Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Holder 1995: We Must 'BRAINWASH' People On Guns...

Posted 12 years ago on March 19, 2012, 9:55 p.m. EST by F350 (-259)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

Holder was addressing the Woman's National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to "change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC" about guns. "What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes." Holder added that he had asked advertising agencies in the nation's capital to assist by making anti-gun ads rather than commercials "that make me buy things that I don't really need." He had also approached local newspapers and television stations, he said, asking them to devote prime space and time, respectively, to his anti-gun campaign. Local political leaders and celebrities, Holder said, including Mayor Marion Barry and Jesse Jackson, had been asked to help. In addition, he reported, he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of "every day, every school, and every level." Despite strict gun control efforts, Washington, DC was and remains one of the nation's most dangerous cities for gun violence, though crime has abated somewhat since the 1990s. Holder went on to become Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, and currently serves as Attorney General in the Obama Administration. The video of Holder's remarks was uncovered by Breitbart.com contributor Charles C. Johnson.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/18/Holder-Fight-Guns-Like-Cigarettes

52 Comments

52 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 12 years ago

I hear newspapers are really popular with the 12-25 age range. Snark. Epic FAIL.

I once read about a public health campaign targeting gang violence, which hopefully is actually the target audience here, that was successful. Community counselors explained the circle of death and violence and death rates from guns decreased. Gangs don't kill each other because its "cool." They kill each other because they have vendettas. Of course, it got defunded.

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

My problem with Holder beyond "Fast and Furious' and his suing every state in the union over illegal immigration is that he is typical of the anti-gun mindset. Blame the gun not the person and behavior. Guns aren't the problem,people are. Murder is already illegal,there are more than enough laws regarding criminal actions on the books. Guns don't kill,people do.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

sorry since more people are smoking today than ever in the teens 1 out of 5 i would say that this would fail

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Ludog5678 (28) 12 years ago

Why is it whenever strict gun control laws are put in place violent gun crimes go up. On the flip side whenever they are taken away violent gun crimes go down.

[-] 1 points by Rebdem (71) 12 years ago

because those who comit crimes most likely got their guns from Stealing them

[-] 1 points by Ludog5678 (28) 12 years ago

Violent crimes not crimes such as theft.

[-] 1 points by Rebdem (71) 12 years ago

no i was saying that bad people will always find a way to get a gun.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

That's what brainless Bart did. Brainwash people.

It's evident by this post.

[-] -2 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

You are posting nonsense,do you even know who Holder is?

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 12 years ago

holder is the attorney general,. an armed society is a threat to any dictator or would be dictator.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Need I remind you, you're living in the past?

There's been a seeming rise in high profile gun incidents lately.

We might just need a slight return of Wyatt Earp.

Or at least rebuild the state nut houses the (R)epelican'ts tore apart.

I'm with him. We can't have guns and nuts too. We have enough drunks with guns.

Take your pick.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 12 years ago

hahaha - living in the past!? are you kidding? as recently as WWII Hitler disarmed the Jews before wiping them out. read a book already.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

The closest thing to Hitler we have are in the (R)epelican't party.

So yeah, get your head out of the past and take real look around.

BTW, pretty good ignore the body of what I said and attempt to mislead.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 12 years ago

really - read Goldberg "Liberal Fascism" before you make that assertion.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Go read up on the evils of libe(R)tarianism. You actually have search

There's no handy book of propaganda to feed yourself.

You will be "forced" to think and put the pieces together.

There is no handy talkinghead to explain it to you.

After you do that, you will understand just what a tool the NRA has made of you.

[-] -1 points by dwhit45 (5) 12 years ago

Hey dummy!!! did you ever look up the meaning of the word "Statism" yet?? hehehehe

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 12 years ago

hahaha! go read up on the evils of Tyranny. I'll take freedom - you can take the paternalism. Breaking: Report: Just $31B from Buffett rule tax on richhttp://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TAXES_BUFFETT_RULE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-20-13-02-33

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

I like how you say that, as if we haven't been in a state of tyranny for many decades now.

You're more than a little late to the show. this makes your canned reasoning suspect.

Once you stop spinning around in circles spitting propaganda, you might find out where to point your finger.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 12 years ago

your right we have been living under ever increasing tyranny for the past 10 decades. Time to reverse course. How do you propose we do that?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

There isn't much of a we, until you stop spinning in circles.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 12 years ago

"we" still live under the same government. Unless you are not an American citizen. Which wouldn't surprise me .

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

In my experience, there isn't much that surprises a dog spinning in circles.

That's why you are always late for the show.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 12 years ago

what kind of freak are you?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

One that's fascinated by dogs chasing their tails.

You're quite entertaining...............:)

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 12 years ago

your not saying anything

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Memory loss is also part of chasing your tail.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 12 years ago

yea - whatever - you make no sense. good luck

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

I'm just sayin'.....................:)

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

Spoken like a true Constitution and Freedom hating Leftist.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

"a gov't tyranny which has accountability through the ballot box"

WTF is that? Are you not really understanding this whole Tyranny thing?

I don't believe I mentioned the word "corporate" once,you seem to be projecting an awful lot.

But I and any other sane American would "shun" government tyranny.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

abolitionism was a serious political issue in the 19th century

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

if the truss rod is not kept perfectly adjusted after a modulation in tuning it could lead to a warped neck,maybe,sometimes,could be

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

That's all you got is a lame insult?

Perhaps you're one of the drunks or nuts with guns, as there's absolutely no depth of thought in your comment..

I used to be very much pro, until I started running into people making comments like yours.

You must HATE Wyatt Earp. I don't

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

Yeah right,you used to be pro gun,that is just another lie. You're nothing but an anti-gun Leftists.

If you're "very much pro" at anything it's pro gun grabbing and pro demolition of the 2nd Amendment.

Wyatt Earp?....stop living in the past and go lock lips with your butt buddy Holder.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

I own and shoot guns, you freakin' knee jerker.

I'm just sick and tired of all the BS I hear coming from the NRA idiots.

I'm sick of seeing the innocent shot dead and the reactions from the gun nutters, are as lame as your response to me.

The REAL brainwashing has been and still is being done by the nut jobs at the NRA, and yes, I have read their publications.

If you supported the FIRST amendment as strongly as you support the second. You would be here in support of Occupy rather being here to ridicule it.

Then you end it with vague insult?

You lack critical thinking.

There's a reason the first amendment is first and the second is second.

For the second to work properly, the first need to be strongly supported.

You don't do that and we all lose.

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

I obviously support the 1st Amendment,but then that wasn't in question,you're just trying to obfuscate. You simply don't support the 2nd Amendment,you claim to have guns and don't support the NRA,that's completely contradictory. You support Holder who has clearly demonstrated a contempt toward lawful gun owners and gun ownership.

Holder does not support the 2nd Amendment and yet you agree with him.

Maybe you're just one of those "brainwashed" Drones that Holder is so fond of? You certainly sound like it.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Maybe Holder just used a poor choice of words. I mean, he was talking about advertising (and other forms of information dissemination) designed to persuade urban kids not to become gun totting gang bangers. I'm really not sure how this is rationally related to the NRA mission. Surely, they don't support violent youth gangs, they claim to support the right of peaceable citizens to own firearms (consistent with the second amendment). But in fact they must have a political agenda beyond that .... because they're always eager to cherry pick statements made by political opponents, and use those statements to inspire fear and paranoia. Why would anyone take statements made in the context of a discussion about violent, urban youth gangs, and use it to accuse someone of harboring a secret wish to engineer our society and make it ripe for some sort of Marxist take over (and this is implied in the rhetoric of many conservative groups).

Surely, if Holder in fact harbored such a secret wish, he would be more discrete about it. So I tend to think his passion got the better of him, and he simply chose unwise terminology.

The question is ... do you think advertisements or efforts by school officials to convince urban children to avoid gangs and violence, is a bad thing?

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

The question is....how could you or anybody with a lick of sense defend a man that as such vile contempt for lawful gun owners while now trying to save his own ass from prison concerning his complicity with "Fast and Furious" gun running and the Death of BP Officer Terry?

That again,is the real question.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

But I'm prepared to answer that question, fast and furious was a terrible program, and Holder should be accountable to the extent he was involved in it (I don't know to what extent he was involved in it, but whoever conceived this idea in the first place, should probably be fired).

Okay, now will you answer my simple question? Do you think advertisements or efforts by school officials to convince urban children to avoid gangs and violence is a bad thing?

You see, I don't support misconduct or malfeasance just because the offender may share some of my political views. I don't need to obfuscate simple questions. If Holder did something wrong, he should be held accountable, it's just that simple. But you haven't answered my very simple question, instead, you dodged it by raising a completely unrelated issue (because you know the answer to my question, you know full well that we should convince children not to join gangs, not to kill one another, and not to glorify guns). I guess you avoided a direct answer because you think it will somehow weaken your argument, but in reality, not conceding the obvious only weakens your credibility (which in turn, weakens your argument).

The worse thing is, some aspects of your argument may have merit, but we'll never know that ... because instead of having a discussion with us, you're just following the cultural convention of adversarial partisanship (which, as should be apparent to everyone by now, does not solve problems).

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

"Do you think advertisements or efforts by school officials to convince urban children to avoid gangs and violence is a bad thing?"

No.

What does that have to do with the ownership and use of legal firearms? And why should children be "brainwashed" to regard firearms in a negative way?

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Good, but that was what Holder described as brainwashing. I mean, it was in the context of saying stuff like ... school officials should preach nonviolence, television commercials should talk about this . . . we should brainwash our children to stop glorifying violence. I mean, brainwash was a poor choice of words, but anyway you look at it, culture brainwashes people.

Put it this way, you are in a forum of people who for the most part endorse direct democracy, which is the opposite of a command control type of political structure. Not only do I think programs like fast and furious were terrible, I see no use for the ATF. I mean, who the hell needs our government to dictate policy when it comes to alcohol and tobacco (I can't think of a single case where someone quit smoking because of something the ATF did)? Moreover, what effect does the ATF actually have in reducing violence associated with firearms? If the answer is none, none, and none, then why the fuck are we wasting our money on funding this organization? If it didn't exist, I don't think the average person would even notice.

I was watching some documentary where the DEA was organizing a raid on a marijuana farm. It got me wondering, is this what we like wasting our money on? No wonder we're in such debt, we waste our money on a huge authoritarian infrastructure. While we're spending our valuable money paying police officers to beat on nonviolent protesters, some of our children will go without a meal, and many more of them will go without the education they need to function in our modern world. But that's okay right, because we can always spend ten times more money housing them in a prison cell when they grow to adulthood. This is about where we put our priorities, what should our values be?

We don't oppose freedom, to the contrary, we don't think the book of human freedom has been completely written. We think more freedom is possible, and that my friend is what this is all about.

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

We may be in some kind of agreement but remember Holder's goal was to "brainwash" (regardless of the word) people against guns,this was his anti-gun endeavor. This was not just about anti-violence and gang violence. His plan was to demonize the gun rather than the people who commit the violence.

"What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool" -Holder

Holder is clearly an anti-gun zealot otherwise you can bet he would not be serving in the Obama Regime.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Indeed, freedom is attacked by both sides, always. Now that you realize that .... welcome to the club. Ideally, we would have a society where anyone could own a firearm (if they wanted to), and still not worry about people murdering one another.

In fact, in Switzerland, almost every adult owns a firearm, and their murder rate is something very close to ZERO. Their army is their entire population, no wonder why even Hitler avoided Switzerland. The Swiss can vote to overturn a law by referendum. If their government enacted something like HR347 or NDAA or the Patriot Act, if you could get enough signatures, you could force a ballot measure. This is as close to real democracy as exists in the world today.

Oh yeah, it's worth mentioning, the Swiss are neutral. Somehow they sustain the most robust democracy on earth, without the need to invade a single other country. We could learn a lot from the Swiss.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 12 years ago

an unarmed populace is what obama &co want. an unarmed populace can be taken over by the govt because they can't fight back. That's why there is the 2nd amendment.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

I have seen very few comments from you in support of the first amendment.

Very few, or non at all.

The NRA is an organization of conspiracy theorists, bordering on insanity.

I have read their publications.

You have yet to offer ANY comments that would help reign in idiotic gun violence. Nada.

You must HATE Wyatt Earp.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 12 years ago

the right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights,...........NOT the 1st amendment.

[-] -1 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

Ah,more mundane misdirection and obfuscation with an alarming but not surprising admission:

"The NRA is an organization of conspiracy theorists, bordering on insanity."

With supposed gun owners like you there won't be a 2nd Amendment someday.

What is truly insane is your position and opinion. You must hate freedom and liberty.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

C'mon. Let's hear your strongly worded, positive comment on Occupy and the first amendment.

On the NRA? Let's hear all the anti-democratic party conspiracy theories. You know the crap you've quoted from B Bart is blown out of proportion. He made his career out of doing that.

Truth is, without strong support for the first amendment, the second is useless.

[-] 1 points by F350 (-259) 12 years ago

The truth is something you spin until it's upside down and ass backwards.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

I knew you couldn't do it.

Thanks for proving it...........:)

The only bassackwards, is you.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 12 years ago

It's not about gun control. It's about control of the population. Anyway, c'mon Obama worshippers! Defend his divine minion Holder.

[-] 0 points by Quark2 (109) 12 years ago

Why must you be so rude and argue with hyperbole? Can you please get control of yourself and treat people the way you like to be treated.