Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, February 24, 2013

The DOJ PDF memo that is downloadable online states the administration "believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation." The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration's public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that laws proposed by Obama would not "take away a gun from a single law-abiding American."

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

zack991

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

A Justice Department official said the memo is an unfinished review of gun violence research and does not represent administration policy.

The DOJ memo arrived a few weeks prior to a letter sent out by the Department of Veterans Affairs. "A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition," the sent to military veterans states. "If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2)."

"US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both," the Gateway Pundit remarked.

The NRA declined to explain how it obtained the document. The memo was written by the acting director of the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice, Greg Ridgeway. It is dated January 4, two weeks before Obama mounted his attack on the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. Ridgeway came to the Justice Department from the RAND corporation.

The memo says universal background checks on firearms purchases may help the government push to control and eventually outlaw firearms, but it would lead to an increase in illegally purchased guns.

It pointed out that banning high capacity ammunition clips would be ineffective due to the fact there is a large number of them already in circulation.

NRA's Chris Cox talks about the DOJ memo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jHmxY7zE5uc

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

"Well, the press secreatry said not a single 'law abiding' American. What's the problem?"

The left

#1 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-24 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Got a link to the "memo." Didn't see it in the article. Probably my older eyes.

#2 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-24 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

The moonie times is still not trustable.

www.youtube.com

#3 | Posted by Tor at 2013-02-24 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize."

Gun registration and continuous checks for possession eligibility

"Universal checks are insufficient for ensuring that firearm owners remain eligible. Convictions, mental health issues, and restraining orders can develop after the background checks.
Recovering guns from those that become ineligible is likely effective."

Gun buybacks
Twitter summary: Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban

Goal: Reduce access to firearms by incentivizing owners to dispose of their unwanted guns rather than transfer them to a more risky possessor

Evidence: Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented. 1. The buybacks are too small to have an impact. 2. The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime. 3. Replacement guns are easily acquired. Unless these three points are overcome, a gun buyback cannot be effective.

#4 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-24 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Link to the "memo?"

#5 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-24 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.nraila.org

#6 | Posted by KBM at 2013-02-25 12:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

"But while confirming the document existed, a Justice Department official in an interview Wednesday with TPM strongly disputed the NRA's conclusions about it."

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

#7 | Posted by KBM at 2013-02-25 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's the link? It is not a DOJ memo. It is a National Institute of Justice memo.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-25 12:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It is a National Institute of Justice memo."

But it's got highlighting and everything...

#9 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-25 12:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

freaks.

#10 | Posted by ichiro at 2013-02-25 02:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Boy, the Tiiightie Riiiighties Whambulance really hurtled off the cliff with this one.

#11 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-25 06:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

"National Institute of Justice"

Hilarious!

The paranoid leading the paranoid.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-25 06:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

It is a National Institute of Justice memo.
#8 | Posted by et_al

UPDATE: The National Institute of Justice is a part of the DOJ. ABC News on the same subject. http://abcnews.go.com/
Politics/wireStory/nra-
justice-memo-accuse-obama-
guns-18587361

#13 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-25 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"UPDATE: The National Institute of Justice is a part of the DOJ."

NW Flag

#14 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-02-25 12:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The memo has the look of a preliminary document and calls itself "a cursory summary" and assessment of gun curb initiatives. The administration has not released it officially."

A self-described "cursory summary" by DOJ affiliated "crime researchers".

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-25 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"affiliated"

That's cute.

#16 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-02-25 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Deflect all you want, but as the director of the NIJ, the guy who wrote it is a heavy hitter in the DOJ. "The administration has not released it officially" - well no kidding. Add that to the ever-expanding list of documents the administration has buried, destroyed or otherwise hidden from the public. That doesn't mean the document isn't a key reference being used BY the administration as they craft further gun control measures.

#17 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-25 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The memo, under the name of one of the Justice Department's leading crime researchers,"

What term would you prefer?

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-25 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about "an agency of the Department of Justice"? I just went to the DOJ website. The NIJ is one of the DOJ's 54 agencies, alongside ATF, DEA, FBI, AG, etc...

#19 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-25 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The memo was written under the name of Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, the Justice Department's research arm.

It is dated Jan. 4, nearly two weeks before Obama announced his plan for restricting guns, and Ridgeway's first day as acting chief."

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com

Page 2
And I've always trusted the Moonie Times for their objective journalism, btw.

#20 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-25 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I get the feeling there are some folks commenting on this memo here who've no idea (a) what the term "preliminary" means, and (b) don't comprehend the document's message.

Now, there's a sooprise.

#21 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-25 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

#21 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

If the memo is preliminary and a "cursory summary" then how did the NRA get it? Leaked? By whom for what purpose.

NIJ Gun Violence Prevention page.

#22 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-25 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

On the contrary Doc, you could almost say that I write similar "white papers" for a living. The paper was very likely requested of the NIJ by the DOJ, knowing that the NIJ would be able to compile the statistics required and provide a learned opinion on the subject. The questions that need to be asked include "who requested the white paper?" and more importantly "who read the white paper?".

#23 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-25 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What term would you prefer?"

Something that more accurately reflects their mission as expressed on the NIJ.gov page supplied by Et_Al in #13.

#24 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-02-25 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the memo is preliminary and a "cursory summary" then how did the NRA get it? Leaked? By whom for what purpose.

Well, there you have it: your next mission, should you choose to accept it.

#23 | Posted by MUSTANG

There's nothing I've said that goes against what you've stated. I've said the document's been described as preliminary, which it has. I've also said some posters here don't seem to able to comprehend the message conveyed by the document, and I've seen nothing that negates that perception.

#25 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-25 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

*yawn*

#26 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-02-25 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Simply put: Qui bono?

#27 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-25 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well step up, Doc, and provide your interpretation of the message conveyed.

#28 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-25 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, I'm not particularly interested in the messages conveyed - I think this issue is so far beyond the realm of the normal with the loons that there's nothing you can say to them that doesn't freak them out - although I'll say this much and leave it at this: I can see why the NRA would love the memo, and I can also see where some morons are going to conclude from selective quoting that it's a pitch to "take our guns away."

#29 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-25 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

... I can also see where some morons are going to conclude from selective quoting that it's a pitch to "take our guns away."

I was reading it as support of the exact opposite, or at minimum pointing out the critical flaw in efforts to ban firearms, but that's just me.

#30 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-02-25 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, hell, Doc, you mentioned 'the message' twice, so I figured you had your own interpretation of it.

Here's how I interpret 'the message':

"Obama's gun control measures will be ineffective unless coupled with even stricter measures that include confiscation and sales tracking, but even then they do not prevent straw purchases or thefts, which account for 75% of guns used in crimes."

#31 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-25 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Should've thought that was obvious.

I'm still not particularly interested, though, anymore; the gun situation in this country is so far beyond out of control.

#32 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-25 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"the gun situation in this country is so far beyond out of control."

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-25 01:46 PM | Reply

the rate of gun murder is at its lowest point since at least 1981
factcheck.org

Lie some more Doc.

#33 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-25 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

In other news 440,000 Americans were killed by tobacco last year, 40,000 of them innocent victims of second hand smoke.

#34 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-25 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lie some more Doc.

#33 | Posted by Zatoichi

El Paso!!!

#35 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-25 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tuesday, January 8, 2013
FBI statistics rebut calls for gun control
Letter to the Editor
After hearing and reading all the hype about the need for more gun control, I decided to check with the No. 1 crime statistics-gathering agency in the country to learn the unvarnished truth: the FBI.
According to FBI statistics for 2011, there were more than 10 million violent crimes committed in the United States. (Go to this link for details:
www.fbi.gov)
Here is an excerpt: "According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in 2011 declined for the fifth consecutive year. Property crimes also decreased, marking the ninth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined."
During that same period, gun sales accelerated every year over the previous year nationally, while in states where tight gun control laws hinder the sale and ownership of firearms, violent crimes have risen precipitously.
For those of you who think the Second Amendment is irrelevant, think again. The more guns in the hands of honest law-abiding citizens, the less crime.

www.nashuatelegraph.com

Lie some more Doc.

#36 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-25 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've no idea what that has to do with me. But have a nice day.

#37 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-25 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

From 2002 to 2011 the violent crime rate in the US fell 21.9%.
www.fbi.gov

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
www.gallup.com

But the rate of gun murder is at its lowest point since at least 1981.
factcheck.org

Laughing at lying hoplophobes is fun.

#38 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-25 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lie some more Doc.
#36 | Posted by Zatoichi

You often have interesting things to say, but you're awfully quick to accuse people of "lying" and being "liars" because you disagree with something they say that has nothing to do with statistics but their perceptions of a situation.

For me, the gun situation in this country is beyond out of control, just as I said. Now, you can agree or disagree. But there's no way I can be lying about what I think about what is, after all, a matter of opinion if I'm stating my opinion.

You really make yourself sound like a cranky old a-hole on this issue.

So, as you'd say, lie some more, Zat.

#39 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-25 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Laughing at lying hoplophobes is fun.
#38 | Posted by Zatoichi

You're braying again.

#40 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-25 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You really make yourself sound like a cranky old a-hole on this issue."

and others......."happy extinction. You deserve it"

#41 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-25 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah...that's just before he tell us about how someone whose DNA he claims he's carrying died at the Alamo, and how his father-in-law had a hootch somewhere down where three godforsaken counties meet where he used to go pig hunting, and what power the scope is he's staring through as someone hits a tripwire a mile or two from his property line, and what Biblical scholar he is, and how his perpetual motion machine patent is what prevents the earth from tipping over and getting sucked into the sun.

#42 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-25 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Doc, I think his point is that your perception is not reality. I do think it absurd to dismiss factual, objective information so as to have life fit your perception.

#43 | Posted by rearendhat at 2013-02-25 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Doc, I'm curious, what is your definition of "the gun situation in this country"? I infer that you have a predetermined definition, given that the current situation has exceeded what you believe to be a controlled situation.

#44 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-25 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

chirp chirp chirp is sounding a lot like jeep-jeep right now, eh Doc?

#45 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-25 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing to worry about as we all know the govt will not go after your guns, and by the way, no worries about them gabbing your 401k either.

Don't worry - Be HAPPY

#46 | Posted by MSgt at 2013-02-25 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"National Institute of Justice"

Hilarious!

The paranoid leading the paranoid.

#12 | Posted by danni

In other words 'we of the dr left have no idea about the subjects for which we comment'.

It is hilarious that you can't even be bothered to check the facts before typing.

Mission

The National Institute of Justice -- the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice -- is dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science. NIJ provides objective and independent knowledge and tools to reduce crime and promote justice, particularly at the state and local levels.

#47 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-02-25 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Besides we know you have no interest in the truth!

#48 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-02-25 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

What happened to Doc? Oh, after reading the thread, he got his sorry rearend handed to him and he's currently in the ER being tended to.

#49 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-25 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag:


What happened to Doc? Oh, after reading the thread, he got his sorry rearend handed to him and he's currently in the ER being tended to.
#49 | Posted by matsop

You mean he finally ran out gas after finding fault with damn near everyone on the DR? Jayzuz that ol boy can blather.

#50 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2013-02-25 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

This (and several other) DR threads remind of a real nutcase I met a few years back who told me with a straight face that there were "no gun laws in America". I began naming a bunch of federal laws and they said those only applied in certain jurisdictions. It went downhill from there. I finally asked them to go to a gun dealer and ask the dealer what hoops required jumping through prior to purchase ... and they got very angry! I started laughing at that point and it didn't help at all. It was a waste of my time but I can now say I have met a barking, moon-bat antigunner.

#51 | Posted by AKat at 2013-02-26 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, whenever you hear libs/dems tell you not to worry about your guns, you should be really worried as you know they do not have the gun owners interests at heart.

#52 | Posted by MSgt at 2013-02-26 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement