY CARTER'S MOUTH and STIFLE HIS WAY OF THINKING?
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
You'll have to overlook Jimmie Carter's opinions, he was dropped on his head during birth, then when he started talking he was hit in the head and now suffers from brain damage.
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Jimmy, just go back to building houses where you can do some good for humanity.
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
I would point out to the former president that the NRA is a grass roots organization composed of some four million members who have a good bit of input in what their association does to promote safe and responsible gun ownership.
And as a former president I'm sure everyone is aware he has a permanent Secret Service detail assigned to him for his protection all of whom either carry or have ready access to not just the so called assault weapons available to we civilians but true automatic weapons suitable for pitched battles. So, just how many police officers and the people they defend have those weapons killed in the days since Carter's defeat and subsequent retirement?
Comment posted April 28, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
President Carter is a good man but he working under the assumption that Guns/weapons are strictly for sport which seems to be the opinion of the current administration. Assault weapons are not designed to kill police offers, they are designed to inject equality into a situation where good people are at a disadvantage to the criminals that would harm them. Bad people tend to overpower good people by a willingness to do things good people do not want to do. Bad people have all the weapons they want. In a society where you are innocent until proven guilty, which is the way it should be, good people have to be able to defend themselves as the police cannot intervene until AFTER the crime has been committed. In murder, rape, kidnapping that is simply too late. As we discovered in the NOrth Hollywood Bank of America robbery, the bad people can even out gun the police because they have more money. If the average American does not have access to the tools that allow them self-preservation then the criminals will prevail. Rifles, referred to as assault weapons, simply bring the Average American up to the standards that the criminals already have. The Maersk Alabama is another example where the unarmed had no chance against small arms like the AK-47 because they didn't have them. Let Us Protect Our Families, Please!
Comment posted April 29, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
I think Jimmy is wrong. I have several “assualt” weapons and love shooting every one of them. Fact of the matter is that my pistols are far far more dangerous. Jimmy needs to stay in Plains and hush. Leave us alone ok? JGM (Marietta Georgia)
Comment posted May 1, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Carter is so full of it. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is so that Americans can fight a tyrannical regime (if and when it comes). The 2nd amendment is not there for “sporting purposes”. That is the worst nonsense I ever heard in my life.
Comment posted May 5, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
I hope the perhaps worst former president of the US reads these comments about his ridiculous article on assault weapons. Ya sure Jimmy, we law abiding citizens purchase assault rifles to kill people. I guess it's the way the rifles look that somehow affects the gun banners mind. He also admits to owning the criminals gun of choice, the hand gun. Tell me Jimmy, why did you buy a hand gun? To kill people? Jimmy, pick some peanuts will ya please?
Comment posted May 5, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
I hope the perhaps worst former president of the US reads these comments about his ridiculous article on assault weapons. Ya sure Jimmy, we law abiding citizens purchase assault rifles to kill people. I guess it's the way the rifles look that somehow affects the gun banners mind. He also admits to owning the criminals gun of choice, the hand gun. Tell me Jimmy, why did you buy a hand gun? To kill people? Jimmy, pick some peanuts will ya please?
Comment posted January 17, 2010 @ 5:30 pm
Washington is just the first step. They know they can't get away with it federally, so they intend to try it state by state this time. How this legislation is different than the Clinton assault weapons ban is that there is no “grandfathering” exemption for current owners of “assault weapons”. I guess they think they will be able to get the national guard, or Blackwater to Ruby Ridge Washingtonians house by house until they get all of the “registered” weapons. Given the percentage of the population who have served, I think they'd shelve this POS legislation 2 days after attempting to implement it.
Comment posted January 17, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
Washington is just the first step. They know they can't get away with it federally, so they intend to try it state by state this time. How this legislation is different than the Clinton assault weapons ban is that there is no “grandfathering” exemption for current owners of “assault weapons”. I guess they think they will be able to get the national guard, or Blackwater to Ruby Ridge Washingtonians house by house until they get all of the “registered” weapons. Given the percentage of the population who have served, I think they'd shelve this POS legislation 2 days after attempting to implement it.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
rss