New way to control guns...

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.

Click to expand...

Good ol' fashioned Fascism.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

I say we pass a law banning politicians from engaging in both kinds of prostitution, political and carnal.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Spitzers procurement plan

A hooker subsidized by government funding, Codenamed "politician stress relief unit."

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?

Hopefully, we're the only ones still paying any attention at all to this thoroughly discredited hypocrite and certified moron.

9mm has been around I believe since 1902.

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...

Spitzer is an idiot.

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

Spitzer is an idiot.

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

Click to expand...

I agree.

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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!

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.

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

9mm has been around I believe since 1902.

Click to expand...

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.

He's just another guy trying to act righteous so nobody pays attention to his indiscretions.

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."

gns

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.

guns& ammo

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

Conwict:

To be fair, the fact that he slept with prostitutes has nothing to do really with his views on guns being idiotic.

Click to expand...

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.

Eliot Spitzer...isn't that the guy that couldn't keep his "gun" in it's holster?
What's next, ethics articles by Blagovich?

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

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