Eric Holder: "We must brainwash people on guns."

[CoMoChief]

This video is hilarious, considering this is a guy that's directly behind one of the most biggest gun/arms scandals in the nation's history.



Breitbart.com has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

Holder was addressing the Woman's National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to "change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC" about guns.

"What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes."

Holder added that he had asked advertising agencies in the nation's capital to assist by making anti-gun ads rather than commercials "that make me buy things that I don't really need." He had also approached local newspapers and television stations, he said, asking them to devote prime space and time, respectively, to his anti-gun campaign.

Local political leaders and celebrities, Holder said, including Mayor Marion Barry and Jesse Jackson, had been asked to help. In addition, he reported, he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of "every day, every school, and every level."

Despite strict gun control efforts, Washington, DC was and remains one of the nation's most dangerous cities for gun violence, though crime has abated somewhat since the 1990s.

Holder went on to become Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, and currently serves as Attorney General in the Obama Administration.

The video of Holder's remarks was uncovered by Breitbart.com contributor Charles C. Johnson.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Let us focus more on the second part here. You should be aware that the Bill of Rights was for MANY decades solely thought of as limiting the powers of the FEDERAL government.

The state of Missouri could have passed a perfectly Constitutional law to take away your guns for most of our nation's history, by that way of thinking.

In fact, it was only in 2010 that the SCOTUS specifically held that the 2nd amendment limited the STATE'S ability to regulate gun ownership as well as the federal government. What is particularly amusing is that in so holding, the Court split, as usual, 5-4, with the conservatives completely abandoning their original intent arguments to adopt what was ONCE entirely the domain of the liberal court from the 60s in pushing through substantive due process to have the US Constitution apply to the individual states.

Thereby effectively proving, in my mind, that ALL justices (not just the liberal ones) read the Constitution as being a living breathing document, as opposed to the cast-in-stone document that conservatives usually say it is (but then ignore when necessary or convenient).

http://themoderatevoice.com/78129/mc...unicipalities/

The due process clause and the resulting policy of selective incorporation was pretty well decided long ago. Justice Thomas aside, at some point Stare Decisis has to rule the day, unless you think that in order to be consistent, the conservative justices need to vote to overturn 80 years of law every single chance they get.

So, if selective incorporation is a proper path to force the states to follow most of the bill of rights, then the conservatives may as well use it for the 2nd, too. This wasn't hypocrisy, it is recognizing that a battle was lost a long, long time ago and telling the left that their tool does not belong to them and them alone.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by listopencil

What about the tenth:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It seems like this is saying that states have "jurisdiction" over only those things not mentioned in the Constitution as basic rights guaranteed by the Feds.

The bill of rights did not apply to the states until after the 14th amendment. The only thing barred to the states was things like passing federal law, negotiating treaties, using war powers, etc.

Most of the bill of rights was just a restriction on the feds. The states could pretty much ignore almost all of the amendments until incorporation starting in the 1940's. For example, part of the 7th amendment was never incorporated to date. If you are sued civilly in a federal court, you have a right to a jury, but if you are sued civilly in a state, the state doesn't have to let you have a jury, unless that state passed a law requiring it.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The due process clause and the resulting policy of selective incorporation was pretty well decided long ago. Justice Thomas aside, at some point Stare Decisis has to rule the day, unless you think that in order to be consistent, the conservative justices need to vote to overturn 80 years of law every single chance they get.

So, if selective incorporation is a proper path to force the states to follow most of the bill of rights, then the conservatives may as well use it for the 2nd, too. This wasn't hypocrisy, it is recognizing that a battle was lost a long, long time ago and telling the left that their tool does not belong to them and them alone.

Incorporation isn't about "Well, we've incorporated this, this, and this, and now the time has come to formalize this, so let's go ahead and do it." Incorporation is about fundamental rights and deeply rooted traditions. Those are the tests that determine whether a Bill of Rights is to be incorporated to the states through the 14th Amend.

And it goes beyond the Bill of Rights, in a Justice Harlan inspired way, to ideas that are fundamental, deeply rooted traditions that aren't contained in the Bill of Rights. Privacy, for example. Interracial marriage.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The due process clause and the resulting policy of selective incorporation was pretty well decided long ago. Justice Thomas aside, at some point Stare Decisis has to rule the day, unless you think that in order to be consistent, the conservative justices need to vote to overturn 80 years of law every single chance they get.

So, if selective incorporation is a proper path to force the states to follow most of the bill of rights, then the conservatives may as well use it for the 2nd, too. This wasn't hypocrisy, it is recognizing that a battle was lost a long, long time ago and telling the left that their tool does not belong to them and them alone.

Weird. I thought selective incorporation was specifically the doctrine that you didn't have to incorporate all of them, thus you can 'select" which ones need to be incorporated. Thus we have never needed to incorporate civil jury trials, or the quartering of troops, or grand jury indictments.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Literature

Incorporation isn't about "Well, we've incorporated this, this, and this, and now the time has come to formalize this, so let's go ahead and do it." Incorporation is about fundamental rights and deeply rooted traditions. Those are the tests that determine whether a Bill of Rights is to be incorporated to the states through the 14th Amend.

And it goes beyond the Bill of Rights, in a Justice Harlan inspired way, to ideas that are fundamental, deeply rooted traditions that aren't contained in the Bill of Rights. Privacy, for example. Interracial marriage.

And the majority made a pretty compelling argument using history dating all the way back to England, to demonstrate that the right to keep and bear arms was a very fundamental basic right, not just "well, maybe it would be nice, but not a basic right" like civil juries.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by banyon

Weird. I thought selective incorporation was specifically the doctrine that you didn't have to incorporate all of them, thus you can 'select" which ones need to be incorporated. Thus we have never needed to incorporate civil jury trials, or the quartering of troops, or grand jury indictments.

yep, and we have now recognized something which is clear and obvious: that the right to keep and bear arms is a very basic, core, fundamental right, not a less-important extraneous federal right.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by alnorth

yep, and we have now recognized something which is clear and obvious: that the right to keep and bear arms is a very basic, core, fundamental right, not a less-important extraneous federal right.

I'm not necessarily against Heller or McDonald.

As I have stated, I'm a gun owner and a CCW permit holder. I would join the NRA if they didn't embrace every most extreme position.

But, in terms of legal theory, extending incorporation to the 2nd amendment was not based on Stare Decisis. It was based on originalism, as viewed and advocated for years through Justice Scalia and his proteges. And it was not an entirely originalist slam dunk either as Breyer, who is no dope up there, points out in his dissent and historical review of various gun regulations during colonial times. Including "no loaded firearms in a dwelling" and "no discharges in town" in Boston, Philadelphia, and NY.

Heck, I doubt if around these parts, Wyatt Earp's famous "no guns north of the tracks" ordinance would survive this ruling.

[stevieray]

it's pretty simple..History shows that when Government takes away guns...MILLIONS die.

[BigChiefFan]

Add Fast and Furious to this and it's clear, Holder is a crook with an agenda.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by go bowe

well, handguns generally are for shooting people unless you're an expert woodsman and hunter like bwana or an avid target shooter...

most handguns aren't suitable for hunting anything other than humans at close range...

having said all that i don't see any need to unduly restrict handgun ownership and use outside of densely populated urban areas...

the problem is that guns found on gang members and the like need to be a basis for locking them up, which is hard to do if carrying a gun is legal...

I bought my handgun for one reason and one reason only. To kill people trying to hurt me. For that matter I bought my rifle for one reason and one reason only. To kill people trying to hurt me. I am not a hunter of animals. That being said I could drop a human and think nothing of it if my life was in danger to whereas being the animal lover I am I would feel guilty shooting Bambie's Mama.

[petegz28]

When did Holder get out of the Hollywood business?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by go bowe

the problem is that guns found on gang members and the like need to be a basis for locking them up, which is hard to do if carrying a gun is legal...

The problem is that if they are doing illegal things with guns then that's what you go after, not the guns.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by listopencil

The problem is that if they are doing illegal things with guns then that's what you go after, not the guns.

Come on. Don't you know there were no violent crimes before guns were invented???

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Come on. Don't you know there were no violent crimes before guns were invented???

Oh shoot. Yeah, I forgot.