Comments on: Holder on Gun Policy

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:35:44 +0000

You shouldn’t, because they haven’t been.

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:24:07 +0000

“The law is pretty clear that if someone passes the background check, the identifying information in the record is destroyed.”

So, how are we really supposed to believe that such laws have been adhered to at any stage since their enactment?

By: David Codrea

David Codrea — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:35:11 +0000

In re Say Uncle’s comment: Just got off the phone with Ted Deeds, LEAA COO/National Spokesperson. The remarks were part of the Q&A, not from the prepared statement. He told me where to look on C-SPAN to see for myself, but I don’t have a url–it’s the morning session for the 18th, starting at approx. 1 hr 11 min into the session. He will be emailing me a transcript on Monday and I’ll post further.

By: Ian Argent

Ian Argent — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:43:05 +0000

Given the derivation of the military rank; I am OK with callign him General. The military rank evolved from Captain-General, after all.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:45:34 +0000

kinda looking bogus. Codrea commented that the quotes attributed to Holder are not in the official transcript.

By: mike samanie

mike samanie — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:09:13 +0000

What would stop the gov’ment form putting every NRA member, republican, military etc on the watch list? That way they could in thier twisted thinking deny gun rights.

By: Bitter

Bitter — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:22:37 +0000

Well since this is a press release, let me add my two cents. Based on my Stylebook, there is no rule for second usage of Attorney General. So for purposes of a release, there’s flexibility there. However, there is not flexibility in randomly adding in hyphens. Attorney-General is definitely wrong, as are Surgeon-General and Postmaster-General.

On the usage of just General, there does not seem to be a clear cut answer. From my reading on the subject, the Solicitor General is referred to as “General [Last Name]” while being questioned by the justices. There seem to be arguments both for and against this usage, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is used in a formal setting. I also see former DOJ officials from as far back as the Reagan years using the term on second usage, and various folks claiming that the title has been shortened to General in state courts for decades.

By: B Smith

B Smith — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:26:38 +0000

What boggles me is the bass-ackwards-ness of it all. Holder sees the No-Fly List, a capricious, illegal, secretive government restriction on what ought to be a private enterprise, as justification for another giant, illegal government power-grab. Both are wrong, and ought to be scrapped, yesterday.

By: Flighterdoc

Flighterdoc — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:21:54 +0000

I disagree. And General would not be the honorific for the Postmaster-General. Neither is General the title for the Surgeon-General, nor would it be ‘Surgeon’. In fact, it is ‘Admiral’. The correct honorific for (an) attorney-general is Mr. (or Ms.) Attorney-General.

Janet Reno was the first AG I ever heard referred to as ‘General’, by Clinton, who was as illiterate as the media would have us think George Bush was. In this usage, ‘general’ is an adjective modifying the term ‘attorney’, ie the individual is the general (societies’, use, responsibility) attorney for a jurisdiction.

http://www.bartleby.com/185/20.html

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:08:13 +0000

General is the proper salutation for Attorney General.

By: Flighterdoc

Flighterdoc — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:06:20 +0000

Holder is no more a ‘General’ than Harlan Sanders was a ‘Colonel’. His job title is Attorney-General, it’s not a rank.