Still think the Prez is pro gun???


PDA






denfoote
December 3, 2004, 06:31 AM
This is for all you that ravaged my opinion that "W" was not pro gun, during the election!! :scrutiny:

I hate to say I told you so!! :banghead:

A former NYPD Commissioner??
Pro gun??
I think NOT!!!! :what:

He's endorsed by Chuck Schummer!! :eek:
That should be your first clue!!! ;)



Bush Picks Kerik for Homeland Security Job

Thu Dec 2,11:58 PM ET Politics - Reuters


By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) has picked as his homeland security secretary former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik, who helped the city respond to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and trained Iraqi police, administration officials said.


Reuters Photo


AP Photo
Slideshow: Homeland Security

Kerik Named to Lead Homeland Security
(AP Video)



The officials said on Thursday that Bush chose Kerik to replace Tom Ridge, who announced his resignation on Tuesday, to lead U.S. efforts to protect the country from Sept. 11-type attacks. An announcement could come as early as Friday.


As Bush continued a broad overhaul of his second-term Cabinet, there were indications that he was close to nominating a replacement for Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (news - web sites), who has announced his resignation.


In addition, Health and Human Services (news - web sites) Secretary Tommy Thompson appeared close to announcing his anticipated resignation.


Kerik, 49, rushed to the site of the World Trade Center towers moments after the Sept. 11 attack and helped then-New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (news - web sites) during the Sept. 11 crisis, to coordinate rescue efforts, restore order and develop a plan for securing the city.


New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) issued a statement of support for Kerik, whose position must be confirmed by the Senate.


"Coming from New York, Bernie Kerik knows the great needs and challenges this country faces in homeland security. He has a strong law enforcement background and I believe will do an excellent job in fighting for the resources and focus that homeland security needs and deserves in our post-9/11 world," Schumer said.


Kerik has been a strong Bush supporter, and Bush's re-election campaign turned to him to react to charges about homeland security thrown at the president by his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites).


"Kerik spent a lot of time on the campaign trail with Bush and was a real political asset," said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist.


Kerik was Iraq (news - web sites)'s interim minister of the interior and served as senior policy adviser for then-U.S. envoy Paul Bremer. Later he joined the ex-mayor's consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, and spent three months in Baghdad in 2003 helping train Iraqi police.


An Army veteran, former undercover narcotics cop and black belt in tae kwon do, Kerik published in 2001 a memoir, "The Lost Son: A Life in Pursuit of Justice," in which he described how he came from a broken home in Newark, New Jersey.


In the book, he said his parents divorced when he was 3 and his mother, an alcoholic and prostitute, was murdered when he was 4.


Miramax has purchased the movie rights.


(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan)

If you enjoyed reading about "Still think the Prez is pro gun???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TDPerk
December 3, 2004, 06:35 AM
denfoote, All I can say on the topic is that I hope in the future, all other gun controllers are as successfull as the President has been so far--first major national gun control measure to fall fell on his watch.

Yours, TDP

SAG0282
December 3, 2004, 06:37 AM
Yes, Bush is still pro-gun in my estimation.

Read his book "Lost Son" as I did a few months ago....Kerik is AMAZINGLY impressive, and probably VERY well-suited for this job.

denfoote
December 3, 2004, 06:38 AM
Check out the endorsment by the little Demonrat doll!! :barf:

The AWB fell only because gun owners kept it off the Shrub's desk!!

Now that he does not have to worry about getting elected (read: He don't need us red neck pistol pack'in fools any more), his true colors are starting to come out!!

fallingblock
December 3, 2004, 06:43 AM
"Still think the Prez is pro gun???"
*********************************************************

YES!

And particularly so when compared to that thing from Massachusetts that ran against him! :D

SAG0282
December 3, 2004, 06:43 AM
Appointing a man with a stellar military, police, and reformist career is hardly a betrayal of gun owners. Do some research, and you'll find Kerik to be a very impressive, no-nonsense administrator.

TDPerk
December 3, 2004, 06:59 AM
denfoote wrote:
The AWB fell only because gun owners kept it off the Shrub's desk!!

It also fell because the Shrub at the least did nothing to ensure it hit his desk, and I suspect took some steps to ensure it never got there.

denfoote, please name the measures Bush took to support the AWB, and compare and contrast them with bills the President really wanted.

Yours, TDP

denfoote
December 3, 2004, 07:00 AM
It's the endorsment by the Demon Doll that troubles me!!
Call it angst, if you will.
I have no doubt that he is technically capable for the Job.
That's not my point!!
I want to see him questioned about his committment to the Second Smendment at his confirmation hearings.

This is the first appointment by the Shrub that may directly effect our Constitutional Rights. I want to make sure that his philosophical leanings are in the right direction!!!

If he is anti, then it gives all of us a glimpse of how appointments to the Supremes probably will go!!

denfoote, please name the measures Bush took to support the AWB, and compare and contrast them with bills the President really wanted.

It seems to me that early on in his first term, he said that he supported it and would sign it if it crossed his desk!!!

RealGun
December 3, 2004, 07:00 AM
Well, if you follow the trend in Cabinet position replacements, you will see that Republicans are appealing to their weaknesses (or Bush's) in the voter base. NYC was a big one. The NE US is solidly blue state. Blacks, women, and Hispanics have already been honored by appointments so far. Rumsfeld will be next...probably next year. He will be 76.

I don't know what you think this person will do to your gun rights. It is interesting that a police administrator was chosen, but to a great extent it's policing we are talking about, right? Frankly, there are so many agencies, with a new kingdom created for every nuance, that I don't know who is responsible for what anymore. Cooperation among agencies is a real concern to me.

Dbl0Kevin
December 3, 2004, 07:44 AM
Appointing a man with a stellar military, police, and reformist career is hardly a betrayal of gun owners. Do some research, and you'll find Kerik to be a very impressive, no-nonsense administrator.

Exactly

Contrary to the belief on this board sometimes not EVERYTHING has to do with guns and the second amendment. :rolleyes:

Just because a man might not be a gun enthusiast like us does not mean he's not suitable for this job. What is it again that the HLSD does that effects our gun rights?? He's not in Congress, or the Executive Branch......or even the Judicial Branch. Let the man do his job and stop worrying about Bush. If he wanted the AWB passed he would have put pressure on the Congress which he DIDN'T. Look at the force he's putting out for this Intelligence Bill now, even though certain Republicans are opposing it. Don't tell me he won't go against the party if he agrees with something.

cracked butt
December 3, 2004, 09:11 AM
It amazes me how someone who probably has libertarian ideals (what other type of person would claim GW is antigun?) would require some sort of defacto affirmative action in hiring decisions, hiring on the sole basis of whether or not the candidate may or may not have pro-2nd a pro-2nd philosophy rather than simply hiring the best and most qualified person for the job. :rolleyes:

tulsamal
December 3, 2004, 09:25 AM
Check out the endorsment by the little Demonrat doll!!

So you have to ask yourself why Schummer is endorsing him? Kerik played a prominent role in the reelection of George Bush. He gave a prime time speech for him. Therefore it seems unlikely _to me_ that Kerik has similiar ideological ideas as Schummer. So what's going on? You COULD always take the obvious explanation: Schummer is endorsing him because Kerik is a prominent New Yorker. Period. It's "favorite son" politics without any connection to actual policy positions.

Gregg

Moondoggie
December 3, 2004, 10:15 AM
Kerik was an undercover cop in NYC...maybe he knows something about someone Schummer cares about. You never know, Kerik may have brought somebody's kid home instead of to the precinct for some relatively minor but embarrasing escapade.

Sometimes the world (and politics) works that way. When I was a reserve cop, if we encountered the mayor's teenage daughter a little drunk or partially clothed in the backseat we were generally inclined toward giving her a ride to daddy's front porch rather than having him come down to the police station to fetch her home to the woodshed. Cops know darn near everything about everybody in their back yard.

I also agree that there should be no 2nd Amendment "litmus test" for every government appointment, but it would be more important fodder for conversation regarding the AG appointment than HLS director.

Shield529
December 3, 2004, 11:14 AM
Kerik also has experince with the middle east. Read his book , he is by far Bushs best choise.

FPrice
December 3, 2004, 11:23 AM
"I want to see him questioned about his committment to the Second Smendment at his confirmation hearings."

While most of us on this board understand that if you do NOT have the Second Amendment as your primary concern in life that you are not fit for ANY job anywhere in the free world, perhaps there just might be more immediate concerns such as can he balance the need for protection against terrorists with the need to maintain the dignity and the basic rights of the American citizen?

El Rojo
December 3, 2004, 11:40 AM
What is the big deal. What decisions and policies will the Director of Homeland Security be able to do that is going to change our Second Amendment rights? Now I can see how the Attourney General might have a little more influence in prosecution and enforcement, but Homeland Security? Talk about knee-jerk reactions. Relax. There's nothing you can do about it and we haven't seen AWB II yet, so I don't think you can quite give a big "I told you so". Second, your only other option in the election would have been John Kerry, so if you were trying to warn us about Bush, I have to ask what your point was there as well. Should we have voted against Bush because he was anti-gun? So if Bush was clearly the lessor of two evils and most of us are happy with him rather than Kerry, really there is no point in warning us. It is sort of like being the guy to tell us, "The sun is going to set later today! You watch. I am telling you, it is going to set." Darn, you told us.

Sam Adams
December 3, 2004, 02:05 PM
Wasn't Teddy Roosevelt also a NYC Police Commissioner? Just sayin', that's all.

corncob
December 3, 2004, 02:09 PM
I also agree that there should be no 2nd Amendment "litmus test" for every government appointment

"I do solomnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Gordon Fink
December 3, 2004, 02:38 PM
A homeland-security provision was written into the Constitution in 1791. In part, the violation of this provision allowed the September 11th attacks to succeed, which led to the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. Therefore, a few of us view this powerful new state-security agency with no small amount of suspicion and trepidation.

~G. Fink

crawfordew
December 3, 2004, 03:03 PM
Could be worse, he could have appointed Chief Moose of Beltway sniper fame!
Gene :rolleyes:

corncob
December 3, 2004, 03:19 PM
Gordon Fink for Director of Homeland Security!!

RealGun
December 3, 2004, 03:39 PM
A homeland-security provision was written into the Constitution in 1791. In part, the violation of this provision allowed the September 11th attacks to succeed, which led to the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. Therefore, a few of us view this powerful new state-security agency with no small amount of suspicion and trepidation.

Which is why the Senate's civil rights oversight provision must be retained in the Homeland Security bill to be addressed again on Monday or Tuesday. Beware the last minute slam dunk.

lostone1413
December 3, 2004, 03:58 PM
To me anyone who gets an appointment to something like homeland security and they are from as anti gun state as NY gives me reason to worry. You have to remember for him to have been head of the NYPD he had to play ball with the ones running the city. I think how someone looks at the 2nd amendment should mean allot as to if he gets the job or not. That is unless they took the 2nd out of the Bill Of Rights When I went to the CCW banquet in Phoenix about a mo. ago I talked to people way up in the pro gun organizations I talked to a few pro gun authors. Funny thing when you talked to them in private none of them relly looked at GWB as strong 2nd amendment and pro gun. Most admitted they looked at their vote for GWB as more a vote against Kerry

JimC
December 3, 2004, 06:15 PM
Yes I do.

The President has a lot more to deal with right now and like him or not, Kerik is probably the best man for the job.

In my estimation, being pro gun or not has nothing to do with getting the job. I don't imagine it was even a topic of discussion.

Grey54956
December 3, 2004, 06:55 PM
I always find it funny that folks say the President isn't pro-gun. Typically, they point to his statement that he would sign the AWB renewal if it got to his desk without any sort of expansion. But the interesting thing here is that the President doesn't make laws, rather he is the check and balance to Congress. What he meant with his statement is that he would play ball with Congress, and that is was truly in their hands. If an overwhelming majority of their constituents wanted the bill passed, Congress would approve it, and the President would acknowledge that it is truly the will of the vast majority of people. Since most of Congress felt that this topic would cost them dearly in the next election, they obviously felt that AWB renewal was not supoorted by an overwhelming majority of their constituents, so they didn't press the issue.

And even if they did, and it came to a tied vote like last time, I am pretty sure that Cheney would have cast his tie-breaker against renewal, thus keeping it from the President's desk anyway. I am sure that he knew it wouldn't get to his desk in the first place.

Gordon Fink
December 3, 2004, 07:11 PM
Actually, that’s not the point.

I would like to see a leader with principles. Instead we have a man whose defenders, in order to prove that he is “pro-gun,” must insist that he is merely as duplicitous as so many other politicians.

~G. Fink

JerryM
December 3, 2004, 07:36 PM
I still think GWB is pro-gun.
Jerry

Thumper
December 3, 2004, 08:17 PM
You mean the same Bush that pushed hard for gunmakers' lawsuit protection legislation?

How in the hell is that NOT pro gun?

You realize he sent a memo to congress that basically destroyed the last best chance of the AWB, right?

Some folks have a hard time recognizing their own team members.

Stevie-Ray
December 4, 2004, 12:50 AM
Chuck Schumer endorsing ANYTHING should raise a red flag. But the Prez's reputation on the 2nd is still in good standing with me. I'll keep watch, though, for further developments, if you don't mind. :scrutiny:

greyhound
December 4, 2004, 01:03 AM
It's all politics....51-48 in this country you gotta play the middle (to a point). I am a staunch conservative, yet didn't Ronald Reagan win 48(?) states in '84 compared to this election?

Reality is reality, we won the Senate, House and Presidency fair and square, lets work to keep our mandate and not overplay our small victory. (Let the far left push their "progressive" :rolleyes: views and ruin themselves....)

I SO wished Howard Dean had won the nomination. Say, for those of us with 1 year+ membership, where exactly is "DU denizon" W4RMA these days? (though I appreciate his willingness to post contrary opinions).

fallingblock
December 4, 2004, 07:19 AM
"I would like to see a leader with principles. Instead we have a man whose defenders, in order to prove that he is “pro-gun,” must insist that he is merely as duplicitous as so many other politicians."
*********************************************************

Bush "got 'er done" for us.

He has far more 'principles' than the thing from Massachusetts who ran against him. :rolleyes:

A "Win-Win" scenario. :D


Greyhound:

I have also been wondering about W4RMA.

He slacked a bit after Dean bit the dust, but then rallied to Kerry.

I hope he's not in terminal denial! :eek:

Lone_Gunman
December 4, 2004, 09:07 AM
Time will tell whether he is our friend or foe. He has four years now without fear of having to run for re-election.

If he really was being duplicitous in his support of the AWB, then I doubt we will see any new gun legislation.

If not, then the sky is the limit with Bush, as he has already shown his willingness to sign any bill sent to him by Congress.

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I am not to hopeful. After seeing him sign McCain Feingold after saying it was un-Constitutional, I have a hard time seeing him as a defender of the Bill of Rights.

El Rojo
December 4, 2004, 10:42 AM
I still don't get this fear some people have that Bush is suddenly going to go way left liberal on us. It makes no sense. Politically, guns are a loser. And the thing you have to consider is Bush is still the head of the Republican Party. So if he suddenly starts pushing for gun control and new bans, the Republicans that do as he asks and pass bans through the House or Senate are going to lose their seats. Bush will lose his current majority the Congress. Just because he isn't touchable anymore, doesn't mean his Republican buddies are out of reach. And there is no benefit for the Republicans to try and gain votes "from the middle" by passing bans. They know it will screw them just as surely as it screwed the Democrats in 94 and has continued to screw the Democrats ever since. Relax everyone. Keep an eye out, but don't worry, Bush is not going to start passing gun bans to "please" the other side. It will not help him with the other side and will only hurt him with those that really did vote for him and will vote for his buddies in Congress in 06 and his replacement in 08.

NavajoNPaleFace
December 4, 2004, 10:56 AM
I read and re-read denfoote's original threat post and I still can't see anything that hints Kerik is anti-gun.

He made an indication that Kerik having been a high positioned police official made him suspect for being anti-gun so I guess the thinking is if a person is elected police commisioner or is appointed to Police Chief, is a county Sheriff, director of a federal agency, and the like they must be boot strap thugs that are looking to flake away the scales of our democracy.

I dunno. I've known several very high profiled law enforecement people and can only think of one that was truly anti-gun and that one had more of a psychotic ego trip more than anything.

Although I will admit I would like to see Bush take a little more forceful stance and be proactive on the preservation of constitutional issues, such as the second amendment rights, he is still far better the choice that would have been in the event Kerry and his cronies had gotten elected. OOOOOOOOOOOOO....that's still a scary thought. :D

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
December 4, 2004, 01:36 PM
Still?

I have never considered Geroge Bush to be "pro-gun"

As has been said, Bush was vastly less anti-gun than were any credible opponents in the last two presidential elections.

Look for the new DHS nominee Kerik to propose a renewed and strentgthened AWB, national .50cal rifle ban, plus DHS and BATFE authority to halt all gun sales (as simple as pulling the plug on the NCIC servers) during times of emergency.

I dunno. I've known several very high profiled law enforecement people and can only think of one that was truly anti-gun and that one had more of a psychotic ego trip more than anything.

With Kerik's approval, a Police foundation in NYC had around 30 bronze busts of him made at a cost of $3000 or so. The inscription on the brass plate on the walnut base is reported to read "Kerik The Great"

Not a great sign.

RealGun
December 4, 2004, 03:47 PM
the sky is the limit with Bush, as he has already shown his willingness to sign any bill sent to him by Congress. - LoneGunman

I expect Bush to play hardball with Congress for the next two years, after which he is a lame duck. He has recently asked for line item veto, so that is a strong hint that his second term politics will be different than those of the first, while he needed to be reelected. An alternative to line item veto is proactively letting it be known what he will or will not sign. If you recall, he asked for a clean bill to sign, when the issue early this year was lawsuit protection of gun manufacturers. What he got was an omnibus gun control bill that was ultimately defeated.

I don't know the answer. Congress doesn't have time to process every bill introduced as a separate vote. One trick that seems to have merit is allowing an amendment if it already has enough cosponsors to pass. That's if it is germane to the larger issue to which it is being attached.

El Rojo
December 4, 2004, 09:09 PM
Look for the new DHS nominee Kerik to propose a renewed and strentgthened AWB, national .50cal rifle ban, plus DHS and BATFE authority to halt all gun sales (as simple as pulling the plug on the NCIC servers) during times of emergency.Do you care to offer any support for your statement Cool Hand Luke? My first rebuttal to your statement is that the DHS has nothing to do with the Treasury Department, which was the parent organization for the BATF prior to the Homeland Security Bill of 2003. Then after the Homeland Security Bill the law enforcement functions of the BATF were transferred to the Justice Department, which would make the Attorney General their boss, not the Director of HS. The alcohol and tobacco divisions of the BATFE remain in the Treasury department.

With that basic civics lesson, I would say that the Director of HS would be jumping in way over his head to try and advocate any type of new bans that first must clear Congress and would be enforced not by his department, but by the Justice Department. In fact if you would like to know more about the Office of Homeland Security, go check out their website (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=9&content=2973) and see for yourself what they are really in charge of.

So with just a little bit of knowledge about how hierarchies work and the separate functions of DHS and the DOJ, I wonder where you received your information that Kerik is going to propose these changes regarding firearms when it seems these issues are quite out of his realm of influence. 2nd, I haven't seen any documentation or evidence to suggest what his 2nd Amendment stance is other than he was the Chief of Police in New York. We could assume that he might not have as favorable view on firearms rights as we do, but I tend to want to deal with facts and evidence rather than knee jerk reactions and speculation. I always find it odd that so many people enjoy a life of emotional reaction and speculation rather than knowing the truth or even caring to seek the truth.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
December 4, 2004, 10:27 PM
El Rojo:

Nothing you have cited would prevent Kerik from publicly proposing and supporting a renewed AWB, .50cal rifle ban, and halts to all gun sales in emergencies.

As for your civics lesson, Where is it written that the head of DHS is prevented from advocating any position whatsoever, let alone one that touches on Homeland Security?

I did pretty well in my Con. Law and Admin. Law classes in Law School, and frankly I don't recall any constitutional prohibition on a Cabinet Officer speaking out in favor of legislation outside the scope of his Department. Where are you finding this imaginary prohibition? (Which Law School did you attend BTW?)

Ever wonder why your strictures failed to prevent the head of the CDC or Surgeon General from advocating stricter gun control laws and an extension of the AWB? (Clue Bat: It's because they exist only in your imagination) Are you saying that the CDC has some regulatory power over handguns now?

So with just a little bit of knowledge about how hierarchies work and the separate functions of DHS and the DOJ, I wonder where you received your information that Kerik is going to propose these changes regarding firearms when it seems these issues are quite out of his realm of influence.

I don't plan on doing any internet research to "back up" the expression of my opinion. I base it entirely on Kemik's background as NYPD Commissioner. How many Chiefs & Commissioners in the past 100 years have been pro-RKBA? And do you honestly think that anyone supported by Pataki, Guilini, Schumer, and DeMato is likely to be a supporter of RKBA?

I always find it odd that so many people enjoy a life of emotional reaction and speculation rather than knowing the truth or even caring to seek the truth.

I always get a laugh out of people who invest the simple expression of an opinion on an Internet chatroom with such grave, deadly seriousness.

Perhaps you should consider switching to decaf. :D

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
December 4, 2004, 11:01 PM
Anyway, to clairify what I was driving at originally:

This is from the DHS website: From the DHS Org. Chart:

I-INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

SEC. 201. UNDER SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PROTECTION.

In assisting the Secretary with the responsibilities specified in
section 101(b)(2)(A), the primary responsibilities of the Under Secretary
for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection shall include-


(6) administering the Homeland Security Advisory System,
exercising primary responsibility for public threat advisories, and
(in coordination with other executive agencies) providing specific
warning information to State and local government personnel, agencies,
and authorities, the private sector, other entities, and the public,
as well as advice about appropriate protective actions and
countermeasures; and

(7) reviewing, analyzing, and making recommendations for
improvements in the policies and procedures governing the sharing of
law enforcement, intelligence, and other information relating to
homeland security within the Federal government and between such
government and State and local government personnel, agencies, and
authorities

http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/bill/title2.html



And from Sen. Frank Lautenberg's webpage:

Homeland Security Gun Safety Act of 2003

"When anyone uses a firearm, whether it's the kind of terrorism that we are trying to combat with al-Qaeda and these non-state terrorists, or as a former district attorney involved in the conviction of a individual who used firearms against innocent citizens, regardless of how we define terrorism, that individual and that family felt that they were victims of a terrorist act. Brandishing a firearm in front of anybody under any set of circumstances is a terrorist act and needs to be dealt with."

Confirmation Hearing for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, January 17, 2003


Terrorism and Guns

Terrorists have identified the lax gun laws of the United States as a means to advance their evil goal to terrorize and harm the American people. Indeed, existing gun laws are lenient and federal enforcement has been grossly inadequate. As a result, terrorists have the ability to purchase firearms legally in the United States and then convert them into weapons of mass terror.

An al-Qaeda training manual recovered in Afghanistan entitled "How Can I Train Myself for Jihad," advised terrorists to "obtain assault weapons legally" in the United States because firearms are readily available and gun laws are enforced inadequately.

On the evening of the September 11th terrorist attack, a federal jury convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon.

In 1997, Ali Abu Kamal bought a Beretta handgun from a gun shop which he used to open fire on tourists on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in New York City. Kamal killed one person and wound six others. Although he was not a U.S. citizen, Kamal was able to purchase the Beretta handgun only 37 days after his arrival in the U.S. by using a motel receipt as proof of residency.

Last year, John Muhammad and John Malvo terrorized the Washington DC area for more than three weeks as they embarked on a shooting spree with a sniper rifle, murdering 13 innocent people before being caught. The sniper rifle was a Bushmaster XM15 rifle that was missing from the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington, but was never reported to local, state or federal authorities.

Common Sense Regulation and Enforcement Now more than ever, it is imperative that Congress reassess the nation's vulnerabilities to acts of terror and pass sensible legislation to protect the American people and secure our homeland. The Homeland Security Gun Safety Act of 2003 is a comprehensive Act to combat the illegal flow of firearms to terrorists.

The Act would:

Require the maintenance of records for certain handgun transfers to coincide with the current Homeland Security Advisory System during heightened terrorist risk; and

Close loopholes that have allowed terrorists to acquire firearms Strengthen the regulatory controls and enforcement of gun dealers who violate gun laws Implementing this rational approach to gun regulations for the security of our Nation is of paramount importance and needs to be addressed now before another disaster occurs.

As President Bush aptly stated in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on November 10, 2001, "We have the responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them." Accordingly, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act would prevent terrorists from acquiring guns and firearms in the United States and then converting them into weapons of mass terror. This bill is a necessary tool in our fight against terror.

It is my opinion that Kerik would jump at the chance to expand the DHS's scope into this area and would happily testify, i.e, propose such a system and advocate new gun control laws, at any Senate or House Committee hearing necessary.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
December 4, 2004, 11:17 PM
TITLE II — INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

This title concerns the responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security for information analysis and infrastructure protection.

Section 201. Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.

This section specifies primary responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. These include: (1) receiving and analyzing law enforcement information, intelligence, and other information in order to understand the nature and scope of the terrorist threat to the American homeland and to detect and identify potential threats of terrorism within the United States; (2) comprehensively assessing the vulnerabilities of key resources and critical infrastructures; (3) integrating relevant information, intelligence analyses, and vulnerability assessments to identify protective priorities and support protective measures; (4) developing a comprehensive national plan for securing key resources and critical infrastructures; (5) taking or seeking to effect necessary measures to protect those key resources and infrastructures; (6) administering the Homeland Security Advisory System, exercising primary responsibility for public threat advisories, and providing specific warning information to state and local governments and the private sector, as well as advice about appropriate protective actions and countermeasures; and (7) reviewing, analyzing, and making recommendations for improvements in the policies and procedures governing the sharing of law enforcement, intelligence, and other information relating to homeland security within the federal government and between the federal government and state and local governments.


Again, Legislation has already been proposed to involve DHS in regulating gun sales by way of DHS's authority under (5), (6) and (7) supra.

El Rojo
December 5, 2004, 12:25 PM
Ok, at least you have stated that you are the sole source for your comment, which as you have stated, makes it your opinion. I was just wondering if you were basing that opinion on any kind of supporting evidence like Kerik speaking out against assault weapons or .50 caliber rifles in the past. It appears you have no background information suggesting he would.

I never said he is prohibited from making recommendations, in fact I challenge you to quote me where I did. As before, you seem to be making things up as you go along. What I am saying is that he does belong to a structured, chain of command hierarchy. If you have general insight into such institutions and command structures, you would know that the guy on the bottom of the Cabinet totem pole doesn't have a whole lot of power. First, he is not going to start making recommendations for areas that are traditionally a higher level position's area of expertise and influence. It generally pisses the other cabinet heads off and when you are on the bottom of the pyramid, you won't win.

Second, any and all statements he makes need to be inline with the boss, the President. If you would like to speculate again and guess that Bush is going to share his secret anti-gun agenda through the DHS, feel free. Being anti-gun in the Republican Party hurts and hurts bad. Based on this well known principle in politics as we have been observing it for the last 10 years, none of Bush's cabinet members are going to be pushing for a new AWB or .50 caliber ban. I give you that Kerik might try to weasel in some more FEMA rules on gun transactions, as it is in his area and he will unlikely catch much flak over it.

The lowest level cabinet member is not going to cause waves. You can attempt to justify your comments by quoting liberal Senator Lautenberg's website, but again you miss the difference between a liberal senator from a liberal district and a low level cabinet nominee in a Republican administration. Liberal senators from liberal districts have to spout such rhetoric and set themselves apart from conservative administrations with their outlandish ideas of striping our freedoms in order to keep the sheeple of their district feeling safe. In short it gives them job security. Plus I would argue one senator has more political power than the Director of Homeland Security. A Senator sits on committees and actually votes on legislation on all aspects of the government. The DHS has his five directorates and he can't really introduce any new radical agenda's without the President's approval otherwise he can kiss his position and further political life good bye.

Lets call Kerik what he really is. A low level cabinet appointment from New York City that makes the administration look good in New York. I don't expect him to rock the boat too much and anticipate him to be on the morning news show circuit talking about condition yellow and the need for storing food and water, not talking about taking away guns.

You don't need to be a lawyer to know how the government works and understand fundamental principles of government operation. Had I gone to law school I probably wouldn't understand how the government worked either. I would however make a lot more money and would most certainly know how to draft my car on an ambulance's tail as good as any NASCAR driver! There, that is my lighter side. We are on the same side Cool Hand Luke, don't take me too serious. :)

The_Antibubba
December 5, 2004, 04:42 PM
Does he favor National CCW for current and retired police?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
December 5, 2004, 05:16 PM
Ok, at least you have stated that you are the sole source for your comment, which as you have stated, makes it your opinion. I was just wondering if you were basing that opinion on any kind of supporting evidence like Kerik speaking out against assault weapons or .50 caliber rifles in the past. It appears you have no background information suggesting he would.

See the other thread here in L&P for Keriks comments regarding RKBA. There's pleanty of evidence that he is very much in the Guliani-Schumer orbit on RKBA

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=114111

I never said he is prohibited from making recommendations, in fact I challenge you to quote me where I did.

Again, you are flat wrong when you continue to maintain that Kerik, as head of DHS, would be even slightly restrained from advocating new gun control laws and emergency bans on gun sales. Advocacy of, and recommendations for, such measures are among the functions of the DHS executive as a carefull read of the authorizing legislation I provided for you will show.

As before, you seem to be making things up as you go along.

No, your difficulty in following along seems to be the real problem here.

What I am saying is that he does belong to a structured, chain of command hierarchy. If you have general insight into such institutions and command structures, you would know that the guy on the bottom of the Cabinet totem pole doesn't have a whole lot of power.

Now you are maintaining that the Secretary of the DHS is a low level appointee? The "bottom of the totem pole?" DHS is probably the single most visible, newsworthy, and important Cabinet Department today.

First, he is not going to start making recommendations for areas that are traditionally a higher level position's area of expertise and influence. It generally pisses the other cabinet heads off and when you are on the bottom of the pyramid, you won't win.

Again, you're failing to note that such advocacy is part of the statutory scope of the Sec. DHS. As for "higher level" Cabinet officers, you seem to be missing the fact that Sec. DHS is co-equal in rank with any other Cabinet Secretary, including the Att. General.

Second, any and all statements he makes need to be inline with the boss, the President. If you would like to speculate again and guess that Bush is going to share his secret anti-gun agenda through the DHS, feel free.

Bush has shared his support for renewal of the AWB through his press secretary.

Being anti-gun in the Republican Party hurts and hurts bad.

Sure, you can tell that from the heavy price RINO's like Rudy Guliani, John Warner, Olympia Snow, John Chaffee, Susan Collins, Richard Lugar, etc. have paid for their support for renewal of the AWB.

The lowest level cabinet member is not going to cause waves. You can attempt to justify your comments by quoting liberal Senator Lautenberg's website, but again you miss the difference between a liberal senator from a liberal district and a low level cabinet nominee in a Republican administration.

Lets call Kerik what he really is. A low level cabinet appointment from New York City that makes the administration look good in New York.

Sorry, but no, the Sec. DHS is not a "low level" cabinet position. It's not far behind Sec. Def., and probably ahead of Atty. Gen. in importance at this point in time. You demonstrate a very serious ignorance of the working of the Executive branch when you advance this idea.

You don't need to be a lawyer to know how the government works and understand fundamental principles of government operation. Had I gone to law school I probably wouldn't understand how the government worked either. I would however make a lot more money and would most certainly know how to draft my car on an ambulance's tail as good as any NASCAR driver! There, that is my lighter side. We are on the same side Cool Hand Luke, don't take me too serious.

If I were you I wouldn't worry very much about anybody taking your ideas too seriously.

BTW- the legal profession has as many subspecialities as does medicine. Lumping intellectual property law, product liability, contract, security law, law enforcement, wills-trusts-estates-property, etc. in with the somewhat justifiably despised personal injury & family law areas displays a marked ignorance of the legal world.

P5 Guy
December 5, 2004, 07:31 PM
It is my firmly held opinion that there is no pro-gun politicians. Some are just less anti-gun than others.

El Rojo
December 6, 2004, 02:08 AM
Again, you are flat wrong when you continue to maintain that Kerik, as head of DHS, would be even slightly restrained from advocating new gun control laws and emergency bans on gun sales. Advocacy of, and recommendations for, such measures are among the functions of the DHS executive as a carefull read of the authorizing legislation I provided for you will show.He might be able to make such recommendations, but having the "ability to" and having the "permission to" are two entirely different concepts. I stand by my statements that President Bush will not want him to make any anti-2nd Amendment statements and that Kerik will not make any announcements without first running it through the White House. It is a losing situation if Kerik would do what you are guessing he will do. Obviously you have read he could legally do it, but again you miss the point that it would not be prudent for his boss, his boss' party, or his job for him to do so. If you care to enlighten us on how Kerik making these recommendations you so firmly believe he will make will assist the Republican Party and their goals, I would like to hear it.

Now you are maintaining that the Secretary of the DHS is a low level appointee? The "bottom of the totem pole?" DHS is probably the single most visible, newsworthy, and important Cabinet Department today...Again, you're failing to note that such advocacy is part of the statutory scope of the Sec. DHS. As for "higher level" Cabinet officers, you seem to be missing the fact that Sec. DHS is co-equal in rank with any other Cabinet Secretary, including the Att. General.You make statements with no basis for support. First, lets talk about presidential succession. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is 18th place out of 18 places of presidential succession. I stand behind my bottom of the totem pole statement. (In fairness, the Senate has passed legislation to change the DHS's rank to 8th, but it has not passed through the house. source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession))

Second, you make a statement of opinion that the DHS is "probably" the single most visible, newsworthy, and important cabinet today. Again, I disagree. The functions of DHS are to mainly advise and monitor homeland security. Sure they have the Border Patrol and Coast Guard which are important parts of maintaining our borders, but lets compare their scope and budget to say that of the Department of Defense or the Justice Department. Changing the warning from yellow to orange then back to yellow again used to be big news. Now they are thinking they have changed it too much. The main reason we have seen Tom Ridge so much is because he is answering the criticisms of why does he keep changing the threat levels back and forth. That type of newsworthiness hardly establishes him as important, but you said visible so I guess that makes it good. :rolleyes:

Third, you make the statement that the DHS is co-equal in rank with any other Cabinet Secretary. Do you care to offer evidence that supports your claim? I would counter that the DHS is actually 11 steps below the Attorney General in the order of succession; hardly an equal rank there. I am sure you will argue that order of succession hardly matters right? Well in all honesty, the list follows the historical establishment of the departments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession) and so I can't claim there is an "experience" reasoning behind the order (I was going to until I researched my claims to make sure I was stating facts and not my own opinions). However, despite the historical order of the succession, we must still recognize its importance in choosing cabinet members. Anyone care to name off as many of the cabinet members as you can? Why is it we can't name many underneath the Attorney General with the exception of the Secretary of Homeland Security? I am sure everyone knew who the new Secretary of Education when that department was first established. Give it a couple of years and lets see how many people can name the Secretary of DHS.

More importantly why your statement that the cabinet members are co-equal is blatantly wrong is it depends on who the President is. Again, we get back to this hierarchy and chain of command issue. The Cabinet members only have as much influence as each individual president gives them. Kerik could ask for an AWB all he wants, but if Dubya says, "I have heard your comments and my decision is no", then that decision is no. If the President likes to listen to Condi Rice as Secretary of State and he doesn't give a damn about what Donald Rumsfeld says about the war, then that is the decision the President makes. Nevermind that it is Rumsfeld's area, whatever the President wants, is what happens (not referring to legislation, but executive decisions). Recognizing that fact, a department head is not going to make a recommendation that completely goes against what the President wants or wishes to emphasize. I still contend that this anti-2nd Amendment stance you envision Kerik making will not go over well and he will not do it unless the President gives the go ahead. I further contend that President is smart enough to know that his party stands to lose major ground if the President allowed his administration to take this stance. In fact, I would argue that there might have been a good chance President Bush specifically gave Kerik instructions to leave guns alone as he goes about his duties. I can make that statement of opinion just as easily as any of your claims.

Bush has shared his support for renewal of the AWB through his press secretary.I know I am asking a lot, but do you care to list a source for this? Are you just referring to his 2000 election comments about assault weapons? Was this something just recently that happened? Some supporting evidence would be great unless you don't want to substantiate your claim to more than just "opinion". I guess we should ignore the fact that there is currently no Federal AWB and that the Brady Group and others place the blame for no new AWB solely on President Bush for not pushing for a new one.

Sorry, but no, the Sec. DHS is not a "low level" cabinet position. It's not far behind Sec. Def., and probably ahead of Atty. Gen. in importance at this point in time. You demonstrate a very serious ignorance of the working of the Executive branch when you advance this idea.Ok, well it would have been nice for you to list specific reasons why you think your opinion has more basis than mine. I have listed above that the Secretary of DHS is mainly an advisory position that mainly observes the state of our preparedness and manages the Coast Guard and Border Patrol. I did find an interesting point that the DHS has a proposed $29.8 billion in net discretionary spending vs. the DOJ’s $19.7 spending. However, the DHS is spending a lot of money on upgrades and providing support for state and local agencies and it would be interesting to see exactly how much of the DHS’s budget is actually for running the department and not creating new systems. source (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=12&content=4078) I will concede that through my research in these rebuttals I have a better understanding of the scope of the DHS in the terms of budget appropriations.

I did a little more research to see what kind of budgets each department had and what I found was very interesting. The DHS is actually ranked 6th in projected discretionary spending for 2005 behind (in order) Defense, Health & Human Services, Education, HUD, & Veterans Affairs. (source (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html)) Well if we were to use the budget as an indication of importance (rather than just your opinion void of supporting evidence), look at who has a larger budget than DHS. Very interesting how you didn't factor in HUD or HHS in your list of top agencies considering they have more money than DHS. I know this isn't a fair comparison because most of the DHS spending is to establish new security measures and in a few years the costs of maintaining those measures will be considerably less than the cost to initiate those programs now. :evil:

However, I stand by my contention that Kerik will only do what Bush wants him to do and that the “real” importance of the DHS is still up for debate and we could most certainly argue more about the DHS’s importance as compared to the other departments. How can I say that? Think about all of the money we are throwing at the concept of Homeland Security. How much safer do you feel? Do you think of terrorism in terms of will the terrorists be able to attack us again or when will they attack us again? Maybe you live in the sticks like me and you could really care less about homeland security because you already have enough guns as it is (but could certainly use more!). Again, how are we to rate who is most important? I know, not by budget or by presidential succession right? So by what? How many times they are on the news?

BTW- the legal profession has as many subspecialities as does medicine. Lumping intellectual property law, product liability, contract, security law, law enforcement, wills-trusts-estates-property, etc. in with the somewhat justifiably despised personal injury & family law areas displays a marked ignorance of the legal world.You might call it ignorance, I call it humor! That was the point, to make an outlandish statement about how all lawyers are ambulance chasers. You know play off of the popular conception of lawyers being the ilk of society (until you need one that is). I guess you forgot the quote by one Cool Hand Luke 22:36, I always get a laugh out of people who invest the simple expression of an opinion on an Internet chatroom with such grave, deadly seriousness. Perhaps you should consider switching to decaf. :DIt seems you stopped laughing or you don't like lawyer jokes.

denfoote
December 6, 2004, 05:07 AM
I read and re-read denfoote's original threat post and I still can't see anything that hints Kerik is anti-gun.

I was just pointing out some obvious red flags!!

The Chucky thing jumped right out at me!!

The fact that he was police Commish in a city that has some of the most anti RKBA laws in the country did not fail to catch my attention!!!

I don't know if he is anti or not. But, the fact that he was police brass in NYC certainly points in that direction!!

The fact that the Shrub (I voted Libertarian) would appoint a goof like this certainly does not give me any confidence in his strong RKBA stance!!

Let me reiterate.

The Commish may be technically qualified for the job. That's not the point. It's his philosophical stand on the Constitution that worries me!! At best, I believe he is a Communitarian. Sure, he will stand there and say he supports the Second Amendment. But, what he means is that he supports the RKBA for the STATE MILITIA (read Police and National Guard)!!!!

The Second Amendment is the lynch Pin that holds the rest of the Constitution together!! The Socialists and Liberals know this. That is why they fear it and want it destroyed!!! ;)

For Bushie to even think of appointing someone like Kerik is a slap in the face to every gun owner in America!!

Shields up!!!

RealGun
December 6, 2004, 06:17 AM
It is my firmly held opinion that there is no pro-gun politicians. Some are just less anti-gun than others. - P5

Which is is kind of what GOA ratings are all about. However, credit should be given to all the A and A+ people, Democrats in the House among them.

Based on those ratings, one could say that there are no pro-gun Democrat Senators. One can say that there is no pro-gun major political party...not categorically. Neither major party takes a strong, let alone unequivocal, position in favor of gun ownership...or against for that matter.

All of that is very much like saying that politicians sworn to office cannot be relied upon to understand their constitutional limitations, let alone abide by their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Gun control is fashionable and precedented, so it must be okay, right? Wrong!

If the big argument now is that terrorists shouldn't have guns, the focus should be on border and port security, immigration, and illegal exporting. Further restricting citizens instead will only serve to make it appear that law makers have addressed the problem...something superficial but really annoying like the AWB.

twoblink
December 6, 2004, 08:21 AM
If I ran for President...

I hope I'd get a A+++ from the GOA :evil:

"Twoblink, tough enough to take on the toughest of question such as 45 vs 9mm. 1911 vs Glock. AK vs AR."

Twoblink on Terrorism: "Find them, catch them, try them, and hang 'em."
Twoblink on the Economy: "Flat tax 10%, all other taxes, GONE. Byebye IRS."
Twoblink on Education: "Get the gov'ment out of education. Department of Non-Education... GONE."
Twoblink on Abortion: "I have no idea, ask the mother and father."
Twoblink on Illegal Immigrants: "Look up the word BORDER in the dictionary, and push them to the other side of it."
Twoblink on Gay Marriage: "Get to goverment out of the bedroom."
Twoblink on Consenting Sex between two adults: "Get the gov'ment out of the bedroom."
Twoblink on Foreign Aid: "Cut import tax to zero."
Twoblink on alternative energy: "$2Billion for the company that comes up with, at the end of 3 years starting from today, the cleanest alternative to fossil fuel."
Twoblink on Stainless vs. Blued "I like my revolvers stainless, and my rifles blued. I like my semi auto's Tenifer'ed."
Twoblink on 45ACP vs 9mm: ".40S&W"
Twoblink on 1911 vs. Glock: "Steyr M40."
Twoblink on AK vs AR: "M1A."
Twoblink on .223 vs 7.62x39: "7.62x51 NATO"
Twoblink on Enfield vs. Mauser: "Mauser"
Twoblink on Gun Control: "Agree absolutely 100%. Shoot with BOTH HANDS."
Twoblink on Animal Rights: "Put the Duck Hunters of America in charge of all the Animals. Those selfish b*stard will ensure the continued survival of all huntable animals for purely selfish reasons..." (J/K, my friend's in that, tongue in cheek.)
Twoblink on Michael Moore: "He plumps when you cook him..."
Twoblink on Democrats vs. Republicans: "Libertarians."
Twoblink on WMA: "Hire CNN to find them all.. and then confiscate them."
Twoblink on the UN: "To quote Oleg, don't shoot until you see the blue on their helmet..."
Twoblink on the UN: "I can't get 10 people to agree what toppings on get on 5 pizzas, let alone almost 100 countries to agree on anything. Abolish it like the devil child it is."
Twoblink on Bin Laden: "Hope you've been working out, you're gonna need it for your 72 virgins.."
Twoblink on Hillary Clinton: "I'd rather not be on her or anywhere near her."
Twoblink on Sensorship: "I'm totally for it, I think they call it the "Off" Button on your Remote control.."
Twoblink on Public Safety: "Ask Retired (professionally trained) people to train citizens on First Aid, and the use of firearms for free. When the complete their training, ask the local stores to give them a 20% coupon good for any purchase towards any guns."
Twoblink on CCW: "Yes."
Twoblink on National CCW Reciprocity: "Yes."
Twoblink on the Constitution: "Any laws repugnant to the Constitution shall be repealed on my first hour in office."
Twoblink on Congress: "Live website feeds broken down by Senators and Congress critters.. Detailing their voting record and history of meeting attendence, public promises and voting record comparatively."
Twoblink on Public Funding of the Arts: "Get the gov'ment out of art."
Twoblink on Double Taxation: "10% Corporate tax, with 100% deductions on donations. 0% on Capital Gains."
Twoblink on Social Security: "Convert it all to private investments in AAA rated companies and funds. Sell most of the goverment's properties to fund the broken Social Security system."
Twoblink on Medicare/Medicaid: "Get the gov'ment out of the hospital."
Twoblink on Freedom of Speech: "Yes."
Twoblink on Drugs: "Make marjuana legal, and tax it."
Twoblink on Internet Sensorship: "Ask your MOM.. if she says ok, then ok."
Twoblink on Poverty: "Job of organizations like the church, or red cross. Cut the taxes, and let people help people."

For all these reason, I will never be president.. I make too much sense..

Twoblink on the 2A:
http://albert.achtung.com/rkba/twoblink-kiss.jpg

Chuck Jennings
December 6, 2004, 08:59 AM
Twoblink,

I will withhold my support until I hear your views on the very serious issue of zombies! :D

That said, I guess we will have to have a "wait and see." attitude about this guy. I am guardedly pessimistic. :scrutiny:

PMDW
December 10, 2004, 10:27 PM
Kerik just withdrew his name from consideration for the job.

If you enjoyed reading about "Still think the Prez is pro gun???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!