New way to control guns...


PDA






thekomet
April 29, 2009, 02:56 PM
For those of you who think that the liberals have forgotten about gun control, one of the more influential liberals out there is encouraging new insidious ways to keep the average person from being able to purchase firearms. Eliot Spitzer feels the government should use its power as the largest purchaser of firearms to mandate trigger locks, unique serialization of weapons, and even restrict certain firearms. Our constitutional rights are never safe from the statists.

http://www.slate.com/id/2217117/

Gun Control Without Gun Laws
How Obama can use government procurement regulations to limit gun violence.
By Eliot Spitzer and Peter B. Pope
Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at 7:05 AM ET

Ever since Al Gore lost the presidency in 2000, the national Democratic Party has avoided the issue of gun control. The Obama White House recently made it clear—abandoning a campaign pledge—that it won't push for a legislative ban on the sale of assault weapons. Yet a series of provocative recent events has revived the gun debate: the international tension arising from Mexican drug gangs using guns purchased at American stores, the 10th anniversary of Columbine, and a Supreme Court case invalidating a District of Columbia law prohibiting the possession of guns at home.

Political reality makes even a modest gun law a difficult legislative sell. But if the Obama administration really cares about limiting gun violence, it could pursue a different strategy, one that doesn't involve Congress and isn't likely to provoke a storm of opposition.

Modern government is not only a lawmaker. Indeed, the most effective executive powers may not derive from statutes at all. The government that President Obama oversees is also a gigantic, well-funded procurement agent. And it can—and should—use that power to change American gun policies. Specifically, the government buys lots of guns, for sheriffs, patrol officers, and detectives; for FBI agents, DEA agents, IRS agents, Postal Inspectors, immigration agents, and park rangers; and for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and spies. The government buys guns by the crate.

What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system. Those of us who were in law enforcement in New York City in the late '80s and early '90s remember how drug dealers pioneered the use of 9-mm guns. We heard over and over from our friends in the police department that they were outgunned, that their service revolvers were no match for semi-automatics in a shootout. So what did the police do? The New York City Police Department finally bought 9-mms, too. It was a classic arms race, with the gun manufacturers in the economically enviable position of selling bigger and better guns to both sides.

This prompts a simple question: Why do we buy guns from companies that permit their products to be sold to bad guys?

In this era of government ownership of financial institutions, we are getting more used to the notion that government as an economic actor can exercise its power in differing ways. After all, firms that received TARP money are subject to a bevy of pay restrictions—wisely constructed or not—and were forced to cancel showy parties and retreats.

If we can use a capital infusion to a bank as an opportunity to control executive compensation and to limit use of private planes, why can't the government use its weight as the largest purchaser of guns from major manufacturers to reward companies that work to keep their products out of criminals' hands? Put another way, if it is too difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes, why not pay for good conduct? Why not require vendors to change their behavior if they want our tax dollars?

Just as we now "purchase" good corporate behavior in the financial industry, let it be so with guns. Governors and mayors and federal officials should buy guns from only manufacturers that control their product distribution, from manufacturers that cut off dealers whose guns end up disproportionately in the hands of criminals. In the New York attorney general's office nine years ago, we proposed several ways of constraining gun manufacturers within existing laws. These same proposals could be implemented now. Nongun manufacturers across the nation routinely control how their product is distributed and impose contractual obligations on wholesalers and retailers. Gun companies should have to use a similar approach. They should sell their product through only authorized dealers. And the authorized dealers should have to keep track of how many times they got "trace" inquiries from law enforcement—that is, how many guns they sold were later used by criminals. Dealers that sold a disproportionate number of "crime guns" would have to fix the problem, something that might be as easy as retraining staff to react to "straw" purchasers who were trying to evade existing laws. Data showing that a high percentage of guns used in crime come from a small subset of dealers suggest that closing these few retailers could have a dramatic impact on access to illegal guns. Likewise, the government could require manufacturers to make a few simple design changes in the interest of safety and tracking: trigger locks, or hidden serial numbers, or a magazine safety disconnect on every pistol.

More fundamentally, companies could be told to stop selling certain types of weapons to the general public. If a manufacturer did not comply with any of the limitations, then it would be excluded from the list of companies with which the government would do business.

In 2000, this idea's time had not come. The government did not so boldly exercise its prerogatives as owner and purchaser. It did not freely insist that companies receiving our tax dollars change their practices—even in fundamental ways—if they wanted our money. Today, of course, this is the way business is done.

If President Obama wants to devise a creative way to limit gun violence, he will use his power as the world's largest consumer to require the cooperation of gun manufacturers. If government cannot legislate the conduct it wants, then it can use market power to buy it. For the money we are spending, we should buy not only guns but some peace from gun violence.

If you enjoyed reading about "New way to control guns..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zombie_Flesh
April 29, 2009, 03:02 PM
By Eliot Spitzer and Peter B. Pope

that Eliot guy really boils by blood

hso
April 29, 2009, 03:17 PM
My response -

Just to point out a problem with this thinking -

"Just as we now "purchase" good corporate behavior in the financial industry, let it be so with booze/cars. Governors and mayors and federal officials should buy booze/cars from only manufacturers that control their product distribution, from manufacturers that cut off dealers whose guns end up disproportionately in the hands of drunks/reckless drivers. In the New York attorney general's office nine years ago, we proposed several ways of constraining drunks/reckless drivers manufacturers within existing laws. These same proposals could be implemented now. Nonbooze/car manufacturers across the nation routinely control how their product is distributed and impose contractual obligations on wholesalers and retailers. Alcohol/vehicle companies should have to use a similar approach. They should sell their product through only authorized dealers. And the authorized dealers should have to keep track of how many times they got "trace" inquiries from law enforcement—that is, how many drinks/cars they sold were later used by criminals. Dealers that sold a disproportionate number of "crime cars/beers" would have to fix the problem, something that might be as easy as retraining staff to react to "straw" purchasers who were trying to evade existing laws. Data showing that a high percentage of deathmobiles/booze used in crime come from a small subset of dealers suggest that closing these few retailers could have a dramatic impact on access to booze/cars. Likewise, the government could require manufacturers to make a few simple design changes in the interest of safety and tracking: door locks, or vin numbers, or a drunk-proof cap on every bottle of hooch."

Look silly? Sure it does, regardless of what words you put in place for a thing that is substituted for people's behavior.

BhmBill
April 29, 2009, 03:24 PM
All I can do is laugh then frown at Spitzer.

It's so idiotic that it's funny and sad.

People actually believe this crap.

Thaddeus Jones
April 29, 2009, 03:36 PM
Eliot, stick with something you know, like......hookers. Leave the guns to those who know something about them. Thanks! :)

Sam1911
April 29, 2009, 03:37 PM
...New York City in the late '80s and early '90s remember how drug dealers pioneered the use of 9-mm guns.

Wow. I thought the 9mm Parabellum cartridge was a lot older than that! An hats off to those guys for being so inventive as to develop their own cartridge!

Or, maybe he's just pointing out that those drug dealers were the first folks to make widespread use of that round. I'll bet it was pretty darned obscure before the 1980s!

Just wow.

-Sam

Smithiac
April 29, 2009, 03:39 PM
You have got to be kidding me this guy is an idiot.

Polar Express
April 29, 2009, 03:46 PM
I wonder who actually buys more guns, the US FEDERAL Gov't, (keep in mind that's what they are talking about here, not state gov't) or the general public. I suspect the general public out-buys the gov't substantially. Could they force the states to follow suit using the same tactics? They could sure try, but even then I don't think the numbers are big enough. Keep in mind just how many cops, and military folks are out there? Just how many guns to their departments provide? one? Maybe two? I suspect the majority of American gun owners have more than one.

So, a couple manufacturers decide they will sell only to the gov't. OK, bummer. The rest of them tell the Gov't to piss off, cancel the contracts, and the public gets exclusive access to those manufacturers. Capitalism will stupid idea, as long as we keep voting, and keep the socialists out of office. We have to look at the big picture, and not let any of our rights be invaded, regardless of how rosey of a picture they paint of the Gov't administering more stuff.

PE

JImbothefiveth
April 29, 2009, 03:47 PM
Specifically, the government buys lots of guns, for sheriffs, patrol officers, and detectives; for FBI agents, DEA agents, IRS agents, Postal Inspectors, immigration agents, and park rangers; and for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and spies. The government buys guns by the crate.

What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system. Those of us who were in law enforcement in New York City in the late '80s and early '90s remember how drug dealers pioneered the use of 9-mm guns. We heard over and over from our friends in the police department that they were outgunned, that their service revolvers were no match for semi-automatics in a shootout. So what did the police do? The New York City Police Department finally bought 9-mms, too. It was a classic arms race, with the gun manufacturers in the economically enviable position of selling bigger and better guns to both sides. How many guns are bought legally by criminals? I doubt a sgnificant number of guns sold legally are sold to criminals.
This prompts a simple question: Why do we buy guns from companies that permit their products to be sold to bad guys? They don't sell the, gun stores sell them. Mostly to law abiding citizens. Unfortunantly, the occasional criminal will pass the background check and many will get guns illegally. Nonetheless, they are used more for self-defense than for murder.





If we can use a capital infusion to a bank as an opportunity to control executive compensation and to limit use of private planes, why can't the government use its weight as the largest purchaser of guns from major manufacturers to reward companies that work to keep their products out of criminals' hands? Put another way, if it is too difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes, why not pay for good conduct? Why not require vendors to change their behavior if they want our tax dollars? And how do you say they should do this? Not sellng to dealers? You are aware that it's already illegal to sell to felons, correct?
Just as we now "purchase" good corporate behavior in the financial industry, let it be so with guns. Governors and mayors and federal officials should buy guns from only manufacturers that control their product distribution, from manufacturers that cut off dealers whose guns end up disproportionately in the hands of criminals. Most guns are not used for crime. And when people are allowed to carry concealed weapons, crime is reduced. It's not like the licensed dealers are regularly selling to criminals, other than a few corrupt ones. In the New York attorney general's office nine years ago, we proposed several ways of constraining gun manufacturers within existing laws. Attempts like this have repeatedly failed. They have failed in D.C., failed in other lbieral states, they have failed in the rest of the world, why wouldn't they fail here? These same proposals could be implemented now. Nongun manufacturers across the nation routinely control how their product is distributed and impose contractual obligations on wholesalers and retailers. Gun companies should have to use a similar approach. They should sell their product through only authorized dealers. Show me one firearm company that doesn't sell through only authorised dealers. And the authorized dealers should have to keep track of how many times they got "trace" inquiries from law enforcement—that is, how many guns they sold were later used by criminals. No, that's how many times they were suspected of selling a gun used by criminals.Dealers that sold a disproportionate number of "crime guns" would have to fix the problem, something that might be as easy as retraining staff to react to "straw" purchasers who were trying to evade existing laws. Data showing that a high percentage of guns used in crime come from a small subset of dealers suggest that closing these few retailers could have a dramatic impact on access to illegal guns. Then close them. That's what the ATF is for. Likewise, the government could require manufacturers to make a few simple design changes in the interest of safety and tracking: trigger locks, or hidden serial numbers, or a magazine safety disconnect on every pistol. A hidden serial number just means it's not as easy to report stolen. A magazine disconnect safety won't stop crime. A trigger lock probably wo't either.
More fundamentally, companies could be told to stop selling certain types of weapons to the general public. If a manufacturer did not comply with any of the limitations, then it would be excluded from the list of companies with which the government would do business. So, why shouldn't I have access to a reliable handgun that's good for self-defense? Not having certain guns sold to the populace won't really stop crime because those guns are most likely used for self-defense more than murder, and the guns criminals use most would probably never win a government contract.


If President Obama wants to devise a creative way to limit gun violence, he will use his power as the world's largest consumer to require the cooperation of gun manufacturers. If government cannot legislate the conduct it wants, then it can use market power to buy it. For the money we are spending, we should buy not only guns but some peace from gun violence. Only it won't work. You want peace? Try imprisoning criminals.

Polar Express
April 29, 2009, 03:55 PM
Just to be clear, it is always important for us to be vigilant with regards to all of our rights, the 2nd amendment especially for it is what allows us to protect all of our other rights.

And yes, we need to keep a sharp eye out for anyone trying to do an end-run around our Constitution on all matters.


PE

HK G3
April 29, 2009, 04:13 PM
http://routingbyrumor.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/eliot-spitzer-sad.jpg

This is what a man who throws away his entire career, and is now entirely reduced to writing articles for the sole intent of robbing the citizenry of their rights looks like.

Superlite27
April 29, 2009, 04:18 PM
Let me get this straight:

This prompts a simple question: Why do we buy guns from companies that permit their products to be sold to bad guys?


Specifically, the government buys lots of guns, for sheriffs, patrol officers, and detectives; for FBI agents, DEA agents, IRS agents, Postal Inspectors, immigration agents, and park rangers; and for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and spies. The government buys guns by the crate.

So, since Spitzer was caught in a prostitution ring, this means he is a bad guy, right?

He has seen the enemy, and he is him.

KBintheSLC
April 29, 2009, 04:24 PM
He forgets that private sales are also a major chunk of the market. There are nearly 400 million privately owned firearms in the US... I doubt manufacturers want to play hardball with that.

Anyway, Spitzer is the poster boy for all things wrong with the far left socialist movement. A perfect fusion of politics and crime. As far as I am concerned, I welcome him to join the anti chorus... it will only serve to further discredit them.

MisterMike
April 29, 2009, 04:37 PM
I'm glad he's on their side!

USAFNoDAk
April 29, 2009, 04:41 PM
It's ironic that he shares the same last name as a type of bullet, but I digress.

So why should we listen to "John" Spitzer in the first place. He's a knob. What a horses butt.

Listen, this idea has already been tried by another man who tended to stray outside of his marriage vows, Bill Clinton. Remember Smith and Wesson when they were owned by the french company "Thomkins" or something like that? They were all into kissing the posterior of Clinton/Gore/Reno and signed up for just what "John" Spitzer is proposing. What happened? They went bankrupt. They got back in business by walking away from the agreement they had signed with Clintoon/Bore/Repo.

Remember, many cops who actually use the guns are on our side. They don't want handguns with magazine disconnects and other "safety" features that might fail when the gun is needed most. Many military folks are also on our side, that is the side of gunowners. There are some 80 million gun owners in the US. How many cops and soldiers are there that need new guns every year? Look at how fast guns are selling to the private markets right now. Take Mr. Barrett. Didn't he elect to prevent sales of his .50 cals to California for their LEO's use since the state banned him from selling to civilians in CA? How is his company doing I wonder? I bet he's making more money than he ever has.

"John" Spitzer should stick to buying women for sexual favors. That's a financial transaction for which he's an expert. Well, except for getting caught, that is.

Pack
April 29, 2009, 04:51 PM
This kind of thinking, in the minds of those who think it, touches every right we have, our access to firearms being one of the more prominent issues.

The article states:

"In 2000, this idea's time had not come. The government did not so boldly exercise its prerogatives as owner and purchaser. It did not freely insist that companies receiving our tax dollars change their practices—even in fundamental ways—if they wanted our money. Today, of course, this is the way business is done."

This is, unfortunately, very true, and very likely to make me :barf:

Good luck to us all, in the maelstrom of the latest "new deal"... :barf:

Old Fuff
April 29, 2009, 04:53 PM
Spitzer should also be remembered as one of the principals behind the Clinton Asministration's attempt to either take over the handgun industry, or drive it into bankruptcy. That didn't work either, but it did result in the infamous Smith & Wesson Agreement.

At that time Spitzer and others called for the cities that were petitioners in that civil action to make an agreement among themselves to only buy guns from "approved" companies. It didn't work.

Think what would happen if they tried to force the officers, deputies, and agents that have to use the firearms he proposes the government require; rather then the ones they want. Does anyone believe they would turn in what they have for something made by an unknown manufacturer who was going along with Spitzer’s idea of political correctness and hanging the pistols with superfluous Brady-gadgets without a very public fight? :evil:

Rellian
April 29, 2009, 04:59 PM
based on all of the recent threads about the millions spent by people stockpiling and hoarding I don't know that companies would NEED government contracts to stay afloat.....;)

Noxx
April 29, 2009, 05:23 PM
Mr. Spitzer essentially suggests that if he cannot get the laws he wants to control the people, passed by the representatives of the people, that the government simply strongarm it's way around them financially (with the peoples money, no less), is the most amazing sort of hubris. Cleary he sees a "ruling" and "governed" class, and nothing resembling a government "of, by, and for" the people.

BhmBill
April 29, 2009, 05:26 PM
There's 20,000,000+ federal, state, and local employees. Add the 3,300,000 million soldiers. A conservative guess would be 25,000,000. Lets be ultra conservative and say 50% of federal (even though the article is about federal employees), state, and local employees have guns. 12,500,000 armed employees. Lets be conservative and say theres 5 guns per armed employee. 62,500,000 guns for the government.

60,000,000+ gun owners in the US. 400,000,000+ million guns owned by private parties. 1,500,000+ sold each month through dealers.

Idk...

Would you rather sell to the 60,000,000 who buy several guns a year each, or the 12,500,000 who might buy 1 gun each each year?

Tommygunn
April 29, 2009, 05:38 PM
Can Spitzer spell NICS?
I thought, ah, "contolling gun sales" was the job of the goobermint. I mean, specifically, the job of our much beloved BATF?
Does SMITH & WESSON need Tactical Entry Teams??????



*!SIGH!*

damien
April 29, 2009, 05:46 PM
His idea wouldn't work. It would simply create companies that sell solely into the civilian channel, forgoing government contracts. And they would do very, very well.

chuwee81
April 29, 2009, 05:47 PM
thaddeus:

if he's really good at it, he wouldn't get caught now would he ?? :)

USAFNoDAk
April 29, 2009, 05:51 PM
"In 2000, this idea's time had not come. The government did not so boldly exercise its prerogatives as owner and purchaser. It did not freely insist that companies receiving our tax dollars change their practices—even in fundamental ways—if they wanted our money. Today, of course, this is the way business is done."


The precursor to Facism? In the future, the government will force companies to take taxpayer monies for the "good of the employees" working there. Then, they will dictate, even more than they do now, how the company will be run. Or, they will buy enough stock to be the major owner, and run the company for the most part. See GM and Chrysler. Guys like Spitzer are scary. I'm glad he "john-dissed" his reputation and had to resign from his government job, at least for now. We don't need guys like him as a part of our leadership in a free nation. He's all about government control and seems to admit to it.

Edited to add: Notice how he refers to "our" tax dollars and "our" money. Since he is out of government now, is he referring to the governments money? He didn't say "taxpayers" money. Once the dollars have been collected for taxes, I would guess a slimeball such as Spitzer would regard the money as the "government's tax dollars", but no longer the "taxpayers dollars". I think you can read this ideology of his between the lines in his opinion piece. He is talking about "the government" taking action by using "our tax dollars". Notice that this is not a plea to the citizens not to spend "their tax dollars" with gun manufacturers who don't play by the rules that Spitzer likes. I believe he still thinks of himself as being part of the governing class, even though he's not in government right now. You watch. He'll see if the collective memory of the voters is very long and he WILL run again for office, just like Marion Berry did in Washington, D.C. after his cocaine problems. Entrenched government types see themselves as being perpetually in the governing class, whether they are actively engaged or not, at any particular time.

MisterMike
April 29, 2009, 05:54 PM
Mr. Spitzer essentially suggests that if he cannot get the laws he wants to control the people, passed by the representatives of the people, that the government simply strongarm it's way around them financially (with the peoples money, no less), is the most amazing sort of hubris. Cleary he sees a "ruling" and "governed" class, and nothing resembling a government "of, by, and for" the people.

A very well-stated perspective. Maddening, isn't it?

BhmBill
April 29, 2009, 06:26 PM
Mr. Spitzer essentially suggests that if he cannot get the laws he wants to control the people, passed by the representatives of the people, that the government simply strongarm it's way around them financially (with the peoples money, no less), is the most amazing sort of hubris. Cleary he sees a "ruling" and "governed" class, and nothing resembling a government "of, by, and for" the people.

Good ol' fashioned Fascism.

TravisB
April 29, 2009, 06:48 PM
In the transaction Spitzer's talking about, the government is a customer. Customers can make demands. Companies can refuse them. No company has an inherent right to sell its products or services to the government.

I just don't know how realistic it is for a gun manufacturer to determine which retail dealers are selling to gangs. If the manufacturer can find out, surely law enforcement can also find out, and the justice system is equipped with better penalties than "I"m not selling you any more guns!"

If there were some kind of a list demonstrating that certain gun manufacturers were selling to gangs (or knowingly enabling those sales), I personally would avoid those companies. And I would want the government to do the same. I'm just not aware of any such list.

chuckusaret
April 29, 2009, 07:15 PM
Mr. Spitzer essentially suggests that if he cannot get the laws he wants to control the people, passed by the representatives of the people, that the government simply strongarm it's way around them financially (with the peoples money, no less), is the most amazing sort of hubris. Cleary he sees a "ruling" and "governed" class, and nothing resembling a government "of, by, and for" the people.

A very well-stated perspective. Maddening, isn't it?

Spitzer sounds just like the Obama. One way or another Obama is going to get our guns and it does make me mad. Yes, so mad when they come for my guns I will turn them over to them, bullets first.

Crash_Test_Dhimmi
April 29, 2009, 08:42 PM
I say we pass a law banning politicians from engaging in both kinds of prostitution, political and carnal.

USAFNoDAk
April 29, 2009, 08:49 PM
Spitzer:More fundamentally, companies could be told to stop selling certain types of weapons to the general public. If a manufacturer did not comply with any of the limitations, then it would be excluded from the list of companies with which the government would do business.


TravisB:In the transaction Spitzer's talking about, the government is a customer. Customers can make demands. Companies can refuse them. No company has an inherent right to sell its products or services to the government.

I think Spitzer is essentially talking about a legalized form of extortion, being masked as "consumer choice".

Is this what we want from the federal govt.? They can then tell any auto manfacturer, "look, if you don't quit selling the vehicles you make which don't get at least 30 miles per gallon, we will stop doing any business with you". Or, "Mr. Furnace company, if you don't quit selling oil burning furnaces to homeowners, we will quit buying your products for our government housing projects"
. Government business needs to go out for bid in almost all cases. This helps to ensure that there are no "favorites" being played for kickbacks and so that no company gouges the taxpayer with overpriced products and services because they are the only ones allowed to bid the contract.

I don't think this will work anyway, because while the federal government may buy crates of rifles, civilians buy more. I believe Colt quit making arms for the general public and now only sells to law enforcement and the Federal Govt. I don't think they are doing any better than say, Smith and Wesson, Remington, or Winchester. I don't have the numbers from their financial reports, however.

I don't like that slippery slope where the federal government is so heavily involved in coercing private businesses to do business only in the way the government wants them to.

If there is a demand for certain products, and they are legal, what business is it of the governments whether private companies sell those types of guns? This would open up a giant power grab for the federal government. I don't want to see us go in that direction. Obama and guys like Spitzer want desperately to go in that direction because it means much more power and control for them to make this country work only as they want it to, instead of how the people want it to be run. That's what we have Congress and the Courts for. They should make the laws on how government operates and how it does business. It should not be done as a back door extortion-like enterprise.

gimlet1/21
April 29, 2009, 09:38 PM
A hooker subsidized by government funding, Codenamed "politician stress relief unit.":D

Owen Sparks
April 29, 2009, 10:53 PM
Why can't the major drug companies can't keep their products out of criminal hands?

Should they be held liable when their products are involved in a crime?

rainbowbob
April 29, 2009, 10:55 PM
Hopefully, we're the only ones still paying any attention at all to this thoroughly discredited hypocrite and certified moron.

rojocorsa
April 29, 2009, 11:05 PM
9mm has been around I believe since 1902.

RP88
April 29, 2009, 11:29 PM
So, he is basically telling the government to try and strong-arm their very own lowest bidders? Yea, that's gonna do them a whole lot of good...

vtail
April 30, 2009, 12:34 AM
Spitzer is an idiot.

He does have fine taste when it comes to hookers however.

BhmBill
April 30, 2009, 12:40 AM
Spitzer is an idiot.

He does have fine taste when it comes to hookers however.

I agree.
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x177/deyonte19/ugly-girl.jpg

conw
April 30, 2009, 12:54 AM
Mr. Spitzer essentially suggests that if he cannot get the laws he wants to control the people, passed by the representatives of the people, that the government simply strongarm it's way around them financially (with the peoples money, no less), is the most amazing sort of hubris. Cleary he sees a "ruling" and "governed" class, and nothing resembling a government "of, by, and for" the people.

Very good summation.

BTW, this idea might work for prostitution as well. Everyone knows that the prostitutes politicians select undergo an extensive vetting service; the average joe (or "john") on the other hand subjects himself and his family to all kinds of STDs. If the government used its considerable bargaining power to favor responsible prostitutes, we could really cap the AIDS pandemic and put irresponsible pimps out of business.

Great idea, Spitzer!

Clifford
April 30, 2009, 01:04 AM
I hope Mr. Spitzer cannot breed. The last thing the world needs is another mouthbreathing idiot like him. To many in office as it is!

RangerHAAF
April 30, 2009, 09:39 AM
Didn't Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo try this? It didn't work then and it won't now. Even if it did the next administration could come along and undo everything that it wants to.

You can't really blame them, they're desperate. They can't get anything passed legitimately, the courts have shut them out and with crime rising and terrorists trying to kill us nobody's buying their gun control scams anymore.

cortez kid
April 30, 2009, 09:46 AM
If you had an ole lady give him the eye like his did during his "fess up" news conference, you'd want a lot of gun control too! Let him learn how to control his own pistol before he tells me how to control mine.
kid

Noxx
April 30, 2009, 12:11 PM
9mm has been around I believe since 1902.

Correct, when it was developed by DWM for the Luger. The modern high capacity 9mm as we know it was born as J. Brownings Hi-Power in 1922.

DHJenkins
April 30, 2009, 12:43 PM
He's just another guy trying to act righteous so nobody pays attention to his indiscretions.

conw
April 30, 2009, 02:50 PM
To be fair, the fact that he slept with prostitutes has nothing to do really with his views on guns being idiotic. It does make him more of an idiot when one considers the compounded effect, though. As a teacher I had for a theater class said, "There are two types of opinions. Opinions that don't suck, and those that do."

TEDDY
April 30, 2009, 03:57 PM
any of you know how to make a decent operating gun???simple tools and material.no need for rifling.the British did they called it a sten and we called ours a grease gun.the russians called theirs a ppsh41.and there are simpler ones than that.takes about 4 hrs.:rolleyes::uhoh::eek:

TEDDY
April 30, 2009, 04:01 PM
win makes 1,600,000 rds 45acp a day and is 200,000,000 on backorder.
1,529,635,000 rds were sold in DEC 2008
99,802,067 background checks have been made since 1998 to 2008.
per ATF:rolleyes::uhoh::eek:

USAFNoDAk
April 30, 2009, 04:21 PM
Conwict: To be fair, the fact that he slept with prostitutes has nothing to do really with his views on guns being idiotic.

What it has to do is to negate any credibility he has. As the governor of AG and later the Governor of New York, he was the Chief Law Enforcement Agent in the state of New York, was he not? For him to willfully break the law by paying a prositute for sex, multiple times, his honor and his credibility are in the toilet. Thus, he doesn't get to tell anyone how they should conduct "legal" business anymore. He should go away and shut his yap. But don't worry, he'll be back as a government agent. He considers himself to be amongst the ruling class. Thus, any minor laws which he broke are, essentially, inconsequential in his mind.

His butt sucks buttermilk through a tin straw.

An old Air Force buddy of mine, who was from the Cincinatti area, used to always use that line to toss insults at folks. In a good natured way of course. I'm not sure what it means, but it sounds funny as an insult. He used the more vulgar term for "butt", which is like a donkey.

strangelittleman
April 30, 2009, 05:00 PM
Eliot Spitzer...isn't that the guy that couldn't keep his "gun" in it's holster?
What's next, ethics articles by Blagovich?

Millwright
April 30, 2009, 06:17 PM
Anyone remember what happend to S&W when it made a similar "deal" with the Clinton Administration ?

Short-term view: It would be damn hard to get companies, (plus their boards and stockholders) to go along with this sort of nonsense.

Long Term: Most of the accessories and a lot of the arms presently used or on a "short list for procurement" by various units of our military come directly from the civilian market ! The type of restrictions cited by these idiots would hamstring our troops in the next conflict. How long would we keep the present level of professionalism and skills on the "cutting edge of democracy" if all we can equip them with is trash left over from the last war ? >MW

moooose102
April 30, 2009, 10:41 PM
what a crock of hog poo! this moron needs to be exported to the middle of the saraha desert, with one can of coke.

conw
April 30, 2009, 11:26 PM
Thus, he doesn't get to tell anyone how they should conduct "legal" business anymore. He should go away and shut his yap.

Yeah, I understand the point and everything. Particularly when he's packaging himself as some kind of ethical guru, railing against crime. (Crime is crime is crime is crime...and he's a dishonest, discredited SOB.) But I am just trying to keep things in perspective: even if he were the Pope, or the Dalai Lama, or whomever, this opinion would still suck. Appeals to authority, or their converse - the ad hominem attack - can be dangerous when they take the focus off the idea in question.


what a crock of hog poo! this moron needs to be exported to the middle of the saraha desert, with one can of coke.


Shake the can up real good first....:evil:

augustino
May 1, 2009, 08:00 PM
Isn't Mr. Spitzer the f@#$%ng whore monger that was busted for high class - high dollar call girls? All the while he was selling himself as a crusader against corruption and imorality, the very crimes and acts he was guilty of committing!

That sorry SOB should shut his pie hole and stick with something he knows, how to cheat on his wife and children for that matter. Besides he PROBABLY paid for some of his sexcapades with tax payer dollars. Yet after he, with his dumb ass wife by his side, apologized on TV, well things sort of fell by the wayside. I call her a dumb ass because she wasn't by his side when he was in bed with the hookers. So why be by his side when he's busted. Besides he was only sorry he got busted not for what he was doing. If he hadn't been caught, he would be out with a hooker tonight! Amazing how ones criminal behavior and sexual escapades get buried when they are powerful.
Shut the hell up Spitzer! The only good spitzer is a breed of dog that has more character and backbone that this Eliot guy.

rcnixon
May 1, 2009, 08:12 PM
Hey, Elliot, shut up and call out for another hooker. No one wants to hear your drivel unless she's being paid for it.

If you enjoyed reading about "New way to control guns..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!