Two weeks ago, a minority in the Senate filibustered a commonsense, bipartisan compromise that would expanded background checks so that most gun purchases would be covered.
If you thought that opposing a policy that more than 90 percent of Americans, including more than 80 percent of gun owners, support was both bad policy and bad politics, you’d be right. Polls out in the past few days show that support for senators who filibustered is plummeting.
Freshman Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who is the most unpopular senator in America following his vote, acknowledged today that he is “somewhere just below pond scum” in terms of popularity. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) saw her popularity drop by a whopping 15 points. Meanwhile, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), the lead co-sponsor of the legislation, saw his approval rating hit a record high after he bucked the NRA.
Things got even more intense for Ayotte today. She was confronted by the daughter of a Newtown victim and things did not go well for Ayotte:
“You had mentioned that the burden to owners of gun stores that these expanded background checks would cause,” [Erica Lafferty, daughter of Sandy Hook Elementary principal Dawn Hochsprung] said. “I’m just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the hall of her elementary school isn’t as important as that?” [...]
Lafferty abruptly walked out of the meeting after Ayotte responded to her question, and accused Ayotte of not being forthright after the Republican initially based her opposition on the burden new background checks would cause.
“It’s disappointing and disgusting that she can pretty much look me in the eye and try to justify my mother’s murder and the murder of five other educators and the mothers of six and seven year olds,” Lafferty said in an interview. “It’s disgusting.”
You can watch Erica Lafferty challenge Ayotte HERE.
As we’ve said before, this is just the beginning of the fight for commonsense gun violence prevention measures. We all need to redouble our efforts to persuade more senators to side with the overwhelming majority of their constituents and the victims of gun violence instead of the NRA. And we need to hold those that refuse to do so accountable.
BOTTOM LINE: There’s a political price to be paid for opposing commonsense gun violence prevention measures that almost all Americans support and some senators are just starting to get a sense of the cost.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Member Rated: 3 Icon 1 posted May 01, 2013 13:04 Profile for raybond Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
and laws disarming certain groups and restricting sales to certain groups
LOL ray, those 'certain groups" were slaves and naative American Indians-
in fact? most of the laws mentioned by these new scholarly artcils were Colonial Laws, NOT US Laws...
furhtermore? 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.
21 was NOT the age of majority back inthose days... it was 16 in most states, and there were many Colonial laws requiring all males of sound mind and body over the age of 16 to possess and be able to use firearms...
this is just just as bad that professor that fired from Emory for falsifying the data he supoesed; found in San Frn to support his anti-gun campaign... problem was? ALL THAT DATA WAS FAKED BECAUSE IT WAS LOST INT HE GREAT QUAKE AND FIRES
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Maryland militia law of 1638/9 was revised in 1642 requiring, “That all housekeepers provide fixed gunn and Sufficient powder and Shott for each person able to bear arms.” xix A 1658 revision of the law required “ever y househoulder provide himselfe speedily with Armes & Ammunition according to a former Act of Assembly viz 2 [pounds] of powder and 5 [pounds] of shott & one good Gun well fixed for every man able to bear Armes in his house.” A householder was subject to f ines of 100, 200, or 300 pounds of tobacco, for the first, second, and third failures to keep every man in the house armed. xx
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Among the Colonial militia statutes, Connecticut's 1650 code contains on e of the clearest expressions of the duty to own a gun: “That all persons that are above the age of sixteene yeares, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare arms...; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have i n continuall readines, a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service, and allowed by the clark of the band....” iv A less elaborate form of the law appeared in 1636, with reiterations in 1637, 1665, 1673, 1696, and 1741. v Fines varied between two and ten shi llings for lacki
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Massachusetts adopted a measure March 22, 1630/1 that required all adult men to be armed. xxiii Although this measure is not explicit that the arms were firearms , it is apparent that guns were not in short supply in Massachusetts, because within 15 years, the Colonial government had made the requirement for guns explicit, and had even become quite demanding as to what type of guns were acceptable for militia duty. An order of October 1, 1645 directed that in the future, the only arms that would be allowed “serviceable, in our trained bands... are ether full mus ket boare, or basterd musket at the least, & that none should be under three foote 9 inches....” xxiv Even those exempt from militia duty were not exempt from the requirement to have a gun in their home. A June 18, 1645 order required “all inhabitants” including those exempt from militia duty, “to have armes in their howses fitt for service, with pouder, bullets, match, as other souldiers....” xxv
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
statute in New Hampshire‟s 1716 compilation ordered “That all Male Persons from Sixteen Years of Age to Sixty, (other than such as are herein after excepted) shall bear Arms ... allowing Three Months time to every Son after his coming to Sixteen Years of A ge, and every Servant so long, after his time is out, to provide themselves with Arms and Ammunition.... That every Listed Souldier and Housholder, (except Troopers) shall be always provided with a well fix‟d, Firelock Musket, of Musket or ******* - Musket bor e,... or other good Fire - Arms, to the satisfaction of the Commission Officers of the Company... on penalty of Six Shillings for want of Such Arms, as is hereby required....” [emphasis in original] Similar requirements were imposed on cavalrymen. xxix
New Jersey‟s 1703 militia statute was similar, requiring all men “between the Age of Sixteen and Fifty years” with the exception of ministers, physicians, school masters, “Civil Officers of the Government,” members of the legislature, and slaves, to be me mbers of the militia. “Every one of which is listed shall be sufficiently armed with one good sufficient Musquet or Fusee well fixed, a Sword or [Bayonet], a Cartouch box or Powder - horn, a pound of Powder, and twelve sizeable Bullets, who shall appear in t he Field, so armed, twice every year....” xxx
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before the Civil War ended, State “Slave Codes” prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed “Black Codes.” They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery.
The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.
After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868, most States turned to “facially neutral” business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia’s official university law review called for a “prohibitive tax … on the privilege” of selling handguns as a way of disarming “the son of Ham”, whose “cowardly practice of ‘toting’ guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime … .Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.” [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, “Gun Control and Racism,” Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Georgia's Slavery Act of 1765, for example, explained itself on the rather blatant theory of legalistic oppression that
"Slavery has been introduced and allowed in His Majesty's Colonies in America and * * * Power over such Slaves ought to be settled and limited by positive Laws, so that the Slaves may be kept in due Subjection and Obedience * * * [.][5]"
The Act went on to provide
"[t]hat it shall not be lawful for any Slave unless in the presence of some White Person to carry and make use of Fire Arms or any offensive Weapon whatsoever Unless such Slave shall have a Tickett or Licence in Writing from his Master, Mistress or Overseer to hunt * * * and that such Licence be renewed once every Month, or unless there be some White Person of the Age of sixteen years or upwards in the Company of such Slave when he is hunting or Shooting, or that such Slave be actually carrying his Master's Arms to or from his Master's Plantation by a special Tickett for that purpose, or unless such Slave be found in the Day time actually keeping off Birds within the Plantation to which such Slave belongs lodging the same Gun at Night within the dwelling-House of his Master, Mistress, or white Overseer. PROVIDED ALSO That no Slave shall have Liberty to carry any Gun, Cutlass, Pistol or other Offensive Weapon abroad at any Time, between Saturday Evening after Sun-set and Monday Morning before Sun rise Notwithstanding a Licence or Tickett for so doing, and in Case any Person shall find any Slave using or carrying fire-Arms or other Offensive Weapon contrary to * * * this Act, such Person may lawfully seize and take away such Offensive Weapon or fire-Arms * * *"
posted
i think it's amazing that it is the same liberals who claim to be promoting civil rights that want to stomp this Civil right garanteed by the US Constitution.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
just a matter od time glass and everybody will have to register and have a background check its not taking your rights away just criminals rights and we feel as a society we can do that to criminals.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: just a matter od time glass and everybody will have to register and have a background check its not taking your rights away just criminals rights and we feel as a society we can do that to criminals.
I am sure that I will be called a fool for what I am about to type and possibly rightfully so; nevertheless, it is honest sentiment on my part.
I don't think that we should take the right to bear arms from anyone. Granted, I understand that people will mention felons, mentally ill, etc...
But ultimately you either believe that rights are issued by the government at birth or they are endowed by the creator (whomever one deems that to be). Personally I believe the latter. Subsequently, I cannot reconcile that the a lower power should circumvent a higher power.
I realize most of the arguments that can be made against my thoughts and I do not contend that useless tragedy would not occur because it still would....always will. But strict adherence to solid principles would move society to a better place as a whole.
Consider the reason for the Bill Of Rights. It is more than just protections for citizens. It was meant to be a set of principles to guide our society. Principles are meant to be walls. When you run into a wall you change course because the wall is hard fast proof that you are trying to go in the wrong direction. The prudent man will accept that he was on the wrong heading and then turn and challenge the factors that ran him into the wall in the first place. The ignorant man will try to compromise the wall even though it has served to protect him for centuries.
We are all guilty of compromising principles at times...How often do hear someone reflect "Man, I sure am glad that I compromised my principles. That worked out well for me."?
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: just a matter od time glass and everybody will have to register and have a background check its not taking your rights away just criminals rights and we feel as a society we can do that to criminals.
background checks do not bother me ray. Registration? not going to happen.... but lemme make sure i am clear about this. explosives are illegal in specific, yet they can be made with household products as you have just witnessed in boston. it's only amatter of time before everything you do is on camera- i'll agree to that-even in your own home- you will be registered to buy cleaning products and cosntrcution material... and the terrism will INCREASE because of that , not decrease. i do not understand how people don't see the plain truth that 'cracking down" is the best way to create angry people..
why don't you spend your energy on something worth doing? like finding ways to actaully help peole with mental illness instead makibng up restirctive lists? i'm serious. it is not just amtter of time as you say.
i have already noticed that the numbers in the polls are changing rapidly... the only people still quoting the 90% number are lunatics.
there were over 5000 documented lynching in the USA from 1870 to 1960- all of those could have bene stopped if guns had not been kept from the class of people who got lynched.. you do not want to create that class system again. It took too long to get rid of it.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
this is just sick: Oregon school hires gunmen to shoot teachers
News May 2, 2013
It was a teacher work day last Friday at Pine Eagle Charter School in Halfway, Ore., when two masked gunmen burst into a conference room where a teacher's meeting was in progress and opened fire, according to a Fox News report dated May 2.
The government school "shooting" was not real; the masked intruders were actually government school employees who had been hired to test the readiness of the school's staff in the event of an actual school shooting. The shooters' guns were real but they were loaded with bogus "blank" rounds which produce realistic sound but fire no projectiles.
The attack caught teachers off-guard. Principal Cammie DeCastro said that has the attack been legitimate, that not many of the fifteen teachers present would have survived.
The purpose of the drill was two-fold, to both learn how teachers would react in a shooting scenario, as well as to help them consider defensive strategies. The teachers has previously received some awareness training from the Union County Sheriff's Office.
The exercise has been criticized as irresponsible by some community members. Some feel such drills are dangerous because those being "attacked" may fight back with deadly force. There are also health risks involved; some people in a terror situation may be predisposed to heart attacks or breathing difficulties.
i think this proves we have some serious managemetn problem in the USA. I'm getting a little old for it now, but ten years ago i would have responded with deadly force. i do not mean with a gun either. when faced witht he option of dying alone or dying with my attacker? i will always choose the latter successful or not
i would like to see how the sceanrio played out when the teachers realised it was blanks? did they laugh? hahaha
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Background checks don't bother you glass then we have nothing to disagree about. Because I have nothing against a law abiding citizen or a mentally stable person owning any kind of gun. As a matter of fact it would be good for the country.
As for that incredible act stupidity in Oregon there should be criminal charges filed against those that staged it.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
why don't you spend your energy on something worth doing? like finding ways to actaully help peole with mental illness instead makibng up restirctive lists? i'm serious. it is not just amtter of time as you say. ----------------------------------------------------posted by glassman
I do spend my time helping people I do lots of volunteer work about 20 hrs per week. So kiss my ass
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: Background checks don't bother you glass then we have nothing to disagree about. Because I have nothing against a law abiding citizen or a mentally stable person owning any kind of gun. As a matter of fact it would be good for the country.
As for that incredible act stupidity in Oregon there should be criminal charges filed against those that staged it.
ray, you have been making alot of assumptions about me lately.. it's OK i don't mind, but i feel as tho you forget that i supported Obama twice, but not in this issue of stricter gun control.
i actually read the questionnaire on the polls and the demographics they used to get the results they wanted. they really can get any result they want on any given poll just by picking the questions and the recipients of the questions...
blind background checks like we already have do not keep crooks and kooks from killing people.
in the end? the ONLY way we can stop the murder and mayhem is to end all freedoms. face it man, people are not nice, enough people are either sick or missing a portion of their identity that keeps them from commiting random acts of violence...
i've proven that in countires without guns the suicide rate is evne higher thna in th euSA nad more than half of all gun deaths in the USA are from suicide... taking the guns away doesn't fix that any more than it will make angry people stop acting on thier anger..
i used to work friday nights in th eER at one fo the largest county hospital in the country... i couldn't beleive allthe nashty chit people did to each other - mostly friends and family... we saw way more knifings than gunshot tho, like 5 to 1 but the knifings usually were savable, but not always
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
i think this proves we have some serious managemetn problem in the USA. I'm getting a little old for it now, but ten years ago i would have responded with deadly force. i do not mean with a gun either. when faced witht he option of dying alone or dying with my attacker? i will always choose the latter successful or not
i would like to see how the sceanrio played out when the teachers realised it was blanks? did they laugh? hahaha -------------------------------------------------
Whom ever set up that exercise should be fired. You gave an example that could happen, there are many others, like putting a chair over the head of such intruders. You put that school district at a hugh liabilty if something had happened to anyone involved. And school districts wonder why insurance costs are so high.
posted
as i said before ray, i am not even a member- show me another 'club" that can bring 70,000 to a membership meeting- football, soccer games and Nascar can do that, but they aren't clubs
The National Rifle Association opens its annual convention Friday in gun-friendly Houston, fresh off its success last month in blocking a congressional bid to expand background checks for firearms purchases.
For the NRA's leadership, however, the three days of meetings, banquets and exhibits at the George R. Brown Convention Center will be anything but a victory celebration.
"The NRA doesn't do pep rallies," said Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's director of public affairs. "We're engaged in a long battle that will take years. We know it's not over."
The nation's premier gun-rights organization, with nearly 5 million members, expects more than 70,000 to attend the convention.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Senator Offers Pathetic Reason For Opposing Background Checks
By Igor Volsky on May 3, 2013 at 9:00 am
(Credit: Columbian.com) On Friday, Morning Joe’s Mika Brzezinski challenged Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) to explain why he voted against a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales. The measure, which failed in a vote of 54 to 46, would have required buyers to submit to a five minute screening to keep individuals with criminal records or mental illness from purchasing guns.
Barrasso pointed out that he was “the first Republican senator to meet with the families [of Newtown, Connecticut],” but explained that he opposed the background check amendment because he knew the government wouldn’t enforce it anyway:
We have one [background check ] law on the books right now. Under both President Bush and President Obama, they have completely failed. 44,000 in 2010, 44,000 felons and fugitives were caught trying to buy guns through a background check and only 40 of them were prosecuted. Less than 1%. It’s a failure of both the Bush administration and the Obama administration. [...]
The [background check system] that we have now they are not implementing and not enforcing. What makes you think they will enforce one that does more checks on more people?
In reality, from 1999 to 2009, 1.8 million people were blocked from purchasing guns after failing a background check and federal firearm prosecutions has remained steady, varying by no more than 5 percent each year, according to Department of Justice data.
Republicans and the NRA specifically cherry pick prosecutions for background checks to imply that the Obama administration has stopped enforcing existing law, though it has gone after gun-related crimes at the same rate as its predecessors. Law enforcement officials often see these cases as a poor use of resources because prosecutors must prove that “the person knew they were lying when they tried to purchase the firearm” in order to secure a conviction which “usually carries a maximum sentence of just six months.”
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icon 1 posted 03-05-2013 10:45 Profile for glassman Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- as i said before ray, i am not even a member- show me another 'club" that can bring 70,000 to a membership meeting- football, soccer games and Nascar can do that, but they aren't clubs
They like all fanatics, the NRA will come to a point where they are driven to like herding grazers its a wonder there is not twice the number at that pasture. Look at the Nazi movement in Germany in the late thirties they were a complete minority in Germany and yet they showed up in huge crowds you would think they where a majority.
A simple message delivered to a herd of grazers and they will migrate like the dumb animals they are.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK ray.... if you say so..... but the dumb animals are the ones that get eaaten last i checked, and it's hard to bring and armed anuimal to the slaughter
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
don't think they are grazers listen to this lard ass.
Justice
Incoming NRA President Calls Civil War The ‘War Of Northern Aggression’
By Ian Millhiser on May 3, 2013 at 10:56 am
In a 2012 speech to the New York Rifle & Pistol Association, where he also refers to President Obama as a “fake president” and calls Attorney General Eric Holder “rabidly unAmerican,” incoming National Rifle Association President Jim Porter applied an odd label to the war that ended slavery in the United States and put down the single greatest act of treason in our nation’s history:
The NRA was started, 1871, right here in New York state. It was started by some Yankee generals who didn’t like the way my southern boys had the ability to shoot in what we call the “War of Northern Aggression.” Now, y’all might call it the Civil War, but we call it the War of Northern Aggression down south.
But that was the very reason that they started the National Rifle Association, was to teach and train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm. And I am one who still feels very strongly that that is one of our most greatest charges that we can have today, is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm, so that when they have to fight for their country they’re ready to do it. Also, when they’re ready to fight tyranny, they’re ready to do it. Also, when they’re ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it
Setting aside Porter’s unfortunate label for the Civil War, his speech suggests the NRA could take an even sharper turn to the right than it has under its present leadership. One of the standard issue firearms for infantry servicemembers is either the M16 rifle or the M4 carbine, depending on the branch of service. Both come standard with the ability to fire 3-round bursts, and many models are fully automatic weapons. So when Porter calls for civilians to be trained “in the use of the standard military firearm,” these are the weapons he is describing.
Indeed, the the term “standard military firearm” may include even more deadly weapons. A former Army sergeant and Iraq War vet ThinkProgress spoke with identified the AT-4 antitank grenade launcher and the M203A1 grenade launcher as weapons she was trained to use as part of her standard issue training. In addition to her rifle and a standard issue pistol, she also carried a SAW M249 sub-machine gun as a standard armament during convoy missions. Here is video of what this weapon can do:
By contrast, the NRA’s outgoing president David Keene, recently told an audience at Harvard University that he believes “fully automatic weapons” should be illegal for civilian use.
(HT: Matt Gertz)
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
now it's come to name calling... a sure sign that your arguments are nothing more than emotional vitriol. you have already lost the argument when you fall to this level
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you think that post was name calling after what that tub said you are a way to sensitive glass. After all it was your side that told me to go phuck myself.
Senators Who Voted To Kill Background Checks Dodge Meetings With Gun Victims
By Igor Volsky on May 4, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Erica Lafferty, who lost her mother at Sandy Hook, attends a Kelly Ayotte town hall. Senators who voted against a bipartisan amendment expanding background checks for firearm purchased at gun shows and online refused this week to meet with families impacted by gun violence, citing scheduling conflicts or ignoring requests altogether.
The push, part of an effort organized by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, comes as lawmakers who opposed the popular measure are facing pointed questions from angry constituents at town halls and seeing their approval ratings plummet. As a result, some are simply dodging the tough questions, particularly from families who have been most affected by gun violence:
– SEN. KELLY AYOTTE (R-NH): Anne Lyczak — who lost her husband Richard in January 1994, when he was killed in a drive-by shooting in Portsmouth, N.H — “wrote a letter to Ayotte, inviting her to dinner at her house to talk about ways to prevent gun violence…. Ayotte’s office, however, turned down Lyczak’s request, saying the senator would keep it under consideration for the future. Ayotte’s office cited scheduling constraints” [Huffington Post, 5/3/2013]
– SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ): “Caren Teves, whose son was killed last summer in a mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., said she invited Flake to dinner to sit in her son’s empty chair. He replied with a hand-written note affirming his support for expanded gun control measures. “I am confused and would like an answer,” Teves said. “I would like Sen. Flake to look me in the eye and tell me why he ignored me.” Teves said Flake has ignored many emails and phone calls from her and her husband, but she remains determined. [KTAR, 5/2/2013]
– SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): Neil Heslin — whose son was murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School — “said he invited Senator Pryor to a private dinner to speak about how legislation he wants to eliminate gun loopholes. However, Heslin told us he never heard back from Pryor, but plans to speak with him at a public event in Lonoke County Thursday.” [KATV, 5/2/2013]
– SEN. RICHARD BURR (R-NC): “Fran Lynch of North Carolina’s Religious Coalition for a Non-Violent Durham sent a letter to Burr, asking that he join her and her friends for a discussion on gun control… Burr’s scheduler replied that the senator was unavailable “due to previously scheduled events already on his schedule.” [Huffington Post, 5/2/2013]
– SEN. ROB PORTMAN (R-OH): “[A] Springfield, Ohio woman whose 27-year-old son was killed in last year’s Colorado movie theater rampage tried to arrange a dinner with Portman so she could express her frustration with his vote….A Portman aide told The Plain Dealer the senator’s schedule did not permit him to meet with Jackson this week, but he would consider it in the future.” [Plain Dealer, 5/2/2013]
– SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Parents of a woman who was killed in the Colorado theatre shooting “said they initially invited both Cruz and Senator John Cornyn to their home for dinner…. Though Cornyn has not accepted their invitation, Cruz, who was in town on Wednesday for a North Side Chamber of Commerce event, met briefly with the couple at a local restaurant.” [KSAT, 5/1/2013]
The National Rifle Association has begun running radio ads thanking Ayotte for voting down background checks and the senator continues to justify her opposition to the amendment by falsely claiming that additional screenings would lead to the creation of a gun registry. The claim, widely debunked, has been advanced by the NRA.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), the sponsor of the bipartisan measure, has pledged to slightly modify his amendment and bring it back for a vote in the Senate. Gun advocates remain hopeful that the growing public pressure could convince more than 60 senators to support the bill, forcing House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to put it up for a vote in House of Representatives. The House version of the Manchin compromise has more than 120 co-sponsors, including three Republicans
Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: If you think that post was name calling after what that tub said you are a way to sensitive glass. After all it was your side that told me to go phuck myself.
my side? ray, you are becoming what is really wrong in this country. lack of dialogue and rationality.
"my side" is Me. period. i don't recall ever calling you names or telling you do anything rude.
quite frankly? you have lost perspetive on this.
the world IS changing ray, but people don't. greed and fear rules as always, and that may change int he not-too-distant future but ti will be becuase of people like me who mess around with facts will stumble onto a few quantum physics tricks that make energy to do whatever you want as cheap as air.... in the meantime? you can hold your breath and throw tantrums all you want, people are gonna do bad things to each other and the only way to stop that will be to give up all freedom... oh wait, that won't stop it either - in fact? it will make everybody victims. so why are you so supportive of taking away civil liberties from people who have worked hundreds of years to get them?
banning aclohol and drugs and murder and suicide has worked so well.... we need real solutins to problems not a bunch of crying and whining
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass I am glad to see that you are still protecting the rights of criminals at the expense of society. You will see the we are the majority and we won't go away this time. Until we have a victory. the polls were rigged, you wish they where. And a background check is not a ban or a list. the polls are rigged ha,ha,ha.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
ABC News Calls Out Kelly Ayotte For Misleading On Background Checks
By Igor Volsky on May 2, 2013 at 2:46 pm
At town halls across New Hampshire, gun safety advocates are confronting Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) for voting down bipartisan legislation expanding background checks for gun purchases. In April, Ayotte joined 45 senators to oppose the measure, which is supported by more than 90 percent of Americans, claiming that she was trying to protect gun shop owners from the burden of running additional background checks for sales conducted at gun shows or online.
But during a town hall in Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire Ayotte offered an additional reason for killing the popular measure and said, falsely, that it could lead to the creation of a national registry. The first-term senator was then “spirited away by her aides” before reporters could ask her about the claim:
When another man rose to ask Ayotte to explain why she voted against expanding background checks, several people in the audience of more than 250 people applauded.
“I know people have strong feelings about this issue,” Ayotte began. She said she voted against the bipartisan compromise on background checks last month because she believed gun owners would face an undue burden and she feared it could lead to a federal gun registry.
She did not tell the crowd here that the legislation called for a felony punishment for gun shop owners who tried to create a permanent registry.
“I thought the focus should be on fixing the current background check system and mental health,” Ayotte said. She declined interview requests, but when asked by ABC News whether she believed her vote was being mischaracterized, she paused and said, “Yes,” before being spirited away by aides.
Indeed, federally licensed gun dealers have conducted background checks for more than 40 years without ever creating a national gun registry, which federal law specifically prohibits. Under the bipartisan amendment offered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), federal dealers would conduct screenings for private sellers and keep the record; the federal government would not. Then, if a gun is recovered at a violent crime, law enforcement can use the records to track down the perpetrator. All information identifying the buyer generated by the background check would be destroyed by law enforcement within 24 hours.
The Manchin-Toomey amendment explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry in three different places and treats the misuse of records for the pursue of building a registry as a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.
Since opposing the measure, Ayotte saw her approval ratings plummet by 15 points, leading the National Rifle Association, to start running radio ads in her defense
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: Glass I am glad to see that you are still protecting the rights of criminals at the expense of society. You will see the we are the majority and we won't go away this time. Until we have a victory. the polls were rigged, you wish they where. And a background check is not a ban or a list. the polls are rigged ha,ha,ha.
"protecting the rights of criminals" ?
hmmm.... now you are beginning to sound like the nazi.
more immportantly i am interested innot creatin a whole new class of criminals- we already have too many people in jails in htis so-called free coutnry? we have more peopel in jail than any other coutnry, and we confiscate property without due process too.
you began this debte asking for all kinds of bans, you have since changed your views and support down to background checks...
you lost this debate weeks ago, or more apropriately the people you so blindly support did. and you will continue lose the emotional debates based on people irratioanl fears.
the poll was rigged, and all you have to do is read the questionnaire and the questions understand that- futrthermooe the poll was for 1000 people. hardly a relevant poll. those senators who voted were listening to tehir own polls and those polls were active people who really vote.
laslty? the idea that you belive you can just take peopels rights away bcause you feel like beuracrats should have that power makes you a fascist.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Police Chief Calls Out Armed Protest Threat In Washington DC
By Rebecca Leber on May 8, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Credit: Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images A July 4 march encourages gun advocates to carry loaded rifles into Washington, DC and knowingly break the law. Although described as a nonviolent “act of civil obedience,” organizer Adam Kokesh implied a threat of violence if “the government chooses to make it violent.” He encourages participants to peacefully submit to law enforcers but underlines that point with, “We are truly saying in the SUBTLEST way possible that we would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.”
Since Friday, more than 2,000 people have RSVPed to the march to “put the government on notice.”
In a local news channel interview pointed out by Politico, Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier explained that this is an open disregard for DC law:
[W]hen you cross with firearms and you’re not in compliance with the law now you’re talking about a criminal offense and there’s going to be some action by police. Obviously there has been no permit filed by the organizer and we’ve not made contact with the organizer yet. But we will, and we’ll make sure they understand that if they want to pass through the District of Columbia with loaded firearms as long as they are in compliance with the firearms laws for transportation of firearms to the District, we’re all for it. But passing into the District of Columbia with firearms is a violation of the law and we’ll have to treat it as such.
Whether Lanier’s warning invigorates or extinguishes the protest remains unclear.
Kokesh’s plans, along with a series of other open carry protests, undermines arguments made by the National Rifle Association against gun violence prevention. The NRA claims that it is unfair of the government to strengthen background checks or ban assault rifles for law-abiding citizens. Yet this protest plans to purposely break the law.
That point is missed by Kokesh. Open carry is illegal in the District, but Kokesh wants to aim his message at the federal government for attempting modest background checks supported by gun owners and non-gun owners alike.
Email Icon Sharing Icon Comment Icon(2)
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
should get intereresting, but i doubt that they'll march with loaded firearms..
bbguns? maybe, but real firearms? i doubt it..
instersting note on this? just by RSVPing and claiming they'll do this idjit thing? they may have already violated conspiracy laws... doing it across state lines? even worse, that could trigger RICOH
so say this guy is in Ohio" (i dunno) and some guy in West va emails him and agrees to show up to commit this crime? they've already done broke the law.. it gets worse too...
they may be considered terroists or even to planning an attack on the govt, so that would be sedition or something like that... Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.
all in all? it's about the best way i can think of (other than an out and shooting) for all involved to lose their right to own fireamrs...
idjits. plenty to go'round
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
