posted
LALA Land maximus and the polls are rigged you are paranoid glass. and the kgb is every where no wonder you think somebody wants to take your guns.
remeber mid terms are not that far off.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
that poll was rigged for the results they got ray, as to the conspiracy chit? it's merely a hobby, i find it amusing nothing more.
we'll chat after the elections.... i beleive that it was 12 Democrats who voted against the new laws becuase htey are in states that would have voted them out if they didn't...
remebr that the GOP House would have had to vote too but it didn't even pass the Senate where the Democrats are in charge...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
the poll was not rigged glass period. You have your right to your opinion.
I know there were dems that voted against the bill and the way the bill was made it very disagreeable to many. The bill contained much more than background checks.
Now I will talk to you later I must get down to the construction site of my new home to make sure everything my wife wants is there,and to finish it up.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
Connecticut Governor Compares NRA Vice President To ‘Clown At The Circus’
By Annie-Rose Strasser on Apr 7, 2013 at 10:02 am
Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (D) tore into the National Rifle Association during an appearance on CNN’s State Of The Union on Sunday. The NRA this week introduced its legislative response to the massacre in Malloy’s home state. Its plan focuses on arming school staff.
Malloy specifically called out NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre for his absolute opposition to commonsense gun regulations, including the new gun law just enacted by Connecticut. After watching a clip of LaPierre mocking Connecticut’s new law, Malloy shot back, “Wayne reminds me of the clowns at the circus. They get the most attention”:
MALLOY: That’s what he’s paid to do. But the reality is is that the gun that was used to kill 26 people on December 14th was legally purchased in the state of Connecticut even though we had an Assault Weapons Ban. But there were loopholes in it that you could drive a truck through. This guy is so out of whack, it’s unbelievable. 92% of the american people want universal background checks. I can’t get on a plane as the Governor of the state of Connecticut without somebody running a background check on me. Why should you be able to buy a gun? Or buy armor-piercing munitions? It doesn’t make any sense. He doesn’t make any sense. Thus my reference to the circus.[...]
Bring it back to reality. Why are they against universal background checks when 92% of the American public is in favor of them? If they can’t answer that question — and they can’t, Candy — What this is about is the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as possible even if they’re deranged, even if they’re mentally ill, evening if they have a criminal background, they don’t care. They want to sell guns.
Malloy then went on to say that there is “precious little” he can agree on with the NRA, and that the organization is coming “pretty darn close” to recommending that every single American carry a gun. He also pointed to a recent report by the Center For American Progress that shows states with weaker gun laws also have the highest rates of gun violence.
Unfortunately the clown is Malloy, this guy is killing our state....hopefully one of the next Democratic Presidential candidates will tag him for VP and get him away from us.
(45)
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!!
IP: Logged |
posted
Severely Conservative Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban On Gun Sales To People Under 21
By Ian Millhiser on Apr 30, 2013 at 4:21 pm
(Credit: AP)
It is illegal for a person under the age of 21 to buy beer. Yet, a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association wants them to be able to buy a deadly machine that exists for the sole purpose of forcing a high-velocity slug of metal into another human being. Yesterday, one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country disagreed.
Two George W. Bush appointees to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit joined a unanimous revised opinion yesterday rejecting the NRA’s claim that 18 year-olds should be allowed to buy handguns from federally licensed firearm dealers. The opinion is complex and relies at least two alternative grounds for upholding the ban on gun sales to young people, but its discussion of how the founding generation would have treated this NRA’s absolutist view of gun rights is particularly significant:
The historical record shows that gun safety regulation was commonplace in the colonies, and around the time of the founding, a variety of gun safety regulations were on the books; these included safety laws regulating the storage of gun powder, laws keeping track of who in the community had guns, laws administering gun use in the context of militia service (including laws requiring militia members to attend “musters,” public gatherings where officials would inspect and account for guns), laws prohibiting the use of firearms on certain occasions and in certain places, and laws disarming certain groups and restricting sales to certain groups. It appears that when the fledgling republic adopted the Second Amendment, an expectation of sensible gun safety regulation was woven into the tapestry of the guarantee. . . .
Scholars have proposed that at the time of the founding, “the right to arms was inextricably and multifariously linked to that of civic virtu (i.e., the virtuous citizenry),” and that “[o]ne implication of this emphasis on the virtuous citizen is that the right to arms does not preclude laws disarming the unvirtuous citizens (i.e., criminals) or those who, like children or the mentally imbalanced, are deemed incapable of virtue.” This theory suggests that the Founders would have supported limiting or banning “the ownership of firearms by minors, felons, and the mentally impaired.” . . . . Notably, the term “minor” or “infant”—as those terms were historically understood—applied to persons under the age of 21, not only to persons under the age of 18.
The NRA will no doubt be distressed to learn that one of their biggest bugaboos — a government-run registry of firearm owners — was commonplace around the time of the founding. They will be even more dismayed to see it described in a judicial opinion strongly suggesting that such registries are constitutional. And this comes from a three-judge panel that includes two Bush-appointees.
Notably, the Fifth Circuit released an order today indicating that seven of the court’s 15 active judges voted to have the full court rehear the case. Had one more judge voted for such a rehearing, it would have taken place. Of these seven, only six actually indicated that they disagreed with the three-judge panel’s decision. The seventh judge, Obama appointee Stephen Higginson, was silent on whether he agreed with the panel’s decision. All six of the judges who called for gun regulation to be less strict than beer regulation were Republicans.
The NRA will no doubt appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, but the Fifth Circuit’s resolution of the case is a good sign that the justices will not strike down the ban on gun sales to young people. Beyond the fact that two Bush-appointees voted to uphold this law, the judges who called for it to be struck down include some of the most severely conservative judges in the country.
Judge Jerry Smith, for example, is the same judge who ordered a Justice Department attorney to write a letter he likely intended to use to embarrass President Obama. Judge Edith Clement sat on the board of a group that used to be one of the leading sponsors of corporate-friendly junkets for judges. And Judge Priscilla Owen once took thousands of dollars worth of campaign contributions from Enron when she sat on the Texas Supreme Court, and then wrote a key opinion reducing Enron’s taxes by $15 million.
The author of the pro-NRA opinion was Judge Edith Jones. Jones once told a liberal colleague to “shut up” during the middle of an oral argument, and she is one of the most frequent attendees of junkets for judges. Jones also wrote a dissenting opinion claiming that a woman who “was repeatedly propositioned, was groped and grabbed, [had] pornography [] placed in her locker, and [had] other employees broadcast[] obscene comments about her over the company’s public address system” did not experience sexual harassment.
So, while it is true that six judges did adopt the NRA’s view in this case, they are the kinds of judges who sit well to the right of even this Supreme Court.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
NRA ‘Home Defense’ Course Instructs Audience To Store Guns In Kids’ Room
By Zack Beauchamp and Scott Keyes on May 4, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Gun owners should store a gun in their kids’ room, according to a ‘Home Defense Concepts’ seminar offered at the National Rifle Association’s Annual Meeting, comments that came just days after the fatal shooting of a two-year-old at the hands of her five-year-old brother.
The course was taught by Rob Pincus, who owns the popular firearm instruction company I.C.E. Training. Pincus argued that, in the event of a home invasion, parents would instinctually run to their children’s room anyway, they might as well have a gun stored there to kill two birds with one stone:
PINCUS: How about putting a quick-access safe in your kids’ room? [...] Good idea or bad idea? We have an emotional pushback to that. Here’s my position on this. If you’re worried that your kid is going to try to break into the safe that is in their bedroom with a gun in it, you have bigger problems than home defense. [Laughter] If you think that the kid who’s going to try to break into the safe because it’s in their room isn’t sneaking into your room to try to break into stuff, you’re naive and you have bigger problems than this. So let’s settle that issue and think about it. In the middle of the night, if I’m in the bathroom or getting a glass of water or in the bedroom or watching TV in the living room, if that alarm goes off and the glass breaks and the dog starts barking, what’s the instinct that most people are going to have, in regards to, “am I going to run across the house to get the gun, or am I going to run over here to help the screaming kid?” And if I’m going to go to the kid anyway, and I have an extra gun and an extra safe, why not put it in their closet?
Watch it (pardon the technical glitch at 1:25):
Defensive gun use against home invasions are extremely rare. Many of the statistics commonly cited by the NRA and its allies are based on mathematically impossible calculations, and the best available evidence suggests that almost all criminals hit in gunfire were shot by other criminals.
However, children are wounded and killed by accidental gunshots with horrifying frequency. Roughly 900 kids were killed in gun suicides or accidents in 2010. A Center for Disease Control study of 30,000 incidents of children killed by accidental firearm discharge found kids 0-4 were 17 times more likely to be killed in a gun accident in the states with the four highest levels of gun ownership than those with the four lowest (the figure was 13 times for kids aged 5-14). Relatedly, a RAND Institute study found that only 39 percent of parents who own guns kept their guns “locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.”
Pincus teaches an intruder defense course in schools around the country.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
TIME/CNN Poll Shows Increasing Number Of Americans Won't Give Up Civil Liberties To Fight Terrorism from the the-government-can't-give-you-safety,-but-it-can-take-your-rights dept
When discussing NYPD Police Chief Ray Kelly's assertion that "privacy is off the table" as a result of the Boston bombing, I mentioned I hadn't heard any public outcry demanding the government and law enforcement step in and do something (i.e., curtail civil liberties) in response to the tragedy. The responses we were seeing seemed to be nothing more than legislators and law enforcement officials pushing their own agendas.
This isn't just me not hearing what I don't want to hear. There's actual data available that explains the lack of concerned noises from Americans. A CNN/TIME poll shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans aren't interested in sacrificing rights to combat terrorism.
When given a choice, 61 percent of Americans say they are more concerned about the government enacting new anti-terrorism policies that restrict civil liberties, compared to 31 percent who say they are more concerned about the government failing to enact strong new anti-terrorism policies.
This is a vast improvement over 1996, when a post-Atlanta Olympics bombing poll showed only 23% opposed giving up freedom in exchange for fighting terrorism.
Breaking it down further, the poll also shows a bit of split along party lines. Self-identified Democrats are most likely to put their faith in government/law enforcement to make the U.S. "safer" by curtailing freedoms (51%). Republicans are less likely to favor this exchange (41%). For independents, less than a third (32%) are willing to give up some freedom to combat terrorism.
posted
Senators Pat Toomey, Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer - their amendment would have encouraged your psychiatrist to turn you in to the FBI's gun ban list?
165,000 military veterans have already lost their gun rights because of the “see a VA shrink, lose your gun rights” precedent from the Clinton-Bush era.
Many people have already received a letter from Pistol Permit Departments informing them that their license was immediately revoked upon information indicating they are seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. s never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history, yet the laws ALREADY allow this confiscartion of rigths without "Due process"
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
here's why you cannot have doctors taking away people's rights without at minimum court hearing awith least two doctors and being represetned by a lawyer, - everybody is a candidate to be the conductor on the crazy train these days because it's so damn profitable to diagnose psychiatric disorders and of course prescribe drugs to treat it.......
Psychiatry's New Diagnostic Manual: "Don't Buy It. Don't Use It. Don't Teach It." That's what psychiatrist Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV task force, has to say about DSM-5.
—By Michael Mechanic | Tue May. 14, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
Mother Jones: What you mean by "saving normal"?
Allen Frances: There's been a rapid diagnostic inflation over the course of the last 35 years, turning problems of everyday life into mental disorders resulting in excessive treatment with medication. Pretty soon everyone's going to have a mental disorder or two or three, and it's time we reconsider how we want to define this and whether the definitions should be in the hands of the drug companies, which is very much what's happened in recent years.
MJ: To what degree has this trend accelerated lately?
AF: We were very, very conservative in doing DSM-IV, which came out in 1994. Despite our efforts to tame diagnostic inflation, the rates of attention deficit disorder (ADD and ADHD) have tripled, the rate of autism increased by almost 40 times. The rate of childhood bipolar disorder increased by 40 times. And the rate of adult bipolar disorder doubled. A lot of this was driven by the drug companies. They had new products on patent—very expensive; it gave them the means and the methods to spread the message to doctors and patients that mental disorders were easily diagnosed, often missed, caused by chemical imbalance, and treated with an expensive pill.
quite a few of these mass shooters have been on prescritption drugs too...
BTW? if you are not responsible enough t own a gun? you aren't repsonsible, and can't be trusted to drive car or anything else either.
Dozens injured when car runs into Virginia parade
By Martin Weil, Published: May 18 E-mail the writer
About 60 people were injured Saturday when a car plowed into participants and spectators at the Appalachian Trail Days parade in Damascus, Va., sending hundreds of people scattering amid shouts and screams. Damascus police chief William H. Nunley said the driver had apparently been affected by a medical condition. The condition was not specified.One news account indicated that he may have been elderly.
The vehicle, which had been in the parade, was apparently traveling about 20 to 25 miles an hour when it ran into the crowd about 2:10 p.m. authorities said. People fled, shouting and yelling, Harris said.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
this is screwed up ray, do you really support this?
At a house in Fontana, agents were looking for a gun owner with a criminal history of a sex offense, pimping, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh said that while the woman appeared to be home, they got no answer at the door. Without a warrant, the agents couldn’t enter and had to leave empty- handed.
They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.
“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.
Involuntarily Held
In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she’d been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.
Todd Smith, chief executive officer of Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, where documents provided by Phillips show she was treated, didn’t respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment on the circumstances of the treatment.
Phillips said her husband used the guns for recreation. She didn’t blame the attorney general’s agents for taking the guns based on the information they had, she said.
“I do feel I have every right to purchase a gun,” Phillips said. “I’m not a threat. We’re law-abiding citizens.”
this lady who happens to be a Nurse, went to the hospital for HELP and says she was having complications with her medications she was already on... she also claims she was not involuntarily admitted because she went to them. she was there for two days and released.
so they took her husbands guns? 4 months later?
no due process here at all..
it gets better... you know how cops (and other fools) tell you that you have nothing to hide if you are innocent so you should let them in your house to look around even if they don't have a warrant? well that ain't true anymore either... Probable Cause
Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a “disqualifying event,” such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn’t sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.
posted
As Congress fails to make progress on reforming the nation’s gun laws, state legislatures have filled the void. A number of states around the country, and not just deep-blue ones, have taken steps to crack down on gun violence. Even some very conservative states have defeated National Rifle Association (NRA) supported bills that would have significantly weakened state gun laws.
Here’s a run-down of ten instances of state progress that were in some cases mere proposals as recently as this January:
1. Colorado. A purple state with a strong gun culture, Colorado nevertheless enacted universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines.
2. California. Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed legislation at the beginning of May that would provide $24 million for confiscating illegally owned weapons that the police have identified, but hasn’t had the resources to seize. California is also considering thirty-odd measures strengthening the state’s gun violence prevention measures.
3. Georgia. The Georgia legislature killed a bill at the end of the last legislative session that would have allowed concealed carry in churches, courthouse, and college campuses.
4. Maryland. Maryland enacted one of the most sweeping new gun laws in the country, including an assault weapons ban, restrictions on magazine size, and a requirement that all gun purchasers get a license and submit a fingerprint sample.
5. Rhode Island. The Ocean State’s legislature is considering an omnibus gun bill, supported by its governor, Lincoln Chafee (I), that would set up a police registry of guns to better track crime guns as well as make it harder to get a concealed carry permit.
6. Delaware. In early May, Governor Jack Markell (D) signed a universal background check bill into law.
7. Wyoming. The Wyoming legislature, which can be quite hostile to gun regulation, voted down a bill authorizing teachers to carry guns.
8. New York. New York strengthened its already strong gun laws, including stricter assault weapon and high capacity magazine bans.
9. Connecticut. Connecticut also passed a comprehensive package that included universal background checks for bullets as well as guns, as well as an assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions.
10. Nevada. Just this Wednesday, the Nevada Senate passed a universal background checks bill that would require a check on all private sales.
While several states have also loosened their gun laws after Newtown — and a few advanced laws so extreme that they are almost certainly unconstitutional – the above examples prove that the NRA’s stranglehold over the gun conversation isn’t nearly as tight as some believe, and that concerted effort at the state level can have significant effects on the gun policy landscape.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
Santa Monica Mass Shooter Planned To Kill Hundreds With Stockpile Of Guns And Ammo
By Aviva Shen on Jun 10, 2013 at 11:45 am
The gunman's arsenal. (Credit: NBC Los Angeles) Five are dead after a gunman rampaged through Santa Monica, CA, on Friday, ending at the local community college. The Santa Monica shooting marks the tenth mass shooting on a school campus in California since 1976.
The suspect, 23-year-old John Zawahri, was known as an angry young man with a “fascination with guns” that worried family friends. Zawahri was born in Lebanon but has lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years. In a press conference on Sunday, police said the troubled young man had planned out the attack and likely hoped to kill hundreds. The spree lasted 10 minutes, ending when police shot and killed Zawahri on the scene.
Zawahri allegedly killed his father and brother and burned down their house before heading toward Santa Monica College, armed with a ballistic vest, an AR-15 assault rifle and a duffel bag filled with an estimated 1,300 rounds of ammunition, magazines, and a .44 revolver. He shot and wounded a woman driving by his house, then carjacked another woman. On the way, he shot at pedestrians and a city bus, injuring 3 people.
Once he arrived at the community college, Zawahri gunned down a groundskeeper, 68-year-old Navarro Franco, killing him immediately, and his 26-year-old daughter, Marcela, who died in the hospital on Sunday. Witnesses say students scattered, jumping out windows and running for their lives. He then shot an unidentified woman in her 50s outside the library, went inside and fired 70 rounds at students who had been studying for exams. Police ultimately shot and killed him in the library.
Zawahri had a run-in with the law in 2006, but police could not give more details as he was a juvenile at the time. A law enforcement source told CNN that Zawahri had been hospitalized for mental issues after talking about wanting to hurt someone.
It is not clear where Zawahri got a hold of his AR-15 — the same weapon used in the Aurora theater shooting and the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre last year. Technically, certain AR-15 rifles are prohibited in California, but critics have said the law is rendered essentially toothless by loopholes and legal challenges. In May, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a new law to give law enforcement more funding to crack down on illegal assault weapons owned by convicted criminals and people with serious mental illnesses.
Many have already expressed shock that such violence could occur in a sleepy, affluent town like Santa Monica. But similar towns in southern California have suffered through random mass shootings in recent years. A 20-year-old man went on a shooting spree across suburban Orange County just a few months ago, killing four. Eight died in a hair salon shooting in Seal Beach, CA, three years ago. And in 2005, four others were killed in a rampage in the small town of Thousand Oaks, not far from Santa Monica.
Since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in December, more people have been killed by guns than the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq War. Though Congress failed to pass an enormously popular proposal to expand background checks in April, the Center for American Progress has identified several ways federal enforcers can crack down on illegal gun sales and stop shootings before they happen
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
apparently it is still not clear where he got his guns, it was announced tonight the cops say that the guns were untraceable... expect that to become much more common when stronger background check laws get implemented...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Nevada Governor Vetoes Background Check Bill On Eve Of Newtown Six Month Anniversary
By Josh Israel on Jun 14, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV) Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV) Defying 87 percent of the state’s voters, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) vetoed a universal background check bill for gun purchases on Thursday — one day before the six-month anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.
The bill, passed by Nevada’s Democratically controlled state legislature, would have required a background check prior to all gun sales and would have increased reporting of mental illness data. The National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm called the proposal “misguided gun control legislation being forced on law-abiding citizens of Nevada.”
But far from being forced upon the people, the state legislature was acting on their clear will. An April poll found 87 percent of Nevada voters think a background check should be required on all gun sales — including 75 percent of Nevadans who said that “strongly favor” such a law. Just nine percent of Nevadans strongly opposed the idea. A February poll had shown 86 percent support in Nevada for universal background checks. After voting against the Manchin-Toomey background check compromise in the U.S. Senate, Nevada Sen. Dean Heller (R) was one of several opponents to see their approval ratings drop.
But Sandoval said his decision was in part due to the loud voices of that small minority that does not believe criminal background checks should be required prior to gun purchases. He told a local TV station that he’d received 28,000 calls from opponents, and only about 7,000 from supporters. While indicating support for the mental health data reporting provisions, he wrote in his veto message that requiring an instant background check would have been “an erosion of Nevadans’ Second Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution” that might “subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal prosecution.”
Sandoval’s veto came on the of the six-month anniversary of the tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. At the time, he released a statement lamenting the shootings and ordering that the state’s flags be flown at half-staff in memory of the victims
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
ray, if that article is correct in all of it's so-called facts? the governor won't be there much longer. don't hold your breath waiting on his recall...
i'm not going to try to explain to you anymore how the media blitz has created all these factoids that aren't facts. i've splained it to you before. if enough people really feel as strongly as chris matthews and a very few loudmouth lying liberals on TV do? all these politicians will be out of office real soon. and NASCAR will be bankrupot by the end of the year, and i'll be farting blue monkeys
on more real issues? am i the only person left in the USA that hasn't forgotten that WE armed Osam bin ladne in Afghanistan? and we are getting ready to create a dozen new bin lladens in Syria now? are they going to do background checks on everybody over there that get a US Govt certified surface to air shoulder launched stinger missile? i seriously doubt it... hellin a bucket man... hell i n a b u c k e t
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
i don't argue that one ray, but, it's - not - of - my - making.
like i toldja, if thinkprogress is correct? there will be only democrats running the country after the next round of elctions... LOL.. president hillary ... just as creepy as pres'int jeb... but i'm not going to be surprised by any of it....
so how many unregistered stingers will Obama be sending to Syria? 200? 500? how do i get registered for one myself? tax stamp? hell i n a b u c k e t
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well glass let me put this to you in a way that it does not hurt your feelings, knowing how important you think your opinion is.
Every gun fanatic in the world thinks because 80 to 90 percent of the folks that think background checks on all guns is a good idea and nothing else matters. Not so its is not a core political issue to them. It is something that they may like to see but it most likely not going to affect the way they vote.
Like me, the core issues to me are employment at good wages and conditions, health care, peace and education. If the those issues came at the expense of a pro gun platform that was to eliminate all background checks on any gun I would support it. Why because I think employment, health care and education would have far more of a positive affect than a background check. The future would have a much more sane and productive society.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
LOL ray. i actaully have an opinion of my own, you are the one posting thinkprogress propaganda all the time.
i voted for Obama and supported him based on the same issues.
you got one poll one day that said 90% and you and all your propagandist buddies can't get that stupid number outa your head. that poll has been critisized by several other pollsters. they admit it was an outlier(stistically) at best... yet you cannot leave it alone
i'm not even against background checks, as i have told you many times. i am against people bending the truth (to be polite about it)
i ama lso against a doctor being able to get you on the list without going in fornt of Judge. that will be broken in SCOTUS if when it passes. Due Process is garanteed
i wonder how many background checks we are going to do in SYRIA? alqueada is there trying like hell to get some WMD and i just wanna know if THEY are going to get a backgorund check before Obama gives them an automatic weapon or a stinger...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
as to living in a fools world? MS just passed an open carry law..
i can pack a rod and carry it openly anywhere apparently.. except the courthouse, the local sherrif says he won't allow it...
i don't think i will start carrying, i don;t feel inclined. but i might... if i wanted to... i don't know- i do know it won't make me less likey to go and about.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Georgia has always been open carry too as far as I know...with a few exceptions...courthouses, political events, churches, school zones, etc.
you just have to a license if you wanna conceal it.
You could actually sling your high-powered deer rifle and walk all over town and be legal...prolly get some crazy looks, calls to 911, etc...but you would be legal. Pretty well guarantee that the cops would come talk to you though.
I hear about people doing this from time to time. Mostly super gun enthusiast determined to exercise their right just to show they can...personally I have no issue with it.
But they typically end up at least having a talk with an officer because people are not used to seeing it and report a man with a gun. 90 percent of the time they tell the cop that they are just exercising their right to do so and the cops leave them alone. The rest of the time you get a badazz with a badge or officer ignorant...they tend to escalate the issue by trying to tell the citizen that they are doing "something" wrong.
But in truth the persons that obnoxiously carry a 300 Magnum into the local Wal-Mart are actually hoping for a confrontation with someone.... they view it as opportunity to bring awareness or to educate.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC)
IP: Logged |
posted
Oh...you can conceal in the glovebox of a vehicle in Georgia without a license....but you better disclose that pretty quick if you are pulled over....
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC)
IP: Logged |
posted
ray, buckstalker says your poll numbers are FOS and you respond by saying he is FOS.
do you see th differnce? this i waht i care about...
backstlaker alos admitted that he voted for Obama this past year. he honselty said he wasn''t happy abut it, but he chose to get out there and pick "your side".
people like me and buck are "rugged indivdualists' without party affiliation and we are the people any poltician on either side needs to win the elections...
chasing us off your side with all these propagandist posting and telling us we are FOS won't win the elvtions. in fact? back when Clitnon overstepped with his gun ban laws? he lost the congress.. it got hime re--elected, but he lost his power base...
there may not be enough of us in the middle who only vote for a person on their issues and no their party, but there's enough to make the differnce in every Natioanl election... state elctions? not so much, that's why congress is so unpopular. ask peopel if they like their own congressperson and they will give abuot 50% aproval not the 9% natiaol... if you stop and think about that just a little? you'll realise how that applies to gun laws too
peopel "in the middle" like me and buck who hold no party affiliations will vote against the most extrem poltiican every time... hillary? she will get more votes for a GOP than most GOPs can garner dude, and it is because she is an extremist in her own right
90% of Americans are not "for" htese laws being passed.. that 90% may very well be for background checks at guns hows (i am) but we are against the notion of the lawman being able to come round and make you prove you got "checked" to own your gun unless you are in clear violation of a crime...
it's like seatblet laws.. fisrt they couldn't stop you just for that, then they decided they can stop you just for that and oh BTW they can now search you and your stuff and your car for anything and everything if they say you had your seatbelt off --whether you did or not... ehihc happens more than you want to belive even under Obama
and stop with trying to make it out that i feel self-important about my opinion too, cuz i actually know that they are worth exactly what i charge for them...
LOL... sheesh...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I have never seen a post so long winded that has really said very little. I am really glad that you and buck voted for Obama like I really care. To me you and buck don't seem that rugged nor do you seem that individualist but you are free to your opinion. Don't worry about the police they can handle themselves. More and more every day you seem to inhale on the glass pipe to much.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: I have never seen a post so long winded that has really said very little. I am really glad that you and buck voted for Obama like I really care. To me you and buck don't seem that rugged nor do you seem that individualist but you are free to your opinion. Don't worry about the police they can handle themselves. More and more every day you seem to inhale on the glass pipe to much.
LOL... you are very weak at insults and your memory is weaker... The glass pipe? i am a glass blower but i don't make pipes. My pipe are 4 feet long and made of stainless steel. I do have a couple briars and meershaum for Full Virgina Flake or Captain Black, but i set them aside for my health.
i have posted 35,000 posts here under one name and one name only. you have had three or four names for some reason- no big deal to me, you can post under 100 names if you want.. yeah, i remebr all that without going back to the hardrive...
i've chewed up and spit out dozens with much more skill and brains than you. I have chosen to take it easy on you for my own reasons, and you won't change my reasons for that by trying to be a tough guy. you ain't
as to worrying about the police? they are just people with the same flaws as everyone else i do not worry about them. what i do worry about is how many Americans expect the police to be their first line of defense at all times. that is how you end up in a police state, and you seem to think that is OK.
did you know that 1 in 28 kids in America has a parent in jail now? it's become so bad that the muppets now have a character with a parent in jail. how do you like that mr warden? does it make you proud to be an American? is this a greet country or jsut a big giant penitentiary? almost one percent of the people in jail? and for what? not being a bank executive when they steal? or broker? not even theft for the most part, it's OK to steal here if you do it behind a desk ain't it?
you know we have empty federal detention space in this country that can house maybe another quarter million in tough times? all built in the last decade? you were in some business there. looks like a racket more an more very day
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
this quote is form a demnocratsenator about 7 years ago- yet the democrats now thatthey are back in a position of power are just he opposite...
“It means that there’s some growing concern on Capitol Hill about a program which seems to be so totally unauthorized and unexplained…The president wraps himself in the law, saying that it is totally legal, but he doesn’t give what the legal basis is for this. He avoided using the law, which we provided to the president, where even when there is an emergency and there’s a need for urgent action can first tap the wire and then go to a court.”
don't follow the Judas Goat
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
ray did thinkprogress comment on this? or are they pretending it didn't happen?
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives voted again Thursday to allow the indefinite military detention of Americans, blocking an amendment that would have barred the possibility.
Congress wrote that authority into law in the National Defense Authorization Act two years ago, prompting outrage from civil libertarians on the left and right. President Barack Obama signed the measure, but insisted his administration would never use it.
Supporters of detention argue that the nation needs to be able to arrest and jail suspected terrorists without trial, including Americans on U.S. soil, for as long as there is a war on terror. Their argument won, and the measure was defeated by a vote of 200 to 226.
But opponents, among them the Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who offered the amendment to end that authority, argued that such detention is a stain on the Constitution that unnecessarily militarizes U.S. law enforcement.
one of the main reasons i was willing to vote for Obama was cuz he (once) was a Constitutional Law scholar and Professer... yeah once upon a time he ws anyway....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston
BOSTON National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily." Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington 's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units.
Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Do you actually have a point? That was a foreign power exerting control over colonies. It was pre-US Constitution. Are you really trying to equate that to background checks and gun control of today? If so, you're even way more far gone than I had thought. And here I thought Cowchit was a troll. He ain't got nothing on you! Obviously the fleas don't fall far from the dog with you and Cowchit!
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
IP: Logged |
posted
One of my favorites is the gun fight at ok corral. The cowboys as they called themselves had there differences with the Eraps but the main reason for the fight was they would not disarm and check there guns in. As per the new city ordnance. The result was a gunfight over the new law. The cowboys lost and were all killed. As a result they did not have to check there guns in.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the point is that even though at the time many considered them the lunatic fringe they are now regarded as founders and heros of the republic.
History is written by the winners. To be a winner you have to believe in something and stand for it either through force or perhaps just through debate or what have you.
More to the point. I think what he may be saying is that if it were not for people willing to challenge authority when it becomes overbearing then you would still be a subject of the crown...
But I could be wrong....he may not have meant that at all.....
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC)
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
