“The proven method for saving the lives of innocent Americans is not disarming them. The proven method for saving the lives of innocent Americans is to arrest, prosecute, convict and jail criminal offenders, especially armed career criminals illegally using guns. This is the way to reduce gun violence.” –  Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) quoted in Jeff Sessions Should Support Gun Violence Research Regardless Of His Beliefs [via huffingtonpost.com]

28 Responses to Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: AG Nominee Jeff Sessions Tells the Truth About Guns

  1. I’m curious, why should Sessions support spending money on gun violence research when he already has the answer that research will show anyway?

    • Note that, according to the HuffPo article, there’s not enough research on gun violence because ” gun violence research has been restricted in the U.S. since 1996, thanks to a National Rifle Association-backed law that had a silencing effect on federal research at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ”
      What was actually restricted was biased research. And, Obama, in an executive order in 2015, lifted that ban (unilaterally, without bothering to go through Congress). So HuffPo is wrong, the CDC can do the research. As well, the ban never said no one else could do gun violence research, and, in fact, there have been many such studies done.
      The HuffPo does say, though, “The problem with Sessions’ argument is that no one ― including Sessions ― knows how to fix our nation’s gun violence problem.” That should be a problem for gun control people, as it says their proposals aren’t as effective as they say they are, or would be.
      And the HoffPo, obviously, isn’t exactly unbiased. So when they say research doesn’t show gun control to be effective, we should all take notice.

    • Finding out something you don’t already know is only one purpose of research. Another is to prove to others that what you believe is true. As strych9 correctly pointed out, gun grabbers will never accept logic or facts, but that’s not the point. We spend way too much time worried about the opposition. Who we should be worried about is the huge number of undecideds in the middle. That is where the battle gets won. Say what you want about Trump, but he proved himself to be the Jedi master of that in the election.

      I support fair, balanced and independent research on this topic. We need to get the facts in the open. Not for us, or for the grabbers, but for the 80% or so of Americans in the middle.

    • Because, like all neocons (really just a bunch of liberals, but mugged by reality), meaning 99% of self described cons these days, he is just another progressive dimwit who thinks “studies show,” carries more weight than the equally weighty “I spoke to God and he said….” stuff fashionable amongst the ruling class in an earlier era.

  2. Because we don’t accept that we lost, dude. The fight continues! If we didn’t get Hillary, then we make Trump be the new Hillary! Totally makes sense if you think about, cause Hillary won the popular vote, so Trump should do what she would have done in her place, nah mean?

    /sarcasm.. /

  3. The link is to Huffpo…. I clicked on one of those links once, took almost three weeks to get the stupid off of me.

    • I haven’t found the HuffPo stink to be that bad.

      The Vox stink, on other hand, can only be removed with copious amounts of bleach. Taken orally.

      • I told you this the other day: drink a pint of wood alcohol and hit yourself in the head numerous times with a 16oz hammer.

        The effect is the same as reading Vox and the process is a hell of a lot less painful.

        • The other day I was talking about Vox Day. This time about Vox.com.

          Though I suspect the remedy is the same.

  4. “The proven method for saving the lives of innocent Americans is to arrest, prosecute, convict and jail criminal offenders…”

    This is what is known as “a blinding stab of the obvious.”

  5. Jeff Sessions Should Support Gun Violence Research Regardless Of His Beliefs

    The “research” that anti-gun organizations have produced is hardly conclusive. Additionally, trump was elected on the basis of some specific viewpoints. Therefore he should hold true to those viewpoints. Viewpoints like the nonsense that is “gun violence research” coming out of extremely biased universities and organizations.

    • Most of the studies I’ve read over the years have been pretty conclusive, in the vein of more guns = less crime.

      It’s those studies that get pretty much ignored. What they’re looking for is one study that concludes something different so they can latch on to that one.

  6. sure grab the good guy’s gun so bad guys survive, and can pay off the Democratic party! Ya ever notice when the American Hating Democrats start talking serious gun control right on Que a Democratic Party black op inbred upholds the parties line,
    Being a Republican I hope the new AG Cleans house on the ATF, IRS, Land Management, and EPA

    • The AG runs the Department of Justice, which has ni administrative authority over any of those agencies, as they’re each housed in other departments.

      Now, if there is federal criminal activity taking place in those agencies, he can investigate and prosecute that, but not just swapping out bureaucrats.

      Where he can do some of that, though, is at the now politicized and thoroughly discredited FBI, which is part of the DoJ.

  7. “No one knows how to stop gun violence.”
    Boston Miracle reduced inner city gun violence by 65% in 18 months. Nationally it reduced it by 40%. White House refused to fund expansion of the program. They said, “There is no political will for this, only for Newtown type events.”

    Hmmmmmm.

    If you aren’t going to do something about this then leave those numbers out of your gun death numbers, Hillary. Barack.

  8. First it would seem prudent to define “crime,” and identify especially those who use violence in their crimes against actual victims. No victim, no crime. The tool used to commit crimes is immaterial.

    Incarceration doesn’t prevent crime, usually… merely postpones it – after conveying a graduate level education in more and more violent crime in many cases. And incarceration is incredibly expensive, paid for by all of the actual and potential victims. How great is that?

    The best outcome for any real crime is prevention of it by targeted individuals or their responsible guardians. Up to and including the death of the perpetrator at the hands of his/her intended victim or those private guardians.

    And no, I don’t expect politicians of any flavor ever to understand or work in that direction.

  9. Shoulda said that the primary protector of the individual, is the individual, and the government will not inhibit or prohibit. Anything else is bullsh_t and a damned lie.

  10. Here we go again. These morons never learn. It’s so sad. it does no good to remind them that the Constitution forbids all gun laws, despite Scalia’s mistaken opinion. The laws that have been passed are each and every one illegal under the true reading of the 2nd Amendment. Repeal them all, period.

  11. An immodest proposal: Perhaps the proper role for “the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer” is to, you know, enforce the law. Specifically:
    1) enforce the laws as written
    2) to maximize peaceful, responsible people’s opportunity to go about their lives as they like, and
    3) *maybe*, just *maybe* point out where legislation or research might clarify what to do.

    They’re called “agencies” as they *implement the priorities of others.* They are agents, without their own authority. In general federal authority derives from legislation, from the legislature, representing the citizens … who engage the whole clown-show as a (poor, flawed, sadly least-bad) mechanism to govern ourselves together to our own advantage. Start acting like you work for the people you “govern” and they call you “populist”, which just seems to mean small-r “republican” government. When did this become a bad thing?

    The soon to be opposition are all wee-wee’d up because the current AG nominee seems to think this way, rather than as having a mandate to legislate by other means. Indeed, given the outgoing administration’s dismal record of reversals by The Supremes, often 9-0, or 8-0, including the Notorious RBG, one might conclude even they see a role for the legislature in, you know, making laws.

    Myself, this is of a piece with one of my favorite uncomfortable inquiries about the DOJ.
    1) “What, exactly is accomplished by the DOJ civil rights division that wouldn’t also be accomplished by vigorous enforcement of “equal protection” per the 14th amendment?”
    2) “Assuming whatever they are doing is all that important, how about we solicit legislation codifying whatever the civil rights division is doing beyond “equal protection. That would certainly “raise awareness” while squelching running budget fights and questions about legal authority.”
    3) Why is it the DOJ’s job to police dumb state, local, or indeed federal laws? (At a federal level, we unequivocally afforded ourselves “equal protection under the law”, with remedy through the courts, via the DOJ, and politically. We are not afforded “absolute protection from dumb laws” enforced via the DOJ or the courts. Stupid laws are ours to address politically. What’s the DOJ’s part in that?)

    I do not think The Donald has it in him(*), but something like this is a fine riposte to the crabbing about Sessions, Ben Carson, Mattis, and now the Budget Director. “Hey, if it’s that all fired important, let’s get some legislation that says it plainly.” The Donald’s approach to legislation remains opaque. I’m curious how “This is a big deal. We need to codify this in law.” would work as a strategy.

    (*) President-elect Trump seems disinclined to point to outside authorities, like the legislature. It’s all him, all the time. We’re kinda numb to that, given the last 8-ish years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *